Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19812907›Full record

ReviewDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2009

[Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: pre-operative combined radiochemotherapy from a surgical oncological viewpoint].

B L D M Brücher

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Trimodal therapy in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus.European journal of medical research · 2011
    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

1 author.

B L D M BrücherChirurgische Onkologie, Allgemeine, Vizeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Hoppe-Seyler-Strasse 3, 72076, Tübingen, Deutschland. bjoern.bruecher@med.uni-tuebingen.de

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Esophageal squamous cell carcinomas (ESCCs) are an interdisciplinary challenge in terms of diagnosis, multimodal and/or surgical treatment procedures and also postoperative management as they are often associated with multiple comorbidities. The gold standard for a curative treatment approach is radical surgery, which is standardized and can be carried out with acceptable morbidity and mortality rates. ESCCs are usually diagnosed at locally advanced tumor stages and neoadjuvant treatment procedures are therefore used. Patients who respond to neoadjuvant therapy (responders) have a significantly better survival rate. The neoadjuvant studies that are currently available need to be critically assessed as they do not include response as an end point. In this context the WHO clinical response evaluation that has been used up to now is questionable. The histopathological findings with percentage proportions of residual tumor cells represent the gold standard for evaluating the response. Positron-emission tomography as a response criterion is predictive for the histopathological response and survival. ESCC patients who are classified as non-responders do not appear to benefit from surgical resection. In the future the results of a response evaluation and of pretreatment molecular biological tests could have a place in the process of pretherapeutic and peritherapeutic oncological decision-making in patients with ESCCs.

Indexed as

Neoadjuvant TherapyCarcinoma, Squamous CellCombined Modality TherapyDisease-Free SurvivalEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyHumansNeoplasm, ResidualNeoplasm StagingPatient Care TeamPositron-Emission TomographyPrognosis

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.