ArticleBosnian journal of basic medical sciences2019
Outcomes and prognostic factors for patients with cervical esophageal cancer undergoing definitive radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy.
Article in Bosnian journal of basic medical sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical Outcomes of Cervical Esophageal Cancer: A Single-Center Experience.Journal of chest surgery · 2024Article
- Definitive chemo-radiotherapy in cervical oesophageal cancer: a comprehensive review of literature.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2024Review
- Influence of age as a continuous variable on survival outcomes and treatment options in patients with upper thoracic esophageal carcinoma.Journal of Cancer · 2023Article
- Real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in Japanese patients with cervical esophageal cancer.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2022Article
- Surgical outcomes of oro-intestinal continuity reconstruction after total esophagectomy in patients with cervicothoracic malignancy: a thoracic surgeon's perspective.Journal of thoracic disease · 2022Article
- The usefulness of pretreatment controlling nutritional status score for predicting recurrence in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma undergoing neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy: A real-world study.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
- The Application of Nimotuzumab Combined With Definitive Chemoradiotherapy Toward the Treatment of Locally Advanced Cervical Esophageal Carcinoma: A Retrospective Study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Article
- Efficacy and Prognostic Analysis of 315 Stage I-IVa Esophageal Cancer Patients Treated with Simultaneous Integrated Boost-Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy.Cancer management and research · 2021Article
- Clinical results of intensity-modulated radiotherapy for 250 patients with cervical and upper thoracic esophageal carcinoma.Cancer management and research · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cervical esophageal cancer (CEC) is uncommon, accounting for less than 5% of all esophageal cancers. The management of CEC is controversial. This study investigated treatment outcomes and prognostic factors of survival in CEC patients undergoing definitive radiotherapy or concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). Ninety-one CEC patients were treated by intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT) between July 2007 and September 2017. The mean prescription dose was 64 Gy (range 54-70 Gy) delivered as 1.8-2.2 Gy per fraction per day, 5 days a week. Out of 91 patients, 34 received concurrent cisplatin-based chemotherapy (CT) including 18 patients who also received neoadjuvant CT. Overall survival (OS), locoregional failure-free survival (LRFFS), and progression-free survival (PFS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Prognostic factors of survival were determined in univariate (log-rank test) and multivariate (Cox proportional hazard model) analysis. Treatment-related toxicity was also assessed. Median follow-up time for all patients was 19 months. Two-year OS, LRFFS and PFS of all patients were 58.2%, 52.5% and 48.1%, respectively. Clinical stage was an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR = 2.35, 95% CI: 1.03-5.37, p = 0.042), LRFFS (HR = 3.84, 95% CI: 1.38-10.69, p = 0.011), and PFS (HR = 2.68, 95% CI: 1.11-6.45, p = 0.028). Hoarseness was an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR = 2.10, 95% CI: 1.05-4.19, p = 0.036). CCRT was independently associated with better LRFFS (HR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.14-0.79, p = 0.012). 3DCRT and IMRT with concurrent CT is well-tolerated and may improve local tumor control in CEC patients. Advanced clinical stage and hoarseness are adverse prognostic factors for OS, LRFFS, and PFS in CEC.
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.