Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26314875›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2015

Prognostic Value of the Circumferential Resection Margin in Esophageal Cancer Patients After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy.

J B Hulshoff, Z Faiz, A Karrenbeld, G Kats-Ugurlu, J G M Burgerhof, J K Smit, J Th M Plukker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

7 authors.

J B HulshoffDepartment of Surgical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, 9713 AV, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Z FaizDepartment of Surgical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, 9713 AV, Groningen, The Netherlands.
A KarrenbeldDepartment of Pathology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, 9713 AV, Groningen, The Netherlands.
G Kats-UgurluDepartment of Pathology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, 9713 AV, Groningen, The Netherlands.
J G M BurgerhofDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, 9713 AV, Groningen, The Netherlands.
J K SmitDepartment of Surgical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, 9713 AV, Groningen, The Netherlands.
J Th M PlukkerDepartment of Surgical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, 9713 AV, Groningen, The Netherlands. j.t.m.plukker@umcg.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCircumferential resection margins (CRM) for esophageal cancer (EC), defined by the College of American Pathologists (CAP; >0 mm) or the Royal College of Pathologists (RCP; >1 mm) as tumor-free (R0), are based on a surgery-alone approach. We evaluated the usefulness of both definitions in current practice with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT).

methodsCRMs were measured in 209 patients (104 with nCRT) with locally advanced EC after transthoracic esophagectomy. Local recurrence and cancer related death were scored as events. Patients were followed for at least 2 years or until death. Prognostic factors (P < 0.1 in univariate analyses) for 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) and local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were incorporated in multivariate Cox regression analyses. Both CRM measurements were analyzed separately and prognostic cutoff values (0-1.0 mm) were assessed in both groups.

resultsIndependent prognostic factors (P < 0.05) for 2-year DFS were tumor length, lymph node ratio, angioinvasion, and CAP R0 in the surgery-alone group and pN stage (P < 0.01) in the nCRT group. Prognostic factors (P < 0.05) for 2-year LRFS were CAP, lymph node ratio, and tumor length in the surgery-alone group, and CAP and grade in the nCRT group. Optimal CRM cutoff values between 0.0 and 0.2 mm were prognostic for 2-year DFS in the surgery-alone and at 0.3 mm for the nCRT group.

conclusionsnCRT affected the CRM cutoff values. After nCRT, the CRM R0 according to the CAP was only prognostic for 2-year LRFS. However, in the surgery-alone group, it was prognostic for both the 2-year DFS and LRFS.

Indexed as

ChemoradiotherapyEsophagectomyNeoadjuvant TherapyAdenocarcinomaAgedCombined Modality TherapyEsophageal NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPrognosisProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID26314875
PMCPMC4686561

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.