ArticleThoracic cancer2016
Prognostic factors in patients after definitive chemoradiation using involved-field radiotherapy for esophageal cancer in a phase II study.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Relative Dose Intensity of Chemotherapy and Survival in Patients with Advanced Stage Solid Tumor Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The oncologist · 2021Pooled it
- Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) of esophageal cancer.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2024Article
- Prognostic values of the gross volume of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- The long-term impact of tumor burden in pT3N0M0 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A propensity score-matched analysis.Medicine · 2019Article
- Factors relevant to the prognosis of patients with esophageal cancer who received intensity-modulated radiotherapy.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA prospective study was performed on the use of chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for esophageal cancer (EC) with involved-field radiation therapy (IFRT), based on 18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography. Prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) were analyzed.
methodsEligible patients included 63 adults with newly diagnosed, untreated, inoperable stage I-IV EC with lymph node metastases. Patients received 80 mg/m
resultsThree-year progression-free survival and OS rates were 44.9% and 47.5%, respectively. The median survival time was 31.5 months. In univariate analyses for OS, Karnofsy Performance Scale <90% (P = 0.027), initial stage (P = 0.0087), T stage (P = 0.066), N stage (P = 0.000086), M stage of M1 (P = 0.0042), dysphagia score (P = 0.00017), tumor marker squamous cell carcinoma antigen >1.5 ng/mL (P = 0.0054), gross tumor volume (GTV) > 60 cc (P = 0.00011), and relative dose intensity (RDI) of chemotherapy ≤50% (P = 0.063) were found to be associated with significantly or marginally worse OS. In multivariate analyses for OS, GTV ≥ 60 cc (P = 0.00040), RDI < 50% (P = 0.00034), and cN2-3 (P = 0.0020) were associated with significantly worse OS.
conclusionGTV, RDI and N grading, were associated with OS after definitive CRT using IFRT for EC.
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.