ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2018
Neoadjuvant versus definitive chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer : Outcomes and patterns of failure.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Definitive Chemoradiotherapy Versus Trimodality Therapy for Resectable Oesophageal Carcinoma: Meta-analyses and Systematic Review of Literature.World journal of surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Nimotuzumab Combined With Concurrent Curative Radiotherapy and S-1 in 75 Years and Older Patients With Stage II-IVB Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Phase II Study.International journal of cancer · 2026Trial
- Radiochemotherapy with or without cetuximab for unresectable esophageal cancer: final results of a randomized phase 2 trial (LEOPARD-2).Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2020Trial
- Survival Outcomes of Patients with Esophageal Cancer Who Did Not Proceed to Surgery after Neoadjuvant Treatment.Cancers · 2023Article
- Esophageal cancer practice guidelines 2022 edited by the Japan esophageal society: part 1.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2023Article
- Quantitative CT evaluation after two cycles of induction chemotherapy to predict prognosis of patients with locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma before undergoing definitive chemoradiotherapy/radiotherapy.European radiology · 2023Article
- Article
- Neoadjuvant versus definitive radiochemotherapy of locoregionally advanced oesophageal cancer-who benefits?Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2022Article
- Chemoradiation for elderly patients (≥ 65 years) with esophageal cancer: a retrospective single-center analysis.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2022Article
- Trimodality Therapy vs Definitive Chemoradiation in Older Adults With Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2022Article
- [F18] FDG-PET/CT for manual or semiautomated GTV delineation of the primary tumor for radiation therapy planning in patients with esophageal cancer: is it useful?Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2021Article
- Definitive radiochemotherapy in esophageal cancer - a single institution experience.Radiology and oncology · 2019Article
- Neoadjuvant versus definitive chemoradiation in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2019Article
- Article
- Adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus: neoadjuvant chemoradiation and radical surgery : Long-term results.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRandomized trials examining neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgical resection (nCRT-S) and definitive CRT (dCRT) for esophageal cancer (EC) patients are hampered by use of nonstandard treatment paradigms. Outcomes of nCRT-S versus dCRT in a more common patient population are lacking. We investigated local control and survival, evaluated clinical factors associated with endpoints, and assessed patterns of failure between these cohorts.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 130 patients with locally advanced EC receiving either dCRT or nCRT-S at our institution from 2000-2012. Inclusion criteria were curatively treated nonmetastatic EC, Karnofsky performance status ≥70%, and receipt of concomitant CRT. Patients were excluded if receiving <41 Gy neoadjuvantly or <50 Gy definitively. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to evaluate local recurrence (LR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling addressed factors associated with outcomes. Patterns of failure were enumerated as local, regional, or distant.
resultsMean follow-up was 34.2 months. The 3‑year LR was 10.8% in the nCRT-S group and 21.5% in the dCRT group (p = 0.266). Median PFS were 15.6 and 14.9 months, respectively (p = 0.549). Median OS were 20.6 and 25.9 months, respectively (p = 0.81). On univariate and multivariate analysis, none of the investigated factors was associated with outcomes, although node-positive disease showed a trend for worse OS and PFS. Most common failures in both groups were distant (dCRT 31.2% vs. nCRT-S 21.6%) followed by local in-field recurrences (dCRT 26.9% vs. nCRT-S 10.8%).
conclusionsIn this institutional analysis, no significant differences regarding outcomes and patterns of failure were observed between nCRT-S and dCRT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28916906What 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.