Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27428362›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Radiation Therapy and Cardiac Death in Long-Term Survivors of Esophageal Cancer: An Analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result Database.

Laila Gharzai, Vivek Verma, Kyle A Denniston, Abhijeet R Bhirud, Nathan R Bennion, Chi Lin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Synergistic Effects of DNA-PKcs Inhibition and Radiotherapy in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Dosimetric advantages for cardiac substructures in radiotherapy of esophageal cancer in deep-inspiration breath hold.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Cardiac metabolic changes onJournal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Laila GharzaiCollege of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, United States of America.
Vivek VermaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, United States of America.
Kyle A DennistonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, United States of America.
Abhijeet R BhirudDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, United States of America.
Nathan R BennionDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, United States of America.
Chi LinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, United States of America.
University of Nebraska Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveRadiation therapy (RT) for esophageal cancer often results in unintended radiation doses delivered to the heart owing to anatomic proximity. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, we examined late cardiac death in survivors of esophageal cancer that had or had not received RT.

methods5,630 patients were identified that were diagnosed with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or adenocarcinoma (AC) from 1973-2012, who were followed for at least 5 years after therapy. Examined risk factors for cardiac death included age (≤55/56-65/66-75/>75), gender, race (white/non-white), stage (local/regional/distant), histology (SCC/AC), esophageal location (<18cm/18-24cm/25-32cm/33-40cm from incisors), diagnosis year (1973-1992/1993-2002/2003-2012), and receipt of surgery and/or RT. Time to cardiac death was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A Cox model was used to evaluate risk factors for cardiac death in propensity score matched data.

resultsPatients who received RT were younger, diagnosed more recently, had more advanced disease, SCC histology, and no surgery. The RT group had higher risk of cardiac death than the no-RT group (log-rank p<0.0001). The median time to cardiac death in the RT group was 289 months (95% CI, 255-367) and was not reached in the no-RT group. The probability of cardiac death increased with age and decreased with diagnosis year, and this trend was more pronounced in the RT group. Multivariate analysis found RT to be associated with higher probability of cardiac death (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.03-1.47, HR 1.961, 95% CI 1.466-2.624). Lower esophageal subsite (33-40 cm) was also associated with a higher risk of cardiac death. Other variables were not associated with cardiac death.

conclusionsRecognizing the limitations of a SEER analysis including lack of comorbidity accountability, these data should prompt more definitive study as to whether a possible associative effect of RT on cardiac death could potentially be a causative effect.

Indexed as

DeathAdenocarcinomaAgedCarcinoma, Squamous CellEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophageal Squamous Cell CarcinomaEsophagusFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedProportional Hazards ModelsSurvival AnalysisSurvivors

Identifiers

PMID27428362
PMCPMC4948887
OpenAlexW2490017558

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.