ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2019
Neoadjuvant versus definitive chemoradiation in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-world clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with locally advanced, unresectable esophageal/gastroesophageal junction cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy in the United States community oncology setting.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy in esophageal cancer.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Review
- Trimodality Therapy vs Definitive Chemoradiation in Older Adults With Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2022Article
- Factors Affecting Survival in Operated Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2022Article
- Prognostic values of the gross volume of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultimodal treatment with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery (nCRT + S) is the treatment of choice for patients with locally advanced or node-positive esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (E-SCC). Those who are unsuitable or who decline surgery can be treated with definitive chemoradiation (dCRT). This study compares the oncologic outcome of nCRT + S and dCRT in E-SCC patients.
methodsBetween 2011 and 2017, 95 patients with E-SCC were scheduled for dCRT or nCRT+ S with IMRT at our department. Patients undergoing dCRT received at least 50 Gy and those undergoing nCRT + S received at least 41.4 Gy. All patients received simultaneous chemotherapy with either carboplatin and paclitaxel or cisplatin and 5-fluoruracil. We retrospectively compared baseline characteristics and oncologic outcome including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and site of failure between both treatment groups.
resultsPatients undergoing dCRT were less likely to have clinically suspected lymph node metastases (85% vs. 100%, p = 0.019) than patients undergoing nCRT + S and had more proximally located tumors (median distance from dental arch to cranial tumor border 20 cm vs. 26 cm, p < 0.001). After a median follow up of 25.6 months for surviving patients, no significant differences for OS and PFS were noticed comparing nCRT + S and dCRT. However, the rate of local tumor recurrence was significantly higher in patients treated with dCRT than in those treated with nCRT + S (38% vs. 10%, p = 0.002). Within a multivariate Cox regression model, age, tumor location, and tumor grading were the only independent parameters affecting OS and PFS. In addition to that, proximal tumor location was the only parameter independently associated with an increased risk for local treatment failure.
conclusionIn E-SCC patients treated with either dCRT or nCRT + S, a higher rate of local tumor recurrence was seen in patients treated with dCRT than in patients treated with nCRT + S. There was at least a trend towards an improved OS and PFS in patients undergoing nCRT + S. However, this should be interpreted with caution, because proximal tumor location was the only parameter independently affecting the risk of local tumor recurrence.
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.