Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of 40 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients with malignant fistulae

From: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy combined with enteral nutrition support: a radical treatment strategy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients with malignant fistulae

Characteristic

No. of patients (%)

1-year OS rated (%)

P value

Sex

  

0.006

 Men

37 (92.5)

67.6

 

 Women

3 (7.5)

0.0

 

Agea (years)

58 (41–80)

  

ECOG performance status

  

0.267

 0–1

11 (27.5)

68.2

 

 2

29 (72.5)

55.2

 

Primary tumor location

  

0.403

 Upper

12 (30.0)

50.0

 

 Middle

26 (65.0)

65.4

 

 Lower

2 (5.0)

100.0

 

T category of primary tumorb

  

0.392

 T1

2 (5.0)

100.0

 

 T2

3 (7.5)

100.0

 

 T3

21 (52.5)

57.1

 

 T4

14 (35.0)

57.1

 

Clinical stage of primary tumorb

  

0.526

 IIA–IIB

2 (5.0)

100

 

 IIIA–IIIC

29 (72.5)

62.1

 

 IV

9 (22.5)

55.5

 

NRS score of 3–4c

 Before nutrition support

22 (55.0)

e

 

 After nutrition support

6 (15.0)

 

Hemoglobin level after CCRTa (g/L)

110 (56–156)

 

Total energy intakea (kcal/day)

2166 (1956–2213)

 

Total protein intakea (g/kg per day)

1.53 (1.41–1.76)

 

Fistula closure

32 (80.0)

 

Time to fistula closurea (weeks)

5 (2–11)

 

Fistula site

  

0.435

 Trachea and bronchus

7 (17.5)

57.1

 

 Mediastinum

33 (82.5)

63.6

 

Radiation dosea (Gy)

60 (46–68)

 

<0.001

 <60

14 (35.0)

50.0

 

 ≥60

26 (65.0)

69.2

 

Concurrent chemotherapy

  

0.333

 DDP + 5-FU

7 (17.5)

42.9

 

 Docetaxel-based regimens

33 (82.5)

66.7

 

Clinical tumor response after CCRT

  

<0.001

 CR

12 (30.0)

91.7

 

 PR

20 (50.0)

65.0

 

 SD

3 (7.5)

33.3

 

 PD

5 (12.5)

0

 
  1. ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; NRS, nutrition risk screening; CCRT, concurrent chemoradiotherapy; DDP, cisplatin; 5-FU, 5-fluorouracil; CR, complete response; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease
  2. aThese values are presented as median followed by range in parentheses. Other values are presented as the number of patients with the percentage in parentheses
  3. bBased on the American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor, node, and metastasis (TNM) classification (7th edition)
  4. cThe patients with NRS score of 1–2 are not listed in this table
  5. dOnly the values that were compared between subgroups are listed and analyzed
  6. eThe data were not applicable