ArticleMedicine2018
Comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy vs 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy for patients with non-metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma receiving definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy: A population-based propensity-score-matched analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Paclitaxel and cisplatin combined with concurrent involved-field irradiation in definitive chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a phase II clinical trial.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2022Trial
- Development and Validation of a Nomogram for Predicting Overall Survival to Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy in Patients with Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.BioMed research international · 2022Trial
- Review
- Correlation between morphological parameters and dosimetric parameters of the heart and spinal cord in the intermediate- and advanced-stage esophageal cancer.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Development and Validation of a Nomogram Model for the Risk of Cardiac Death in Patients Treated with Chemotherapy for Esophageal Cancer.Cardiovascular toxicology · 2023Article
- Review
- (Neo)adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy is Beneficial to the Long-term Survival of Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Network Meta-analysis.World journal of surgery · 2022Review
- Construction of survival prediction model for elderly esophageal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- A re-irradiation dose of 55-60 Gy improves the survival rate of patients with local recurrent esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after radiotherapy.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2021Article
- Proposed revision of the 8th edition AJCC clinical staging system for esophageal squamous cell cancer treated with definitive chemo-IMRT based on CT imaging.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2019Article
- Correlation of CT texture changes with treatment response during radiation therapy for esophageal cancer: An exploratory study.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whether the survival outcome of patients with non-metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (NM-ESCC) receiving definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is better with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) or with 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3DCRT) has been debated in the literature. We designed this population-based propensity-score (PS)-matched analysis to address this question. We identified eligible patients diagnosed between 2008 and 2015 from the Taiwan Cancer Registry and constructed a PS-matched cohort (1:1 for IMRT vs 3DCRT) to balance observable potential confounders. We compared the hazard ratio (HR) of death between IMRT and 3DCRT during the entire follow-up period. We also evaluated freedom from local regional recurrence (FFLRR) and esophageal cancer-specific survival (ECSS). Sensitivity analyses (SA) were performed to examine the robustness of our findings. Our study population constituted 558 patients who were well balanced with regard to the measured covariables. The HR of death with IMRT compared to 3DCRT was 0.43 (95% confidence interval 0.35-0.52, P < .001). The results remained significant for FFLRR and ECSS. In SA, our results remained significant when additional covariables were taken into consideration. The survival outcome of patients with NM-ESCC receiving CCRT might be better with IMRT vs 3DCRT. These study results should be interpreted with caution given some possible covariates lacking in the registry. Further studies are needed to clarify this issue.
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.