Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30877837›Full record

ArticleBosnian journal of basic medical sciences2019

Outcomes and prognostic factors for patients with cervical esophageal cancer undergoing definitive radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy.

Xin-Xin Du, Rong Yu, Zhen-Fei Wang, De-Cheng Du, Qiao-Yun Liu, Run-Mei Wang, Shi-Rong Kang, Hao Yang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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 · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Real-world treatment patterns and outcomes in Japanese patients with cervical esophageal cancer.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Xin-Xin DuDepartment of Radiotherapy, Inner Mongolia Cancer Hospital, The Affiliated People's Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University, Hohhot; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China; Research Group for Reproductive Medicine and IVF-Laboratory, Department of Obstetrics and Genecology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany. xinsiwanlv@hotmail.com.
Rong Yu
Zhen-Fei Wang
De-Cheng Du
Qiao-Yun Liu
Run-Mei Wang
Shi-Rong Kang
Hao Yang
Inner Mongolia Medical University · CNChinese PLA General Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ChemoradiotherapyRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedAgedAntineoplastic AgentsCisplatinDisease-Free SurvivalEsophageal NeoplasmsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalKaplan-Meier EstimateMaleMiddle AgedMultivariate AnalysisPrognosisAntineoplastic AgentsCisplatin

Identifiers

PMID30877837
PMCPMC6535383
OpenAlexW2920946285

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.