Comparative evaluation between re-irradiation and demand endoscopic dilatation vs endoscopic dilatation alone in patients with recurrent/reactivated residual in-field esophageal malignancies.

BACKGROUND Esophageal cancer has emerged as a major health challenge in many regions of the world, including the valley of Kashmir, which is situated adjacent to the esophageal cancer belt on its Southern side. Radiotherapy is one of the main modalities of treatment. However, residual/recurrent disease is common and salvage options for these patients are limited. Scarce literature is available regarding the use of re-irradiation in this setting though re-irradiation has been successfully used in recurrent tumors at various other anatomical sites. AIM In the present study, external beam re-irradiation with demand dilatation vs per-oral endoscopic dilatation alone were compared with regard to the impact of these modalities on symptom control, survival, and quality of life of the patients. Treatment-related sequelae were also compared. SETTING AND DESIGN Prospective and randomized. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study included 34 cases who were palliated with re-irradiation and 35 cases who refused to enter the experimental protocol and, therefore, received per-oral demand dilatation alone, with the disease being allowed to follow its natural course. Both groups were statistically cross-matched with regard to their demographic and clinical parameters. STATISTICAL METHOD USED: Mann-Whitney U-test, Chi-square test, Student's t-test, and Kaplan-Meier test for survival analysis. RESULTS The results favor the use of re-irradiation as it significantly improves dysphagia-free survival and quality of life. The treatment-related complications/morbidity of this protocol was acceptable. CONCLUSION A trial of re-irradiation with external beam is justified in selected patients.