ArticleCancer medicine2019
Comparison of efficacy, safety, and costs between neoadjuvant hypofractionated radiotherapy and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for esophageal carcinoma.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validity of Using Pathological Response as a Surrogate for Overall Survival in Neoadjuvant Studies for Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Pain Relief of Patients With Spinal Metastasis: A Real-World Analysis.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Preoperative accelerated hypofractionated radiotherapy (PHYPORT): state of art and potential clinical application.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2025Review
- Electronic patient-reported outcome-based surveillance system to evaluate safety and efficacy of preoperative immunochemotherapy with or without short-term chemoradiation in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ePRO-PICCRT): protocol for a prospective, single-arm, phase II study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Pathologic response evaluation of localized or locally advanced esophageal carcinoma to induction chemotherapy followed by preoperative concurrent chemotherapy and hypofractionated radiotherapy: a clinical trial.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Impact of outpatient radiotherapy on direct non-medical cost in patients in the Central Macro Region of Peru 2021.Ecancermedicalscience · 2023Article
- Benefits of Adopting Hypofractionated Radiotherapy as a Standard of Care in Low-and Middle-Income Countries.JCO global oncology · 2022Review
- Impact of radiotherapy on the immune landscape in oesophageal adenocarcinoma.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Comparison of efficacy, safety, and costs between neoadjuvant hypofractionated radiotherapy and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for esophageal carcinoma.Cancer medicine · 2019Article
- Outcomes and Tolerability of Definitive and Preoperative Chemoradiation in Elderly Patients With Esophageal Cancer: A Retrospective Institutional Review.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe compared the efficacy, safety, and costs of hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT) and conventional fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT) for the neoadjuvant treatment of esophageal cancer. MATERIALS AND
methodsOverall, 110 patients with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy from October 2002 to July 2017 were retrospectively included and divided into a HFRT group (42 patients received 30 Gray [Gy]/10 fractions for 2 weeks) and a CFRT group [68 patients received 40 Gy/20 fractions for 4 weeks]. Concurrent chemotherapy comprised cisplatin combined with either 5-FU or taxane. Surgery was performed 3-8 weeks after radiotherapy. We compared the outcomes, adverse events, and costs between the two groups.
resultsPathological downstaging was achieved in 78.6% of the HFRT group and 83.8% of the CFRT group (P = 0.612). Compared with the CFRT group, the HFRT group had similar pathological complete response (pCR) (33.3% vs 35.3%; P = 0.834), median overall survival (OS) (40.8 months vs 44.9 months; P = 0.772) and progression free survival (32.7 months vs 35.4 months; P = 0.785). The perioperative complication rates were also similar between the groups, but the treatment time and costs were significantly reduced in the HFRT group (P < 0.05). Finally, multivariate analysis identified cN0 stage, pathological downstaging and pCR as independent predictors of better OS.
conclusionPreoperative HFRT is effective and safe for esophageal cancer. Moreover, it is similar to CFRT in terms of overall survival and toxicity and is cost effective and less time consuming.
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.