ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2018
Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without neoadjuvant radiotherapy compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Paclitaxel plus cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil induction chemotherapy for locally advanced borderline-resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a phase II clinical trial.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2022Trial
- Spectral CT-based nomogram for evaluation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.European radiology · 2025Article
- The MRI radiomics signature can predict the pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.European radiology · 2024Article
- The value of intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging in predicting the pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.European radiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough it was controversial for treating locally advanced resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACR) was more widely accepted rather than neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) worldwide. With the development of paclitaxel, a high response rate to NAC was reported in many studies. Our hypothesis is that lots of patients could get a response from NAC alone and avoid unnecessary NACR. Those who had no response from NAC could still response from the followed radiotherapy. We attempted to circumvent the controversy over the use of NAC, NACR and made a combined version, NAC ± neoadjuvant radiotherapy (NAR).
methodsThe retrospective study compared NAC ± NAR with NACR between June 30, 2015 and October 31, 2016. Sixty consecutive borderline resectable ESCC were included: thirty-one in NAC ± NAR group and 29 in NACR group. The toxicities, response rates, operative data, complications, length of stay, and overall survival (OS) rates were evaluated.
resultsThe response rate to NAC ± NAR was 93.5%; to NACR was 86.2%. There was no grade 3-4 non-hematologic adverse events after NAC ± NAR, but three in the NACR group. Arrhythmias (6.5%
conclusionsCompared with NACR, the NAC ± NACR provided the same survival benefits but low post operation complication rate. In the future, it might be a choice for locally advanced ESCC.
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.