ArticleOncology2018
Barrett's Esophagus after Bimodality Therapy in Patients with Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.
Article in Oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review with meta-analysis: prevalence of prior and concurrent Barrett's oesophagus in oesophageal adenocarcinoma patients.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2020Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionBarrett's esophagus (BE) may be present in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) after bimodality therapy (BMT). There is no specific guidance for follow-up of these patients with regard to the presence of BE or dysplasia. In this study, we assessed the outcomes of patients who, after BMT, had BE and those who did not.
methodPatients with EAC who had BMT were identified and analyzed retrospectively in two groups, with and without BE. We compared patient characteristics and outcome variables (local, distant, and no recurrence).
resultsOf 228 patients with EAC, 68 (29.8%) had BE before BMT. Ninety-eight (42.9%) had BE after BMT, and endoscopic intervention was done in 11 (11.2%). With a median follow-up of 37 months, the presence of post-BMT BE was not significantly associated with overall survival (OS) and local recurrence-free survival (LRFS). Similarly, endoscopic intervention was not significantly associated with OS and LRFS. Fifty (73.5%) patients with BE before BMT had BE after BMT (p < 0.0001).
conclusionThe presence of BE after BMT was not associated with increased risk of local recurrence. The local recurrence rate was not influenced by endoscopic intervention. Prospective studies are warranted to generate guidance for intervention, if necessary, for this group of EAC patients.
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.