ArticleThe oncologist2018
Esophageal Metal Stents with Concurrent Chemoradiation Therapy for Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer: Safe or Not?
Article in The oncologist, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spray Cryotherapy Esophageal Consortium Consensus Recommendations for Liquid Nitrogen Spray Cryotherapy in Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Cancer Using a Modified Delphi Process.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Practice of radiation therapy for squamous cell esophageal cancer in Austria - a survey on behalf of the ÖGRO-GIT.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- German guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of squamous-cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus-version 4.0.ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Review
- Endoscopic Stenting for Malignant Dysphagia in Patients with Esophageal Cancer.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
- Outcomes following interventions to sustain body weight in esophageal cancer patients starting preoperative therapy: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2021Article
- Outcomes of esophageal bypass surgery and self-expanding metallic stent insertion in esophageal cancer: reevaluation of bypass surgery as an alternative treatment.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2020Article
- Article
- Analysis on plausible factors related to the prognosis of stage IV esophageal cancer.Medicine · 2020Observational
- Local Irradiation Modulates the Pharmacokinetics of Metabolites in 5-Fluorouracil-Radiotherapy-Pharmacokinetics Phenomenon.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to review the risks and benefits of concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT) with esophageal self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) for the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer. MATERIALS AND
methodsBetween January 2014 and December 2016, the data from 46 locally advanced esophageal cancer patients who received CCRT at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Eight patients who received CCRT concomitant with SEMS placement (SEMS plus CCRT group) and thirty-eight patients who received CCRT without SEMS placement (CCRT group) were identified. The risk of developing esophageal fistula and the overall survival of the two groups were analyzed.
resultsThe rate of esophageal fistula formation during or after CCRT was 87.5% in the SEMS plus CCRT group and 2.6% in the CCRT group. The median doses of radiotherapy in the SEMS plus CCRT group and the CCRT group were 47.5 Gy and 50 Gy, respectively. SEMS combined with CCRT was associated with a greater risk of esophageal fistula formation than CCRT alone (hazard ratio [HR], 72.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.62-606.12;
conclusionCCRT concomitant with SEMS for locally advanced esophageal cancer results in earlier life-threatening morbidity and a higher mortality rate than treatment with CCRT alone. Further prospective and randomized studies are warranted to confirm these observations. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients treated with SEMS placement followed by CCRT had higher risk of esophageal fistula formation and inferior overall survival rate compared with patients treated with CCRT alone. SEMS placement should be performed cautiously in patients who are scheduled to receive CCRT with curative intent.
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.