ArticleMolecular and clinical oncology2019
Treatments and outcomes of older patients with esophageal cancer: Comparison with younger patients.
Article in Molecular and clinical oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term prognosis after endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal cancer in older adult patients.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Article
- Chemoradiation for elderly patients (≥ 65 years) with esophageal cancer: a retrospective single-center analysis.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2022Article
- Construction and evaluation of prognostic models for esophageal cancer patients with distant and non-distant metastases: providing a reference process for clinical diagnosis and treatment.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Article
- Outcomes of curative esophageal cancer surgery in elderly: A meta-analysis.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Article
- Development of a predictive nomogram for cause-specific mortality in surgically resected early-stage oesophageal cancer: a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
- Postoperative radiotherapy for the young-old patients with thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A 2-center experience.Medicine · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The number of older patients with esophageal cancer (EC) is increasing due to the population aging and increasing life expectancy. However, no optimal treatment strategy for older patients with EC has been established to date. The aim of the present study was to review and compare the treatment modalities and outcomes of 990 younger and older patients diagnosed with EC in our institution. The patients were divided into younger (≤74 years) and older (≥75 years) groups. The majority of the patients in both groups had early-stage EC and were treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The older patients with locally advanced (stage II and III) EC were more likely to undergo chemoradiotherapy rather than esophagectomy. Among the older patients, 22% selected best supportive care. The disease-specific survival rate of the older patients was significantly lower compared with that of the younger patients, which was likely due to the less intense treatment modalities applied. The prognosis following esophagectomy was significantly better compared with that of chemoradiotherapy in the younger, but not in the older patients. In conclusion, the poorer prognosis of older patients (aged ≥75 years) with stage I EC may improve with multidisciplinary treatment after ESD. Although CRT is currently considered the optimal treatment for older patients with stage II/III EC, more efficient treatment modalities are urgently required.
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.