Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29948420›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of surgical oncology2018

Outcome of Patients Treated Within and Outside a Randomized Clinical Trial on Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Plus Surgery for Esophageal Cancer: Extrapolation of a Randomized Clinical Trial (CROSS).

Eelke Toxopeus, Maartje van der Schaaf, Jan van Lanschot, Jesper Lagergren, Pernilla Lagergren, Ate van der Gaast, Bas Wijnhoven

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIClinical Trial, Phase IIIComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of surgical oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Which test for crossing survival curves? A user's guideline.BMC medical research methodology · 2022
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Eelke ToxopeusDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. e.toxopeus@erasmusmc.nl.
Maartje van der SchaafDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, 171 76, Stockholm, Sweden.
Jan van LanschotDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jesper LagergrenDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, 171 76, Stockholm, Sweden.
Pernilla LagergrenDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska University Hospital, 171 76, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ate van der GaastDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Bas WijnhovenDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center, Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) can provide a high level of evidence for medical decision making, but it is unclear if the results apply to patients treated outside such trials.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to retrospectively compare outcomes of patients with esophageal cancer treated within and outside an RCT.

methodsAll patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) plus surgery for esophageal cancer between 2002 and 2008 (ChemoRadiotherapy for Esophageal cancer followed by Surgery Study [CROSS] cohort) who participated in multicenter, phase II-III trials were compared with patients who underwent the same treatment outside the trial between 2008 and 2013 (post-CROSS cohort). The differences between these cohorts were analyzed using t tests, while logistic regression models were used to evaluate adverse events. Overall and disease-free survival were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analyses.

resultsA total of 208 CROSS patients and 173 post-CROSS patients were included in this study. Patients from the post-CROSS cohort were older, had more co morbidities, and had poorer performance status. Clinical N stage, but not cT stage, was worse in the post-CROSS cohort. There were no statistically significant differences in adverse events (pulmonary, cardiac, or anastomotic complications) or survival between the comparison cohorts.

conclusionThe outcomes of patients treated with nCRT plus esophagectomy for cancer have a high external consistency and can be extrapolated to the daily practice of physicians involved in the treatment and care of esophageal cancer patients.

Indexed as

AgedCarcinoma, Squamous CellChemoradiotherapy, AdjuvantCombined Modality TherapyEsophageal NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalPrognosisRetrospective StudiesSurvival Rate

Identifiers

PMID29948420
PMCPMC6029046

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.