SynthesisMedicine2017
Comparison of IMRT versus 3D-CRT in the treatment of esophagus cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 3 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
50 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and Safety in Proton Therapy and Photon Therapy for Patients With Esophageal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2023Pooled it
- Clinical Evaluation of Javanica Oil Emulsion Injection Combined with the Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.) · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Review
- Radiation dose and pathological complete response rate of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a model-based dose-response meta-analysis.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026Article
- Real-world trends in radiotherapy modalities for esophageal cancer: analysis of a nationwide claims database in Japan.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2026Article
- IMRT planning quality under a single full-time radiation oncologist supported by structured remote peer review and planning assistance versus the two-oncologist standard: the REMOTE-IMRT prospective, pair-matched, multi-institutional trial.Japanese journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Phase II randomized trial of 41.4 Gy vs. 50.4 Gy in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for resectable esophageal cancer.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Review
- Impact of adjuvant therapy on survival in esophageal cancer patients after neoadjuvant therapy investigated by a population based cohort study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- IL-15 signaling via cis- and trans-presentation to progenitor-exhausted CD8Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2025Article
- Rotational arc treatments with static ports and dynamic collimation reduces cardiopulmonary dose for esophageal cancer patients and diminishes model-based predicted benefit of proton therapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Radiotherapy treatment planning for esophageal cancer: JASTRO guidelines 2024 for radiotherapy treatment planning.Journal of radiation research · 2025Review
- Outcomes from a single institution cohort of 248 patients with stage I-III esophageal cancer treated with radiotherapy: Comparison of younger and older populations.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Bioinspired thiazolo-[2,3-b] quinazolin-6-one derivatives as potent anti-cancer agents targeting EGFR: their biological evaluations and in silico assessment.Molecular diversity · 2024Article
- Tumor-Derived Exosomal miR-143-3p Induces Macrophage M2 Polarization to Cause Radiation Resistance in Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Sparing Swallowing-Related Structures Reduces Post-Radiotherapy Dysphagia in Oropharyngeal Cancer.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Article
- Risk and prognosis of second cutaneous melanoma after radiotherapy for breast cancer: A population-based analysis.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2024Article
- A dosimetric evaluation of intensity modulated radiotherapy and three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for prostate cancer in Ghana.Ecancermedicalscience · 2024Article
- Current landscape of gastrointestinal radiation oncology in Spain: a multicenter real-life survey and comparison with key clinical guidelines.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEsophageal cancer (EC) is a common cancer with high mortality because of its rapid progression and poor prognosis. Radiotherapy is one of the most effective treatments for EC. Three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) are 2 recently developed radiotherapy techniques. IMRT is believed to be more effective than 3D-CRT in target coverage, dose homogeneity, and reducing toxicity to normal organs. However, these advantages have not been demonstrated in the treatment of EC. This meta-analysis was performed to compare IMRT and 3D-CRT in the treatment of EC in terms of dose-volume histograms and outcomes including survival and toxicity.
methodsA literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library databases from their inceptions to Dec 30, 2016. Two authors independently assessed the included studies and extracted data. The average percent irradiated volumes of adjacent noncancerous organs were calculated and compared between IMRT and 3D-CRT. The odds ratio of overall survival (OS), and radiation pneumonitis and radiation esophagitis was also evaluated.
resultsTotally 7 studies were included. Of them, 5 studies (80 patients) were included in the dosimetric comparison, 3 studies (871 patients) were included in the OS analysis, and 2 studies (205 patients) were included in the irradiation toxicity analysis. For lung in patients receiving doses ≥20 Gy and heart in patients receiving dose = 50 Gy, the average irradiated volumes of IMRT were less than those from 3D-CRT. IMRT resulted in a higher OS than 3D-CRT. However, no significant difference was observed in the incidence of radiation pneumonitis and radiation esophagitis between 2 radiotherapy techniques.
conclusionOur data suggest that IMRT-delivered high radiation dose produces significantly less average percent volumes of irradiated lung and heart than 3D-CRT. IMRT is superior to 3D-CRT in the OS of EC while shows no benefit on radiation toxicity.
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.