ArticleBJS open2020
Propensity score regression analysis of oesophageal adenocarcinoma treatment with surgery alone or neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Article in BJS open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundPropensity score (PS) regression analysis can be used to minimize differences between cohorts in order to perform comparisons The aim of this study was to use PS analysis to examine the outcomes of oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) treatment with surgery alone or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) followed by surgery (NACS), to see whether the benefits seen in a randomized trial (MRC OE02) were reproducible in a UK cancer network clinical practice.
methodsConsecutive patients undergoing potentially curative treatment for OAC in a regional cancer network were studied. Multiple regression models, including PS analysis, were developed to account for confounding factors. Primary outcome measures were disease-free (DFS) and overall (OS) survival.
resultsA cohort of 440 patients was included in a regression analysis controlling for confounders (176 surgery alone, 264 NACS). NACS was associated with a higher positive margin status rate compared with surgery alone (42·4 versus 26·7 per cent respectively; P < 0·001), an inferior 5-year DFS rate (32·1 versus 56·9 per cent; P < 0·001) and a worse 5-year OS rate (27·5 versus 47·3 per cent; P < 0·001). On regression adjustment based on propensity scores, NACS was not associated with DFS (P = 0·220) or OS (P = 0·431). The Mandard tumour regression grade (TRG) score was significantly associated with DFS (hazard ratio (HR) 0·21, 95 per cent c.i. 0·07 to 0·70) and OS (HR 0·27, 0·13 to 0·59). Five-year DFS and OS rates related to TRG were 64 and 62 per cent respectively for 25 good responders versus 8·0 and 8·6 per cent for 127 poor responders (P < 0·001).
conclusionThe prescription of NAC to all patients with OAC risks delay in effective treatment of patients who are relatively chemoresistant, given the variability in pathological response. Identification of patients with OAC who may derive the most benefit from NAC should be the focus.
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.