Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31941487›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2020

Does chemoradiotherapy benefit elderly patients with esophageal squamous cell cancer? A propensity-score matched analysis on multicenter data (3JECROG R-03A).

Mingqiu Chen, Xiaohong Liu, Chun Han, Xin Wang, Yidian Zhao, Qingsong Pang, Xinchen Sun, Gaofeng Li, Kaixian Zhang, Ling Li and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

14 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Mingqiu ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Cancer Hospital & Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital, No. 420, Fumalu Road, Jinan District, Fuzhou City, Fujian Province, People's Republic of China.
Xiaohong LiuThe Graduate School, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, 350122, Fujian, China.
Chun HanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, 050011, China.
Xin WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China.
Yidian ZhaoDepartment 4th of Radiation Oncology, Anyang Cancer Hospital, Anyang, 455000, China.
Qingsong PangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, 300060, China.
Xinchen SunDepartment of Radiation Oncology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210029, China.
Gaofeng LiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Beijing Hospital, National Center of Gerontology, Beijing, 100730, China.
Kaixian ZhangDepartment of Oncology, Tengzhou Central People's Hospital, Tengzhou, 277599, China.
Ling LiDepartment of Oncology, Tengzhou Central People's Hospital, Tengzhou, 277599, China.
Xueying QiaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, 050011, China.
Yu LinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Cancer Hospital & Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital, No. 420, Fumalu Road, Jinan District, Fuzhou City, Fujian Province, People's Republic of China.
Junqiang ChenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Fujian Cancer Hospital & Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital, No. 420, Fumalu Road, Jinan District, Fuzhou City, Fujian Province, People's Republic of China. junqiangc@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1484-9382
Zefen XiaoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, 100021, China. xiaozefen@sina.com.
Fujian Medical University · CNChinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNHebei Medical University · CNTengzhou Central People's Hospital · CNAnyang Tumor Hospital · CNBeijing Hospital · CNJiangsu Province Hospital · CNTianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital · CN

Funding

Fujian Provincial Department of Science and Technology 2017Y9079Fujian Provincial Department of Science and Technology 2018J01306Fujian Provincial Health & Family Planning Commission(CN) 2016-ZQN-32Fujian Provincial Platform for Medical Laboratory Research, and Key Laboratory for Tumor Individualized Active Immunity FYKFKT- 2017015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or radiotherapy alone (RT-alone) in elderly patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

methodsThe clinical data of patients with ESCC treated with RT-alone or CRT were collected and retrospectively reviewed. The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival (OS) rates and the clinical characteristics correlated with survival were analyzed statistically. Propensity score matching (PSM) analyses were used to compensate for differences in baseline characteristics between the CRT and RT-alone groups to confirm the survival difference.

resultsA total of 729 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria were reviewed. Diabetes, primary tumor volume (pTV), primary tumor location (pTLo), clinical T stage,(cT) clinical N stage (cN), clinical M stage (cM) and short-term response to RT were independent factors influencing OS (P = 0.002-0.044). The 5-year OS rate was 26.6, 26.0 and 30.1% in the whole cohort, RT-alone and CRT groups, respectively. The survival difference between RT alone and CRT was not significant before or following PSM. Compared with the corresponding subgroups treated with RT alone, CRT significantly benefited patients with diabetes (P = 0.003), cT4 (P = 0.030) and cN0 (P = 0.049), whereas no benefit was identified between CRT and RT alone in the other subgroups, including cT1-3, cN1, cM, pTLo, pTV, age and gender.

conclusionsCRT with the current chemotherapy regimens may not improve the survival of elderly ESCC patients compared to RT-alone, except in patients with cT4 stage, cN0 stage or diabetes. However, due to the limitation of the retrospective nature of the current study, further clinical trials are required for confirmation.

Indexed as

AgedChemoradiotherapyCombined Modality TherapyComorbidityEsophageal Squamous Cell CarcinomaFemaleHumansMaleNeoplasm StagingPrognosisTreatment OutcomeConcurrent chemoradiotherapyElderlyEsophageal squamous cell carcinomaSurvival

Identifiers

PMID31941487
PMCPMC6964023
OpenAlexW3005277675

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.