Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32841543›Full record

Trial reportCancer medicine2020

Comparison between the effects of elective nodal irradiation and involved-field irradiation on long-term survival in thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients: A prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled study in China.

Jiahua Lyu, Abulimiti Yisikandaer, Tao Li, Xiaozhi Zhang, Xiaohu Wang, Zhongge Tian, Long Chen, Bing Lu, Hong Chen, Jie Yang and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Approach to Localized Squamous Cell Cancer of the Esophagus.Current treatment options in oncology · 2022
    Review
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

17 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Jiahua LyuSchool of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Abulimiti YisikandaerThe Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Xinjiang, China.
Tao LiSchool of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9563-5639
Xiaozhi ZhangThe First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
Xiaohu WangGansu Cancer Hospital, Lanzhou, China.
Zhongge TianWu Wei Tumor Hospital, Wu Wei, China.
Long ChenThe Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Guangxi, China.
Bing LuGuizhou Cancer Hospital, Guiyang, China.
Hong ChenKunming General Hospital of Chengdu Military Region, Kunming, China.
Jie YangXinjiang Renmin Hospital, Xinjiang, China.
Qifeng WangSichuan Cancer Hospital Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Jinnrong ZhangThe Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Xinjiang, China.
Youguo MaWu Wei Tumor Hospital, Wu Wei, China.
Rui LiuThe First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9886-949X
Ruifeng LiuGansu Cancer Hospital, Lanzhou, China.
Aiguri HageThe Affiliated Tumor Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Xinjiang, China.
Jinyi LangSichuan Cancer Hospital Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China · CNGansu Provincial Hospital · CNXinjiang Medical University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University · CNGuangxi Medical University · CNGuizhou Cancer Hospital · CNKunming General Hospital of Chengdu Military Command · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study's initial results revealed significant decreases in treatment-related esophagitis and pneumonitis cases in patients with thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) treated with involved-field irradiation (IFI), compared to elective nodal irradiation (ENI). This report outlines the long-term trial results, specifically; overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), and locoregional progression-free survival (LRFS). MATERIALS AND

methodsStage II-III thoracic ESCC patients were assigned randomly, in a 1:1 ratio, into either the ENI or IFI arm. Radiation therapy was delivered once a day in 1.8-2.0 Gy fractions to a total dose of 60.0-66.0 Gy to the gross tumor volume and 50.0-54.0 Gy to the clinical target volume. The primary endpoints were acute treatment-related esophagitis and pneumonitis. The results for the primary endpoints were previously published in 2018. In this article, we analyzed the secondary endpoints including PFS, LRFS, MFS, and OS.

resultsBetween April 2012 and October 2016, 228 patients from nine participating centers in China were enrolled into this study and randomly assigned to two treatment groups. For ENI and IFI groups, respectively, the results showed similarity and were as follows: median PFS (20.3 months vs 21.4 months), OS (32.5 months vs 34.9 months), MFS (28.2 months vs 26.0 months), and LRFS (25.0 months vs 26.6 months). In particular, respective OS rates in the ENI and IFI groups were 84.6% and 82.5% after 1 year, 45.1% and 48.7% after 3 years, and 29.8% and 30.7% at 5 years. PFS rates after 1, 3, and 5 years were 58.9%, 34.2%, and 26.9%, respectively, in the ENI arm compared to 64.4%, 30.8%, and 27.7%, respectively, in the IFI arm. Multivariate analysis identified clinical stage and tumor responses as independent predictors of OS. Meanwhile, tumor location, cStage, and tumor response were identified as independent factors influencing PFS.

conclusionIFI was associated with similar survival as ENI in patients with thoracic ESCC, suggesting that IFI is an acceptable treatment method for thoracic ESCC.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedChemoradiotherapyCombined Modality TherapyEsophageal Squamous Cell CarcinomaFemaleHumansLymphatic MetastasisMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPrognosisSurvival AnalysisTreatment OutcomeYoung Adultelective nodal irradiationesophageal cancerinvolved-field irradiationsurvival

Identifiers

PMID32841543
PMCPMC7571810
OpenAlexW3080117407

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.