Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29143229›Full record

SynthesisClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2018

Meta-analysis of survival benefit with postoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients of lymph node positive esophageal carcinoma.

H Luo, Y Y Cui, J G Zhang, Y N Sun, X L Zheng, C L Yang, K Ye, H Ge

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2018. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

8 authors.

H LuoDivision of Graduate, The Second Clinical Medical School and the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China.
Y Y CuiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450000, China.
J G ZhangDivision of Scientific Research and Education, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan, China.
Y N SunDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450000, China.
X L ZhengDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450000, China.
C L YangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450000, China.
K YeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450000, China.
H GeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450000, China. gehong616@126.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2958-3866

Funding

the Joint Research Funds of Henan province and the Minister of Health of China 201201009the National Natural Science Foundation of China 81372436the Science and Technology Innovative Research Group of Zhengzhou city 121PCXTD524
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe effect of postoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for esophageal carcinoma (EC) was investigated. Patients who can obtain benefit from this treatment modality have not yet been well identified.

methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies published from January 1993 to July 2016. Research comparing surgery alone (SA) with postoperative CRT in patients with resectable EC was procured; collected articles were written in English.

resultsNine studies comparing of postoperative CRT versus SA (n = 1650) in patients with resectable EC met the inclusion criteria. No survival benefit was achieved for postoperative CRT compared with SA. Subgroup analysis was conducted for patients under resection with positive lymph node carcinoma; there was a significant survival benefit at 1 year [risk ratio (RR) = 0.55 95% CI: 0.37-0.82; P = 0.003], 3 years (RR = 0.71 95% CI: 0.61-0.83; P<0.0001), as well as 5 years (RR = 0.86 95% CI: 0.78-0.94; P = 0.0007). Subgroup analysis by tumor histology of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) was also performed, but there was no significant survival benefit when postoperative CRT was compared with SA. Fail models after surgery were performed; the RR for local control rate and distant metastasis rate were 0.64 (95% CI 0.49-0.85; P = 0.002) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.67-1.15; P = 0.34), which indicates lower local recurrence rates of post-CRT than that of SA.

conclusionThis meta-analysis demonstrated a survival benefit of postoperative CRT over SA in resectable EC patients with positive lymph nodes. Improvements of local control rates with postoperative CRT were also detected.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Squamous CellChemoradiotherapyEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyHumansLymph NodesPostoperative PeriodPrognosisSurvival RateChemoradiotherapyEsophageal carcinomaOverall survivalPositive lymph nodesSurgery

Identifiers

PMID29143229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.