OBJECTIVES:

ESCC is ranked seventh by incidence rate and sixth by mortality rate among all cancers. In 2020, there were around 604,000 new ESCC cases and approximately 544,000 deaths, globally. In this meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy of 1L T+C vs C in ESCC.

METHODS:

PubMed, Cochrane, and Google were searched to identify English language studies reporting overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AE) with 1L T+C or C in ESCC. A PRISMA complaint methodology was used for the SLR; effect sizes were pooled using both fixed and random effects models in R package meta. Quality of the included studies was assessed using The Risk of Bias (RoB) assessment tool.

RESULTS:

A total of 3 phase II studies (cumulative n=360) met the inclusion criteria. T+C vs C pooled odds ratio (OR) for ORR was 1.25 (95% CI: 0.82, 1.91); OR for OS rate at 1 year was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.61, 1.43), at 1.5 years was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.42, 1.45), and at 2 years was 1.41 (95% CI: 0.21, 10.03). T+C vs C pooled OR for PFS rate at 1.5 years was 2.59 (95% CI: 0.80, 8.43), at 1 year was 1.42 95% CI: 0.76, 2.42), and at 2 years was 1.34 (95% CI: 0.30, 6.05). T+C vs C pooled OR for AE rate was 1.20 (95% CI: 0.91, 1.55). None of the pooled effect sizes were statistically significant. As assessed by the RoB tool, all the three studies had high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS:

There was no statistically significant difference in ORR, OS rate, PFS rate, and AE rate between T+C and C.