ReviewGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2014
Perioperative therapy for esophageal cancer.
Review in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Frailty in cardiothoracic surgery: systematic review of the literature.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2015Pooled it
- Pooled it
- lncRNA SSTR5-AS1 Predicts Poor Prognosis and Contributes to the Progression of Esophageal Cancer.Disease markers · 2023Article
- Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Compared with Surgery for Oesophageal Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study and Missing Evidence.Journal of Cancer · 2023Article
- Controlling lymph node micrometastases by neoadjuvant chemotherapy affects the prognosis in advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Surgery today · 2021Article
- Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by minimally invasive esophagectomy is safe and feasible for treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Thoracic cancer · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditionally, surgery is considered the best treatment for esophageal cancer in terms of locoregional control and long-term survival, but survival after surgery alone for locally advanced esophageal cancer is not satisfactory. A multidisciplinary approach that includes surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy, alone or in combination, has been developed to improve the prognosis. Multiple clinical trials have addressed the preferred treatment strategy, such as neoadjuvant or adjuvant and chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or chemoradiotherapy, in managing locally advanced esophageal cancer. In this review, we provide an update on treatment strategies for locally advanced esophageal cancers. Recent studies indicate that neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy has a survival benefit over surgery alone in this patient group. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is an accepted standard of care in the United States while neoadjuvant chemotherapy is regarded as standard treatment in Japan and the United Kingdom. The standard treatment differs among countries because two large randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effectiveness of neoadjuvant chemotherapy reported conflicting results and no trial has made a comparison between neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy directly. Future trials in locally advanced esophageal cancer should focus on identifying the optimum strategy and its regimen and aim to minimize treatment toxicities and effects on quality of life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25065567What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.