P1.218. Early Results of Shifting From CROSS to FLOT for Neoadjuvant Therapy Before Esophagectomy

Clicks: 1
ID: 325642
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #24 of 453 articles by views in diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the international society for diseases of the esophagus

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 453 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Topic Esophageal Cancer: Surgical Treatment of Esophageal Cancer – early outcomes and complications Background There has been a shift from CROSS (C) neoadjuvant chemoradiation to FLOT (F) perioperative chemotherapy for esophageal and gastro-esophageal junction adenocarcinomas. We hypothesized that the shift to FLOT would be associated with higher pathologic complete response rates and potentially lower rates of post-operative anastomotic leak. Methods Data for patients receiving esophagectomy for esophageal cancer from a single high-volume center were prospectively collected from Jan 2019 to Dec 2025. Patients receiving neoadjuvant care were treated primarily at non-affiliated community cancer centers in the region. Patients received a variety of surgical approaches with cervical and intra-thoracic anastomoses. Demographic data, neoadjuvant treatments, perioperative outcomes, and pathologic data related to surgery were compared using chi-squared and t-tests. Results 441patients received an esophagectomy, of which 392 had adenocarcinomas, with 260 (66%) receiving CROSS, 61 (16%) no prior treatment, 33 (8%) FLOT based therapy (5 with immunotherapy), 12 (3%) received FOLFOX based treatments and 26 (7%) had incomplete records. There was a trend towards C patients being older (65 +/- 9 yrs vs 62 +/- 9 hrs, p=0.07). There were similar rates of interrupted neoadjuvant therapy (22% C vs 15% F, p=NS). PCR (23% C vs 21% F, p=0.77) and positive margin rates (3.5% C vs 0% F, p=0.28)) were similar between groups. Of note, 36 patients with squamous cell cancer received CROSS with 19 (53%) having a PCR (Figure). Complication rates (71% C vs 58% F, p=NS), leak rates (27% C and 15% F, p=0.13), and length of stay (11+/- 8 dys C vs 10 +/-8 dys F, p=NS) were also statistically similar. Conclusion The adoption of FLOT based therapy prior to esophagectomy appears to have similar results in pathologic CR rates compared to CROSS for patients with esophageal adenocarcinomas. Complication rates, including anastomotic leak appear similar, also with similar postoperative recovery periods. In this cohort the adoption of perioperative FLOT did not result in increased adverse perioperative outcomes.
Reference Key
openalex_W7203947745 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Rishindra M. Reddy, Margaret Lasonde, Meganne Ferrel, Njikem Fomengia, Dani Ahmetovic, Tejas Godbole, Daniel Lee, Jules Lin, Chigozirim Ekeke, David D. Odell, Andrew C. Chang, Samantha Savitch, Kiran Lagisetty
Journal diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the international society for diseases of the esophagus
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/dote/doag077.366
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doag077.366
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.