Angiotensin inhibitors during neoadjuvant chemotherapy improve esophageal squamous cell carcinoma outcomes

Abstract

Background:

The renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) is implicated in the initiation, progression, and therapeutic response of several solid malignancies. RAAS inhibitors (angiotensin system inhibitors) exhibit potential antitumor effects; however, their impact on patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) undergoing neoadjuvant therapy remains scarce.

Objectives:

To investigate whether incidental ASI use during neoadjuvant treatment is associated with enhanced pathological response and survival outcomes in patients with ESCC.

Design:

A retrospective study.

Methods:

We retrospectively analyzed 391 ESCC patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy followed by R0 resection between 2015 and 2022, stratified according to incidental use of ASIs during neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Baseline characteristics, major pathologic response (MPR), and long-term survival outcomes were compared. MPR rates were compared using the Chi-square test and multivariable logistic regression. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to estimate overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were applied to adjust for potential confounders. Sensitivity analyses were performed using propensity score matching (PSM).

Results:

Overall, 67 (17.1%) patients were administered ASIs. Compared with non-users, ASI users were older (p = 0.006) with a higher prevalence of hypertension (p < 0.001), while other characteristics were comparable. Overall, ASI use was significantly associated with improved OS (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.29–0.79, p = 0.004) and DFS (HR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.36–0.90, p = 0.015). The MPR rate was also higher in the ASI group (31.3% vs 17.0%, p = 0.007) and consistent with the results of the multivariable analysis (odds ratio = 2.19, 95% CI: 1.21–3.97, p = 0.010). After PSM, the survival benefit of ASI use remained significant for OS (HR = 0.38, p = 0.003) and DFS (HR = 0.54, p = 0.038).

Conclusion:

In ESCC patients receiving NAC, incidental ASI use correlated with better pathological response and improved long-term survival. RAAS inhibition shows promise as a perioperative therapeutic approach and warrants postoperative validation.

Plain language summary

Can common blood-pressure medicines improve response and survival in esophageal squamous cell cancer treated before surgery?

Why was this study done? Some people with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (a cancer of the food pipe) receive chemotherapy before surgery. ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are common blood-pressure medicines. They act on the renin–angiotensin system, which helps control blood pressure. Researchers wondered whether taking these medicines during pre-surgery chemotherapy is linked to better cancer outcomes.

What did the researchers do? They looked back at records from one hospital (2015–2022). The study included 391 people who all received the same pre-surgery chemotherapy (paclitaxel plus cisplatin) and then surgery. During chemotherapy, 67 people continued an ACE inhibitor or ARB; the others did not.

What did they find? Major pathologic response (MPR) means that, after surgery, less than 10% of the removed tumor tissue is still living cancer cells. MPR occurred in about 31 out of 100 people who used these medicines during chemotherapy, compared with about 17 out of 100 people who did not. At 5 years after surgery, about 72 out of 100 medicine users were alive versus about 53 out of 100 non-users. About 67 out of 100 users were alive without the cancer coming back or getting worse versus about 50 out of 100 non-users.

What do the findings mean? This was a single-center retrospective study. It shows an association, not proof that the medicines caused the benefit. Randomized trials are needed. Do not start, stop, or change blood-pressure medicines for cancer reasons without medical advice.

Keywords

esophageal squamous cell carcinoma neoadjuvant therapy propensity score matching renin–angiotensin system inhibitors survival analysis

Introduction

Esophageal cancer is among the most lethal gastrointestinal malignancies worldwide. The two predominant histologic types of esophageal cancer are adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).¹ In China and other East Asian countries, ESCC is the more predominant type, with incidence rates that are markedly higher than those in Western populations. In recent years, the combination of neoadjuvant therapy and surgery has become the standard of care for locally advanced ESCC, as it improves both disease-free survival (DFS) and local tumor control.^2,3 However, despite advances in multimodal treatment, long-term survival remains suboptimal, highlighting the urgent need to optimize therapeutic regimens and explore novel targeted or combinatory strategies.^4–6

The renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS), traditionally recognized for its role in blood pressure regulation and electrolyte homeostasis, has been increasingly implicated in the biology of various solid tumors.⁷ Preclinical studies have demonstrated that RAAS signaling influences tumor angiogenesis, epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT), and the modulation of the immune tumor microenvironment, thereby affecting tumor aggressiveness and treatment responsiveness.^8–10 Renin–angiotensin system inhibitors (ASIs), including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), are widely prescribed antihypertensive agents with well-established safety and tolerability profiles.^11,12 Clinical evidence suggests that ASI use correlates with improved outcomes in multiple solid tumors such as lung, breast, and pancreatic cancers, fueling interest in their potential as adjunctive anticancer therapies.^13,14

Specifically, for ESCC, Chen et al.¹⁵ reported that long-term ACEI/ARB use was associated with prolonged survival. Recently, Geller et al.¹⁶ reported that incidental ASI use during neoadjuvant therapy in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma correlated with improved overall survival (OS) and DFS. However, ESCC and adenocarcinoma represent distinct biological entities with divergent epidemiological profiles, tumor microenvironments, and responses to neoadjuvant therapy.² While existing evidence has largely been derived from adenocarcinoma or mixed cohorts, no study to date has systematically evaluated the clinical impact of ASI use specifically in patients with ESCC undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). This study aims to investigate, using real-world data, whether incidental ASI use during neoadjuvant treatment is associated with enhanced pathological response and survival outcomes in patients with ESCC, thereby providing clinical evidence to support integration of RAAS inhibition into multimodal treatment paradigms.

Methods

Study population

This single-center retrospective cohort study included patients with ESCC who underwent NAC followed by curative-intent surgery at Fujian Medical University Union Hospital between January 2015 and December 2022. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) histologically confirmed ESCC based on endoscopic biopsy; (2) receipt of NAC; (3) completion of R0 resection; and (4) availability of complete clinical records and follow-up data. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) receipt of NAC regimens other than paclitaxel plus cisplatin (TP regimen) and (2) coexistence of other primary malignancies. This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Fujian Medical University Union Hospital (Approval No. 2025KY669). Given the retrospective nature of the analysis and use of de-identified patient data, the Ethics Committee waived the requirement for written informed consent. The data from January 2015 and December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed in September 2025. The reporting of this study conforms to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement¹⁷ (Supplemental Appendix 1).

Group definition and data collection

Use of ASIs, including ACEIs and ARBs, during NAC was ascertained by reviewing the patients’ complete electronic medical records and medication histories. In this study, “incidental ASI use” was defined as the continuous administration of an ACEI or ARB prescribed for underlying chronic conditions that were initiated prior to the commencement of NAC. These medications were maintained without interruption throughout the entire neoadjuvant treatment period. Patients who met this criterion were assigned to the ASI-positive (ASI+) group, whereas those who did not receive ASIs during the same period were classified as ASI-negative (ASI−). For ASI users, agent type (ACEIs vs ARBs) and duration of use during NAC were recorded.

All patients received a uniform NAC regimen consisting of two cycles of paclitaxel plus cisplatin, prescribed by experienced medical oncologists and administered in accordance with current clinical practice guidelines. Surgery was performed using the standard three-incision McKeown esophagectomy with two-field systematic lymphadenectomy. Selective cervical lymph node dissection was performed in those with suspected cervical lymph node metastases.

Baseline clinical and demographic data collected included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, alcohol consumption, and comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)). Tumor-related variables included primary tumor location, clinical TNM (cTNM) stage, post-treatment pathological TNM (ypTNM) stage, receipt of adjuvant therapy, and postoperative complications. Postoperative follow-up included routine imaging (thoracoabdominal computed tomography, ultrasonography, and positron emission tomography–computed tomography) and tumor marker assessments.

Study endpoints

The primary endpoints were OS and DFS. OS was defined as the interval from surgery to death from any cause, and the DFS interval was defined as the time from surgery to the first radiological or clinical evidence of recurrence or death from any cause. Secondary endpoints included major pathologic response (MPR), time to recurrence (TTR), and perioperative outcomes. MPR was defined as a residual viable tumor cell proportion of less than 10% in the resected specimen. All pathological assessments were independently reviewed by two senior pathologists to ensure consistency and reliability. TTR was defined as the interval from surgery to the first evidence of tumor relapse. For patients without recurrence, data were censored at the last follow-up or death. Recurrence was ascertained through routine surveillance, including CT, ultrasound, or PET-CT, and confirmed by biopsy when clinically indicated.

Statistical analysis

All analyses were performed using R software (version 4.1.0; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Continuous variables were expressed as mean ± standard deviation or median with interquartile range (IQR). Between-group differences were compared using the independent-samples t-test or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, depending on data distribution. Categorical variables, including major pathologic response (MPR) and perioperative complications, were presented as frequencies and percentages and compared using the Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate.

To minimize potential confounding, propensity score matching (PSM) was applied. Propensity scores were calculated using a logistic regression model including baseline variables such as age, BMI, smoking status, alcohol consumption, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, and COPD. Nearest-neighbor matching was performed at a 1:1 ratio with a caliper width of 0.2, yielding 60 patients in each group after matching. Covariate balance was assessed using absolute standardized differences (ASDs). An ASD value of less than 0.2 was pre-specified as the criterion for achieving an acceptable balance between the matched groups, thereby minimizing residual confounding from baseline characteristics.

Survival outcomes (OS and DFS) and TTR were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards regression models were constructed to evaluate the independent association between ASI use and OS or DFS, with results reported as hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For the analysis of MPR, multivariable logistic regression models were applied to identify independent predictors and calculate odds ratios (ORs).

All statistical tests were two-sided, and p-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. Missing data were addressed as follows: patients with incomplete primary outcome data or missing follow-up records (approximately 3% of the initial cohort) were excluded. For other clinical variables with low missingness (<1%), such as BMI or specific comorbidities, missing values were handled using simple imputation, employing the median for continuous variables and the mode for categorical variables.

Results

Patients’ characteristics

A total of 391 patients with ESCC who underwent neoadjuvant therapy followed by curative resection were included in the analysis. Among them, 67 patients (17.1%) received ASIs during the perioperative period. Baseline characteristics were generally well balanced between the two groups, except that the ASI group was slightly older (mean age: 63.21 ± 6.33 vs 60.48 ± 7.51 years, p = 0.006) and had a significantly higher prevalence of hypertension (97.0% vs 20.1%, p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed between groups in terms of sex distribution, BMI, smoking status, or other comorbidities. Likewise, there were no statistically significant differences in clinical tumor stage (p = 0.328) or surgical approach (p > 0.05; Table 1). Median duration of ASI exposure during neoadjuvant therapy was 8 weeks (IQR, 7–10 weeks). Subgroup analysis within the ASI cohort showed that survival outcomes were not significantly influenced by the specific duration of pre-NAC ASI therapy (p > 0.05). Detailed distribution of specific ASI agents is shown in Table S1.

Table 1.

Comparison of baseline characteristics of the patients.

Variables	Total (n = 391)	ASI− (n = 324)	ASI+ (n = 67)	p
Age, mean ± SD	60.94 ± 7.39	60.48 ± 7.51	63.21 ± 6.33	0.006
BMI, mean ± SD	22.00 ± 3.11	21.88 ± 3.04	22.59 ± 3.40	0.087
Gender, male, n (%)	279 (71.36)	235 (72.53)	44 (65.67)	0.258
Smoking, n (%)	232 (59.34)	196 (60.49)	36 (53.73)	0.305
Drinking, n (%)	204 (52.17)	173 (53.40)	31 (46.27)	0.288
Hypertension, n (%)	130 (33.25)	65 (20.06)	65 (97.01)	<0.001
Diabetes, n (%)	50 (12.79)	39 (12.04)	11 (16.42)	0.328
CAD, n (%)	35 (8.95)	26 (8.02)	9 (13.43)	0.158
CVD, n (%)	8 (2.05)	5 (1.54)	3 (4.48)	0.284
PVD, n (%)	12 (3.07)	8 (2.47)	4 (5.97)	0.261
COPD, n (%)	6 (1.53)	4 (1.23)	2 (2.99)	0.606
Tumor location, n (%)				0.671
Upper	59 (15.09)	49 (15.12)	10 (14.93)
Middle	222 (56.78)	181 (55.86)	41 (61.19)
Lower	110 (28.13)	94 (29.01)	16 (23.88)
cT stage, n (%)				0.777
2	105 (26.85)	87 (26.85)	18 (26.87)
3	204 (52.17)	167 (51.54)	37 (55.22)
4	82 (20.97)	70 (21.60)	12 (17.91)
cN stage, n (%)				0.182
0	67 (17.14)	61 (18.83)	6 (8.96)
1	116 (29.67)	94 (29.01)	22 (32.84)
2	158 (40.41)	126 (38.89)	32 (47.76)
3	50 (12.79)	43 (13.27)	7 (10.45)
Clinical TNM stage, n (%)				0.167
II	48 (12.28)	43 (13.27)	5 (7.46)
III	224 (57.29)	179 (55.25)	45 (67.16)
IVA	119 (30.43)	102 (31.48)	17 (25.37)
ypT, n (%)				0.258
T 0–2	112 (28.64)	89 (27.47)	23 (34.33)
T 3–4	279 (71.36)	235 (72.53)	44 (65.67)
ypN, n (%)				0.311
ypN−	226 (57.80)	191 (58.95)	35 (52.24)
ypN+	165 (42.20)	133 (41.05)	32 (47.76)
Pathology TNM stage, n (%)				0.438
I	125 (31.97)	103 (31.79)	22 (32.84)
II	91 (23.27)	78 (24.07)	13 (19.40)
IIIA	45 (11.51)	38 (11.73)	7 (10.45)
IIIB	112 (28.64)	88 (27.16)	24 (35.82)
IVA	18 (4.60)	17 (5.25)	1 (1.49)
Robot-assisted, n (%)	77 (19.69)	59 (18.21)	18 (26.87)	0.105
Total LNs retrieved, mean ± SD	36.23 ± 15.14	35.66 ± 14.68	38.97 ± 17.03	0.103
Positive LNs, mean ± SD	1.28 ± 2.34	1.26 ± 2.43	1.37 ± 1.87	0.710
Postoperative hospital stay, mean ± SD	12.81 ± 8.75	12.51 ± 8.46	14.28 ± 10.00	0.132
Clavien–Dindo grade ⩾3, n (%)	69 (17.65)	54 (16.67)	15 (22.39)	0.263
Pneumonia, n (%)	125 (31.97)	99 (30.56)	26 (38.81)	0.187
Anastomotic leakage, n (%)	44 (11.25)	34 (10.49)	10 (14.93)	0.296
Pleural effusion, n (%)	31 (7.93)	24 (7.41)	7 (10.45)	0.402
Pneumothorax, n (%)	7 (1.79)	5 (1.54)	2 (2.99)	0.761
Chylothorax, n (%)	4 (1.02)	4 (1.23)	0 (0.00)	1.000
Thrombosis, n (%)	4 (1.02)	4 (1.23)	0 (0.00)	1.000
Adjuvant therapy, n (%)	237 (60.61)	195 (60.19)	42 (62.69)	0.703

For binary variables, only the counts and percentages for the positive modality are presented, as the negative modality is complementary.

CAD, coronary artery disease; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CVD, cerebrovascular disease; LN, lymph node; PVD, peripheral vascular disease; SD, standard deviation.

Surgical quality and perioperative safety were comparable between the two cohorts. The mean number of total lymph nodes harvested (38.97 ± 17.03 vs 35.66 ± 14.68, p = 0.710) and positive lymph nodes (1.37 ± 1.87 vs 1.26 ± 2.43, p = 0.710) identified showed no statistical differences. Regarding perioperative outcomes, the incidence of major complications (Clavien–Dindo grade ⩾3) and the mean postoperative hospital stay were statistically similar between the ASI+ and ASI− groups (all p > 0.05). Notably, 90-day mortality occurred in three patients (0.8%), all of whom were in the ASI-negative group.

Survival analysis

The median follow-up duration was 47 months. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis demonstrated significantly better OS (p = 0.002) and DFS (p = 0.007) among ASI users compared with non-users. The median OS and DFS were not reached in the ASI group, whereas they were 63.8 months (IQR, 24.0 months–NR) and 61.0 months (IQR, 16.0 months–NR), respectively, in the non-ASI group. The 5-year OS rate was 71.5% in the ASI group but was 53.4% in the non-ASI group; the corresponding 5-year DFS rates were 66.9% and 49.8%, respectively (Figure 1). A comprehensive subgroup analysis demonstrated consistent survival benefits of ASI use across multiple clinically relevant variables, including gender, age, tumor location, and clinical stage (Figure S1).

Figure 1.

Overall (a) and disease-free (b) survival comparing ASI users to ASI non-users in the unmatched cohort.

The results of the univariate and multivariable Cox regression analyses are detailed in Table 2. In univariate analysis, ASI use was significantly associated with improved OS (p = 0.002) and DFS (p = 0.008). After adjusting for age, BMI, concomitant antihypertensive medications, comorbidities, tumor stage, and postoperative adjuvant therapy in multivariate Cox proportional hazards models, ASI use remained independently associated with superior OS (HR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.29–0.79, p = 0.004) and DFS (HR = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.36–0.90, p = 0.015). Pathologic lymph node positivity (HR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.15–2.18, p = 0.005) and higher pathologic T stage (ypT3–4 vs ypT0–2: HR = 2.06, 95% CI: 1.34–3.17, p < 0.001) were identified as independent adverse prognostic factors.

Table 2.

Univariate and multivariate Cox regression models of overall and disease-free survival in the unmatched cohort.

Variables	OS				DFS
	Univariate analysis		Multivariate analysis		Univariate analysis		Multivariate analysis
	HR (95% CI)	p	HR (95% CI)	p	HR (95% CI)	p	HR (95% CI)	p
ASI
No	1.00 (Reference)		1.00 (Reference)		1.00 (Reference)		1.00 (Reference)
Yes	0.45 (0.27–0.75)	0.002	0.48 (0.29–0.79)	0.004	0.54 (0.34–0.85)	0.008	0.56 (0.36–0.90)	0.015
β-Blocker
No	1.00 (Reference)				1.00 (Reference)
Yes	0.86 (0.50–1.50)	0.604			0.86 (0.51–1.46)	0.573
CCB
No	1.00 (Reference)				1.00 (Reference)
Yes	1.12 (0.76–1.65)	0.576			1.11 (0.76–1.61)	0.585
Smoking
No	1.00 (Reference)		1.00 (Reference)		1.00 (Reference)		1.00 (Reference)
Yes	1.48 (1.06–2.06)	0.021	1.38 (0.99–1.93)	0.058	1.46 (1.07–2.01)	0.018	1.36 (0.99–1.87)	0.061
Drinking
No	1.00 (Reference)				1.00 (Reference)
Yes	1.20 (0.88–1.64)	0.256			1.07 (0.79–1.44)	0.675
Hypertension
No	1.00 (Reference)				1.00 (Reference)
Yes	0.95 (0.68–1.32)	0.759			1.01 (0.73–1.38)	0.965
Diabetes
No	1.00 (Reference)				1.00 (Reference)
Yes	1.41 (0.92–2.16)	0.118			1.48 (0.99–2.22)	0.058
CAD
No	1.00 (Reference)				1.00 (Reference)
Yes	0.60 (0.31–1.17)	0.135			0.83 (0.47–1.46)	0.519
CVD
No	1.00 (Reference)				1.00 (Reference)
Yes	0.89 (0.28–2.80)	0.845			0.80 (0.26–2.51)	0.703
PVD
No	1.00 (Reference)				1.00 (Reference)
Yes	0.45 (0.14–1.42)	0.174			0.42 (0.13–1.31)	0.136
COPD
No	1.00 (Reference)				1.00 (Reference)
Yes	0.39 (0.05–2.79)	0.349			0.70 (0.17–2.84)	0.623
Age
<60	1.00 (Reference)				1.00 (Reference)		1.00 (Reference)
⩾60	0.74 (0.54–1.02)	0.067			0.72 (0.53–0.97)	0.030	0.76 (0.56–1.03)	0.078
Gender
Male	1.00 (Reference)				1.00 (Reference)
Female	0.74 (0.51–1.07)	0.109			0.74 (0.52–1.05)	0.096
BMI
<19	1.00 (Reference)				1.00 (Reference)
19–25	0.85 (0.53–1.35)	0.487			0.74 (0.48–1.14)	0.171
⩾25	0.73 (0.41–1.30)	0.283			0.68 (0.40–1.17)	0.166
Location
Upper	1.00 (Reference)				1.00 (Reference)
Middle	1.14 (0.72–1.81)	0.585			1.11 (0.72–1.71)	0.648
Lower	1.38 (0.84–2.27)	0.206			1.25 (0.78–2.01)	0.357
ypT
T 0–2	1.00 (Reference)		1.00 (Reference)		1.00 (Reference)		1.00 (Reference)
T 3–4	2.26 (1.47–3.47)	<0.001	2.06 (1.34–3.17)	<0.001	2.32 (1.54–3.48)	<0.001	2.08 (1.38–3.13)	<0.001
ypN
ypN−	1.00 (Reference)		1.00 (Reference)		1.00 (Reference)		1.00 (Reference)
ypN+	1.60 (1.16–2.20)	0.004	1.58 (1.15–2.18)	0.005	1.72 (1.27–2.34)	<0.001	1.72 (1.27–2.34)	<0.001
Differentiation
G1	1.00 (Reference)				1.00 (Reference)
G2	0.89 (0.59–1.33)	0.564			0.94 (0.63–1.40)	0.772
G3 or x	0.85 (0.56–1.27)	0.424			0.99 (0.66–1.47)	0.947
Adjuvant
No	1.00 (Reference)				1.00 (Reference)
Yes	0.79 (0.57–1.09)	0.149			0.90 (0.66–1.23)	0.527

ASI, angiotensin system inhibitors; BMI, body mass index; CAD, coronary artery disease; CCB, calcium channel blocker; CI, confidence interval; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; CVD, cerebrovascular disease; DFS, disease-free survival; HR, hazard ratio; OS, overall survival; PVD, peripheral vascular disease; ypN, pathologic lymph node positivity; ypT, post-treatment pathologic T.

Regarding disease failure patterns, 92 patients (28.4%) in the non-ASI group and 13 patients (19.4%) in the ASI group experienced confirmed recurrence (Table S2). Although the distribution of recurrence patterns (locoregional vs distant vs both) was similar between groups (p = 0.963), the median TTR was significantly prolonged in ASI users compared to non-users (not reached vs 61.0 months, p = 0.007).

Pathologic response

MPR was achieved in 19.44% of the overall cohort, with a significantly higher rate in the ASI group compared with the non-ASI group (31.34% vs 16.98%, p = 0.007, Table 3). In univariate analysis, ASI use was significantly associated with a higher likelihood of MPR (p = 0.008). This association persisted in multivariate logistic regression after adjusting for age, sex, tumor location, and clinical stage (OR = 2.19, 95% CI: 1.21–3.97, p = 0.010, Table 4).

Table 3.

Pathological response comparison between groups.

Variables	Total (n = 391)	ASI− (n = 324)	ASI+ (n = 67)	p
MPR, n (%)				0.007
No	315 (80.56)	269 (83.02)	46 (68.66)
Yes	76 (19.44)	55 (16.98)	21 (31.34)
PCR, n (%)				0.374
No	368 (94.12)	307 (94.75)	61 (91.04)
Yes	23 (5.88)	17 (5.25)	6 (8.96)

ASI, angiotensin system inhibitors; MPR, major pathologic response.

Table 4.

Univariate and multivariate analyses of major pathological responses after surgery.

Variables	Univariate		Multivariate
Variables	OR (95% CI)	p	OR (95% CI)	p
ASI
No	1.00 (Reference)		1.00 (Reference)
Yes	2.23 (1.24–4.04)	0.008	2.19 (1.21–3.97)	0.010
Smoking
No	1.00 (Reference)
Yes	0.93 (0.56–1.54)	0.776
Drinking
No	1.00 (Reference)
Yes	1.33 (0.81–2.20)	0.260
Hypertension
No	1.00 (Reference)
Yes	1.12 (0.66–1.88)	0.675
Diabetes
No	1.00 (Reference)
Yes	1.37 (0.68–2.76)	0.384
Gender
Male	1.00 (Reference)
Female	1.19 (0.69–2.05)	0.529
Age
<60	1.00 (Reference)		1.00 (Reference)
⩾60	1.73 (1.02–2.95)	0.043	1.70 (0.99–2.91)	0.053
BMI
<19	1.00 (Reference)
19–25	1.77 (0.72–4.39)	0.214
⩾25	1.87 (0.67–5.24)	0.231
Location
Upper	1.00 (Reference)
Middle	0.75 (0.37–1.53)	0.433
Lower	0.99 (0.46–2.12)	0.974
cT stage
2	1.00 (Reference)
3	0.60 (0.34–1.06)	0.077
4	0.59 (0.29–1.23)	0.159
cN stage
cN−	1.00 (Reference)
cN+	0.72 (0.39–1.36)	0.314

ASI, angiotensin system inhibitors; BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.

Propensity score-matched analysis

To further reduce potential confounding, a 1:1 PSM yielded 60 matched pairs of ASI users and non-users. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the groups after matching (Table S3). In the matched cohort, Kaplan–Meier analysis showed that OS and DFS remained significantly longer in ASI users; the median OS was not reached in the ASI group but was 56.8 months in the non-ASI group (p = 0.005), while the median DFS was not reached in the ASI group but was 54.0 months in the non-ASI group (p = 0.019; Figure 2). Multivariate Cox regression confirmed ASI use as an independent protective factor for OS (HR = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.20–0.72, p = 0.003) and DFS (HR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.30–0.97, p = 0.038) in the matched cohort. Pathologic lymph node positivity (ypN⁺) remained an independent adverse predictor of OS after matching (Table S4).

Figure 2.

Overall (a) and disease-free (b) survival comparing ASI users to ASI non-users in propensity score-matched analysis.

Discussion

In this large-scale, long-term, real-world cohort study, we systematically evaluated, for the first time, the impact of incidental perioperative use of ASIs during NAC on pathological response and long-term survival outcomes in patients with ESCC. Our findings demonstrate that ASI use was significantly associated with higher rates of MPR and prolonged OS and DFS, with these associations remaining statistically robust after PSM. Our results suggest that the RAAS may play a critical modulatory role in both neoadjuvant treatment response and tumor progression in ESCC, offering a clinical rationale for integrating RAAS inhibition strategies in the perioperative settings.

Preclinical and translational research has shown that, beyond its established role in maintaining blood pressure and fluid homeostasis, RAAS—via angiotensin II type 1 receptor (AGTR1) signaling—regulates tumor angiogenesis, EMT, extracellular matrix (ECM) remodeling, and immune suppression.^7,18 Inhibition of this pathway reduces vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression, thereby suppressing neovascularization.^19,20 Furthermore, RAAS hyperactivation promotes stromal collagen deposition and increases interstitial fluid pressure through profibrotic signaling, such as transforming growth factor-β, which can hinder the effective delivery of chemotherapeutic agents to the tumor core.

Recent studies further support the concept that microenvironmental modulation can enhance therapeutic efficacy. For example, normalization of tumor vasculature and ECM remodeling has been shown to alleviate hypoxia and improve drug delivery, while immune microenvironment reprogramming augments cytotoxic T-cell activity and chemosensitivity.^21,22 Consistently, AGTR1 antagonists, such as losartan, have been shown to lower interstitial pressure and improve vascular perfusion, thereby enhancing chemosensitivity.¹⁰ Immunologically, losartan has been reported to downregulate immunosuppressive gene expression, reduce regulatory T-cell (Treg) populations, and promote CD8⁺ T-cell infiltration, effectively reprogramming the immune microenvironment and augmenting anti-tumor responses.²³

In our cohort, ASI users achieved a significantly higher MPR rate compared with non-users; moreover, ASI use remained an independent predictor of MPR in multivariable analyses. This is consistent with the proposed mechanisms described above, suggesting that RAAS inhibition may enhance neoadjuvant chemosensitivity by improving drug delivery, suppressing angiogenesis, and alleviating immune suppression, ultimately facilitating pathological response. As MPR has been validated as a reliable surrogate endpoint for long-term survival in multiple solid tumors, our findings not only highlight the potential of RAAS-related molecules as predictive biomarkers for treatment response but also provide clinical justification for considering RAAS inhibition as a perioperative therapeutic target. Biological variability may arise from differences in ASI type, dose, and exposure duration; in our cohort, both ACEIs and ARBs were used, with a median neoadjuvant exposure of 8 weeks. Most patients had been prescribed ASIs for hypertension before cancer diagnosis and continued therapy uninterrupted. Future prospective studies with standardized ASI regimens are needed to clarify optimal timing and agent selection.

Survival analyses revealed that ASI use was associated with significantly improved 5-year OS and DFS in the unmatched cohort (5-year OS: 71.5% vs 53.4%), and this benefit persisted after PSM. Although only 17% of patients received ASIs, potentially limiting statistical precision, the association remained robust after multivariate adjustment and PSM. Compared with previous studies on ASI use in esophageal cancer, including Wang et al.,²⁴ which reported no survival advantage—potentially due to heterogeneous cohorts combining adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma and lack of standardized treatment—our study is novel in focusing specifically on incidental ASI use during NAC in ESCC and linking it to both pathological response and long-term outcomes.²⁴ This underscores the possibility that RAAS inhibition may modulate both the local tumor microenvironment and systemic immune status to alter disease trajectories.¹⁵ For patients with ESCC and coexisting hypertension, careful selection of ACEIs or ARBs may offer not only cardiovascular benefits but also potential oncologic advantages—highlighting the need for multidisciplinary collaboration between oncology and cardiology teams in treatment planning.

Our findings warrant further validation and mechanistic exploration through translational research. Prospective trials should incorporate histopathologic and molecular analyses of tumor samples to assess the impact of ASI use on angiogenic markers (e.g., VEGF, CD31), immune cell infiltration (e.g., CD8⁺ T cells, Tregs), interstitial pressure, and fibrosis.^25,26 Single-cell RNA sequencing could be applied to pre- and post-treatment samples to dissect cellular and transcriptional changes in the tumor microenvironment, with complementary spatial or multiplex assays to confirm tissue localization. These approaches would provide insight into how ASIs modulate immune and stromal interactions and help identify patients most likely to benefit from perioperative therapy.

This study has several limitations. First, as a single-center retrospective study, findings may be influenced by institutional practices and patient demographics, which could limit generalizability. Second, a notable inherent selection bias exists as our cohort only includes patients who successfully completed NAC and proceeded to surgery. Consequently, patients who experienced severe toxicity or rapid disease progression during neoadjuvant treatment were excluded. Third, while ASIs were prescribed for underlying cardiovascular conditions, the retrospective design cannot entirely rule out the influence of baseline health, nor was medication adherence directly measured. Finally, comparisons between ASI types, dosage effects, and molecular tumor characteristics were not evaluated. Future multi-center, prospective studies with standardized ASI monitoring and tumor profiling are warranted to confirm these findings and optimize perioperative therapeutic strategies for patients with ESCC.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that incidental ASI use during neoadjuvant treatment in patients with ESCC is significantly associated with higher pathological response rates and improved long-term survival outcomes, supporting RAAS signaling as a potential perioperative therapeutic target. Given the favorable safety profile of ASIs, as well as their accessibility and cost-effectiveness, well-designed randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these clinical benefits and to investigate individualized treatment approaches based on RAAS activation status, with the goal of maximizing patient benefit through precision therapy.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-tam-10.1177_17588359261449071 – Supplemental material for Angiotensin inhibitors during neoadjuvant chemotherapy improve esophageal squamous cell carcinoma outcomes

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tam-10.1177_17588359261449071 for Angiotensin inhibitors during neoadjuvant chemotherapy improve esophageal squamous cell carcinoma outcomes by Maohui Chen, Yizhou Huang, Felix Liu, Chuanquan Lin, Shuliang Zhang, Taidui Zeng, Jun Yu, Bin Zheng and Chun Chen in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-tam-10.1177_17588359261449071 – Supplemental material for Angiotensin inhibitors during neoadjuvant chemotherapy improve esophageal squamous cell carcinoma outcomes

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-tam-10.1177_17588359261449071 for Angiotensin inhibitors during neoadjuvant chemotherapy improve esophageal squamous cell carcinoma outcomes by Maohui Chen, Yizhou Huang, Felix Liu, Chuanquan Lin, Shuliang Zhang, Taidui Zeng, Jun Yu, Bin Zheng and Chun Chen in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

None.

Declarations

ORCID iDs

Maohui Chen

Yizhou Huang

Jun Yu

Bin Zheng

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Sung

Ferlay

Siegel

, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021; 71: 209–249.

Rustgi

El-Serag

HB.

Esophageal carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 2499–2509.

Huang

Chen

Zhou

, et al. Impact of clinical decisions on patient outcomes after neoadjuvant therapy in locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Surg Endosc 2025; 39(12): 8014–8025.

Van Hagen

Hulshof

van Lanschot

, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 2074–2084.

Shapiro

van Lanschot

JJB

Hulshof

, et al. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for oesophageal or junctional cancer (CROSS): long-term results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16: 1090–1098.

Chen

Huang

Zhang

, et al. The role of pathological response in predicting the benefit of adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy in patients with esophageal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2025; 51: 110360.

George

Thomas

Hannan

RD.

The renin-angiotensin system and cancer: old dog, new tricks. Nat Rev Cancer 2010; 10: 745–759.

Pinter

Jain

RK.

Targeting the renin-angiotensin system to improve cancer treatment: implications for immunotherapy. Sci Transl Med 2017; 9: eaan5616.

Tang

Abston

Sojoodi

, et al. An angiotensin system inhibitor (losartan) potentiates antitumor efficacy of cisplatin in a murine model of non-small cell lung cancer. JTCVS Open 2024; 18: 306–321.

10.

Chauhan

Martin

Liu

, et al. Angiotensin inhibition enhances drug delivery and potentiates chemotherapy by decompressing tumour blood vessels. Nat Commun 2013; 4: 2516.

11.

Cushman

Ondetti

MA.

History of the design of captopril and related inhibitors of angiotensin converting enzyme. Hypertension 1991; 17: 589–592.

12.

James

Oparil

Carter

, et al. 2014 evidence-based guideline for the management of high blood pressure in adults: report from the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8). JAMA 2014; 311: 507–520.

13.

Menter

Carroll

Sakoda

, et al. Effect of angiotensin system inhibitors on survival in patients receiving chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Clin Lung Cancer 2017; 18: 189–197.e3.

14.

Liu

Naxerova

Pinter

, et al. Use of angiotensin system inhibitors is associated with immune activation and longer survival in nonmetastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2017; 23: 5959–5969.

15.

Chen

Huang

, et al. Prognostic impact of renin-angiotensin system blockade in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. J Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone Syst 2015; 16: 1185–1192.

16.

Geller

Abston

Muniappan

, et al. Incidental use of angiotensin system inhibitors during neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma: an analysis of survival. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2025; 170: 379–388.e2.

17.

Vandenbroucke

Von Elm

Altman

, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2007; 4(10): e297.

18.

Yoshiji

Kuriyama

Kawata

, et al. The angiotensin-I-converting enzyme inhibitor perindopril suppresses tumor growth and angiogenesis: possible role of the vascular endothelial growth factor. Clin Cancer Res 2001; 7: 1073–1078.

19.

Egami

Murohara

Shimada

, et al. Role of host angiotensin II type 1 receptor in tumor angiogenesis and growth. J Clin Invest 2003; 112: 67–75.

20.

Fujita

Hayashi

Yamashina

, et al. Angiotensin type 1a receptor signaling-dependent induction of vascular endothelial growth factor in stroma is relevant to tumor-associated angiogenesis and tumor growth. Carcinogenesis 2005; 26: 271–279.

21.

Zhang

Gao

, et al. A bioinspired sulfur-Fe-heme nanozyme with selective peroxidase-like activity for enhanced tumor chemotherapy. Nat Commun 2024; 15: 10605.

22.

Cheng

Xin

, et al. Advances in the theranostics of oesophageal squamous carcinoma. Adv Therap 2023; 6: 2200251.

23.

Boucher

Posada

Subudhi

, et al. Addition of Losartan to FOLFIRINOX and chemoradiation reduces immunosuppression-associated genes, Tregs, and FOXP3+ cancer cells in locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2023; 29: 1605–1619.

24.

Wang

Sweigert

Eguia

, et al. Impact of angiotensin system inhibitors on esophageal cancer survival. Surg Open Sci 2021; 3: 34–38.

25.

Wynn

TA.

Cellular and molecular mechanisms of fibrosis. J Pathol 2008; 214: 199–210.

26.

Jerome

Deliyanti

Suphapimol

, et al. Finerenone, a non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, reduces vascular injury and increases regulatory T-cells: studies in rodents with diabetic and neovascular retinopathy. Int J Mol Sci 2023; 24: 2334.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.03 MB

0.23 MB

0.00 MB