ArticleThoracic cancer2020
Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for clinical node-negative esophageal carcinoma.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Commentary: Balancing Upfront Surgery and Neoadjuvant Therapy in Clinically Node-Negative T2-3 Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Journal of chest surgery · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a prognostic nomogram for esophageal cancer patients based on SEER Asian population.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Effect of preoperative radiotherapy on the prognosis of patients with stage cTxN0M0 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: propensity score matching analysis based on SEER database.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- The predictive value of peripheral blood cells and lymphocyte subsets in oesophageal squamous cell cancer patients with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) on early stage esophageal cancer is unknown. Here, we compared the outcomes after esophagectomy alone or nCRT plus surgery for clinically staged node-negative esophageal cancer.
methodsWe searched the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database for patients with clinically node-negative (cN0) esophageal cancer from 2004 to 2016 who underwent surgery alone or nCRT plus surgery. Propensity score matching and Cox regression analysis were used to identify covariates associated with overall survival and cancer-specific survival.
resultsA total of 1587 patients were retrospectively identified, of whom 49.8% (n = 791) received nCRT and 80.2% (n = 1273) were truly node-negative diseases. For the entire cohort, surgery alone was associated with a statistically significant but modest absolute increase in survival outcomes (P < 0.01). After matching, nCRT was associated with improved five-year overall survival for pT3-4N0 (localized) disease (59.6% vs. 37.7%; P < 0.001) and pathological node-positive disease (60.5% vs. 40.7%; P = 0.002). Cox multivariate regression analysis revealed that the addition of nCRT for truly node-negative patients with tumor length ≥ 3 cm, pT1-2N0 (early-staged) and localized disease were independent risk factors for survival than surgery alone (P < 0.01).
conclusionsCompared with surgery alone, patients with cN0 esophageal cancer with pathological node-positive or localized true node-negative disease gain a significant survival benefit from nCRT. However, nCRT plus surgery was associated with decreased survival for early-staged true node-negative patients. This finding may have significant implications on the use of neoadjuvant chemoradiation in patients with cN0 disease.
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.