Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16187480›Full record

Trial reportJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract

Multicenter prospective randomized trial comparing standard esophagectomy with chemoradiotherapy for treatment of squamous esophageal cancer: early results from the Chinese University Research Group for Esophageal Cancer (CURE).

Philip W Y Chiu, Angus C W Chan, S F Leung, H T Leong, K H Kwong, Micheal K W Li, Alex C M Au-Yeung, Sydney C S Chung, Enders K W Ng

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Esophageal cancer practice guidelines 2017 edited by the Japan Esophageal Society: part 1.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2019
    Guideline
  3. Non-surgical versus surgical treatment for oesophageal cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Esophageal cancer practice guidelines 2022 edited by the Japan esophageal society: part 1.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Establishment and Verification of a Prediction Model for Symptomatic Radiation Pneumonitis in Patients with Esophageal Cancer Receiving Radiotherapy.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Clinical Effect of Radiotherapy Combined with Chemotherapy for Non-Surgical Treatment of the Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2018
    Article
  19. Neoadjuvant versus definitive chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer : Outcomes and patterns of failure.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2018
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Philip W Y ChiuDepartment of Surgery, Prince of Wales Hospital, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, S.A.R.
Angus C W Chan
S F Leung
H T Leong
K H Kwong
Micheal K W Li
Alex C M Au-Yeung
Sydney C S Chung
Enders K W Ng

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We conducted a prospective randomized trial to compare the efficacy and survival outcome by chemoradiation with that by esophagectomy as a curative treatment. From July 2000 to December 2004, 80 patients with potentially resectable squamous cell carcinoma of the mid or lower thoracic esophagus were randomized to esophagectomy or chemoradiotherapy. A two- or three-stage esophagectomy with two-field dissection was performed. Patients treated with chemoradiotherapy received continuous 5-fluorouracil infusion (200 mg/m2/day) from day 1 to 42 and cisplatin (60 mg/m2) on days 1 and 22. The tumor and regional lymphatics were concomitantly irradiated to a total of 50-60 Gy. Tumor response was assessed by endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasonography, and computed tomography scan. Salvage esophagectomy was performed for incomplete response or recurrence. Forty-four patients received standard esophagectomy, whereas 36 were treated with chemoradiotherapy. Median follow-up was 16.9 months. The operative mortality was 6.8%. The incidence of postoperative complications was 38.6%. No difference in the early cumulative survival was found between the two groups (RR = 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-2.17; log-rank test P = 0.45). There was no difference in the disease-free survival. Patients treated with surgery had a slightly higher proportion of recurrence in the mediastinum, whereas those treated with chemoradiation sustained a higher proportion of recurrence in the cervical or abdominal regions. Standard esophagectomy or chemoradiotherapy offered similar early clinical outcome and survival for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. The challenge lies in the detection of residue disease after chemoradiotherapy.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCarcinoma, Squamous CellCisplatinEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyFemaleFluorouracilHong KongHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingProbabilityPrognosisCisplatinFluorouracil

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.