SynthesisMedicine2017
Efficacy and safety of chemoradiation therapy compared with chemotherapy for esophageal carcinoma: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The long-term survival of esophageal cancer in elderly patients: A multi-center, retrospective study from China.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Short-term outcome of Ivor Lewis esophagectomy following neoadjuvant chemoradiation versus perioperative chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction: a propensity score-matched analysis.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe role of the chemoradiation therapy (CRT) and chemotherapy (CT) in the treatment of esophageal carcinoma (EC) remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of CRT with CT in the treatment of EC patients.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane library were systematically reviewed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared CRT with CT. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), pathological complete response (pCR), R0 resection, recurrence rate, mortality rate, and adverse events. Pooled estimates were expressed with hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% CIs.
resultsEight RCTs involving 1274 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with CT, CRT was not associated with significantly improved OS (HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.82, 1.01; P = .072) and PFS (RR = 3.62, 95% CI: 1.10, 11.95; P = .035). The pCR rate and R0 resection rate were significant higher in the CRT group than that in the CT group (RR = 3.62, 95% CI: 1.10, 11.95, P = .035; RR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.09, 1.27, P < .001; respectively). EC patients who received CRT had a higher mortality rate (RR = 2.50, 95% CI: 1.14, 5.48; P = .022) than those treated with CT, and the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar between the 2 groups (RR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.62, 1.32; P = .612).
conclusionOn the basis of the current evidence, our results suggested that CRT seemed to have benefit in the radical resection, but no effect in the survival benefits. Further large-scale, well-conducted RCTs are needed to verify our findings.
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.