ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2019
Elective nodal irradiation versus involved-field irradiation in patients with esophageal cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy: a network meta-analysis.
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 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Review
- Radiotherapy combined with immunotherapy for esophageal cancer: current status and challenge.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026Review
- Segmented jaw-locking in IMRT for upper thoracic esophageal cancer: A plan complexity-driven approach to lung dose reduction.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Involved-Field Irradiation Versus Elective Nodal Irradiation in Patients With Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Treated With Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Neoadjuvant radiation target volume definition in esophageal squamous cell cancer: a multicenter recommendations from Chinese experts.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- The Key Clinical Questions of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer-A Review.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Patterns of Recurrence in Locally Advanced Resectable Oesophageal Carcinoma: Retrospective Review from a Tertiary Cancer Centre in South India.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2021Article
- Para-aortic lymph node metastasis in lower Thoracic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma after Radical Esophagectomy: a CT-based atlas and its clinical implications for Adjuvant Radiotherapy.Journal of Cancer · 2021Article
- Salvage camrelizumab plus apatinib for relapsed esophageal neuroendocrine carcinoma after esophagectomy: a case report and review of the literature.Cancer biology & therapy · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the comparative efficacy and safety of elective nodal irradiation (ENI) and involved-field irradiation (IFI) in patients with esophageal cancer (EC) receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery (nCRTS). MATERIAL AND
methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and major meetings were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared at least two of the following treatment regimens: nCRTS, neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery (nCTS), and surgery (S) alone. Overall survival (OS) was the primary outcomes of interest, reported as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare all regimens simultaneously.
resultsTwenty-nine RCTs with a total of 5212 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Both nCRTS adopting ENI (nCRTS-ENI) (HR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.48-0.83) and nCRTS adopting IFI (nCRTS-IFI) (HR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.66-0.86) significantly improved OS compared to S alone. No significant differences in OS, locoregional recurrence, distant metastases, R0 resection and postoperative mortality were observed between nCRTS-ENI and nCRTS-IFI. In subgroup analyses, nCRTS-IFI showed a significant OS advantage over nCTS (HR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.63-0.96) and S alone (HR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.38-0.68) for esophagus squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), but nCRTS-ENI did not; nCRTS-ENI using three-dimensional radiotherapy (3D-RT) resulted in an improved OS compared to that with 2D-RT (HR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.34-0.99). Based on treatment ranking in term of OS, nCRTS-IFI (0.90) and nCRTS-ENI (0.96) was ranked the most effective treatment for ESCC and esophagus adenocarcinoma (EAC), respectively.
conclusionEither adopting ENI or IFI, nCRTS is likely to be the optimal treatment for resectable EC, and nCRTS-IFI and nCRTS-ENI seem to be more effective for patients with ESCC and EAC, respectively. Future head to head comparison trials are needed to confirm these findings.
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.