Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30374818›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2019

Low- vs. High-Dose Neoadjuvant Radiation in Trimodality Treatment of Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer.

Keven S Y Ji, Samantha M Thomas, Sanziana A Roman, Brian Czito, Kevin L Anderson, Jessica Frakes, Mohamed A Adam, Julie A Sosa, Timothy J Robinson

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Keven S Y JiDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, 27703, USA.
Samantha M ThomasDuke Cancer Institute, 20 Duke Medicine Circle, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Sanziana A RomanDepartment of Surgery, University of California at San Francisco-UCSF, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Brian CzitoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Kevin L AndersonDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, 27703, USA.
Jessica FrakesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa Bay, FL, 33612, USA.
Mohamed A AdamDepartment of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Julie A SosaDepartment of Surgery, University of California at San Francisco-UCSF, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
Timothy J RobinsonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa Bay, FL, 33612, USA. Timothy.robinson@moffitt.org.
Duke Medical Center · USDuke University · USMoffitt Cancer Center · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USDuke Cancer Institute

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe optimal dose of neoadjuvant radiation for locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer remains controversial in the absence of randomized clinical trials, with conventional practice favoring the use of 50.4 vs. 41.4 Gy.

methodsRetrospective analysis of adults with non-metastatic esophageal cancer in the National Cancer Database (2004-2015) treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Outcomes were compared between patients undergoing 41.4, 45, or 50.4 Gy. Primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included T and N downstaging and perioperative mortality adjusted for demographics, clinicopathologic factors, and facility volume.

resultsEight thousand eight hundred eighty-one patients were included: 439 (4.9%) received low-dose (41.4 Gy), 2194 (24.7%) received moderate-dose (45 Gy), and 6248 (70.4%) received high-dose (50.4 Gy) neoadjuvant radiation. Compared to high-dose, low-dose radiation was associated with superior median overall survival (52.6 vs. 40.7 months) and 5-year survival (48.3% vs. 40.2%), and lower unadjusted 90-day mortality (2.3% vs. 6.5%, all p ≤ 0.01). Multivariable proportional hazards models confirmed an increased hazard of death associated with high-dose radiation therapy (HR = 1.38, 95% CI 1.10-1.72, p = 0.005). There was no significant difference in T and/or N downstaging between low-dose vs. high-dose therapy (p > 0.1 for both). Patients receiving 45 Gy exhibited the lowest median overall survival (37.2 months) and 5-year survival (38.7%, log-rank p = 0.04).

conclusionsCompared to 50.4 Gy, 41.4 Gy is associated with reduced perioperative mortality and superior overall survival with similar downstaging in locally advanced esophageal cancer. In the absence of randomized clinical data, our findings support the use of 41.4 Gy in patients with chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy. Prospective trials are warranted to further validate these results.

Indexed as

EsophagectomyAdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinoma, Squamous CellChemoradiotherapyChemoradiotherapy, AdjuvantDatabases, FactualEsophageal NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyChemoradiotherapyEsophageal neoplasmsNeoadjuvant therapy

Identifiers

PMID30374818
OpenAlexW2898999211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.