ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016
Different accuracy of endosonographic tumor staging after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy in esophageal cancer.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- FDG PET/CT and Endoscopic Ultrasound for Preoperative T-Staging of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic ultrasonography in staging diagnosis of esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2022Article
- Why is endosonography insufficient for residual diagnosis after neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer? Solutions using muscle layer evaluation.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Article
- Article
- Review
- FDG PET using SUVBMC medical imaging · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTreatment response to neoadjuvant therapy is histologically associated with more or less intensive inflammation and fibrosis. In consequence, accuracy of endosonographic TN-tumor staging after neoadjuvant treatment is hampered. We analyzed whether the kind of treatment chosen [chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or chemotherapy (CT)] differently influences the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound after neoadjuvant therapy in esophageal cancer.
methodsWe performed serial endoscopic ultrasound examinations in 18 patients after neoadjuvant CRT and 30 patients after neoadjuvant CT. TN-stage was classified according to the standard parameter. Histological examination of the surgical resection specimen served as gold standard.
resultsThe most frequent error was overstaging, especially in patients with complete tumor response or minimal residual disease. Accuracy of T-staging was significantly worse after CRT (0.16) than after CT (0.43), obviously due to difficulty in distinguishing residual tumor from treatment-associated fibrosis and inflammation. Accuracy of N-staging was also hampered, but to a less extent (sensitivity/specificity 0.85/0.36 after CRT, and 0.5/0.42 after CT).
conclusionsAccuracy of endosonographic TN-tumor staging is significantly more hampered by neoadjuvant CRT than after CT. However, endoscopic ultrasound is insufficient for TN-staging irrespective of the kind of neoadjuvant therapy performed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.