Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33760115›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of oncology2021

Real‑world challenge for clinicians treating advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (Review).

Mark A Baxter, Russell D Petty, Daniel Swinson, Peter S Hall, Shane O'Hanlon

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Mark A BaxterDivision of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee DD2 1SY, Scotland, UK.
Russell D PettyDivision of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, University of Dundee, Dundee DD2 1SY, Scotland, UK.
Daniel SwinsonDepartment of Oncology, St. James's Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.
Peter S HallEdinburgh Cancer Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH4 2XR, Scotland, UK.
Shane O'HanlonDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin 4, D04 N2E0, Republic of Ireland.
University of Dundee · GBEdinburgh Cancer Research · GBLeeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust · GBSt. Vincent's University Hospital · IE

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CAF/20/01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GOA) is a disease of older people. Incidence is rising in the developed world and the majority of patients present with advanced disease. Based on clinical trial data, systemic chemotherapy in the advanced setting is associated with improvements in quality of life and survival. However, there is a recognised mismatch between trial populations and the patients encountered in clinical practice in terms of age, comorbidity and fitness. Appropriate patient selection is essential to safely deliver effective treatment. In this narrative review, we discuss the challenges faced by clinicians when assessing real‑world patients with advanced GOA for systemic therapy. We also highlight the importance of frailty screening and the current available evidence we can use to guide our management.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAgedAge FactorsAntineoplastic AgentsClinical Trials as TopicEsophageal NeoplasmsHumansQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeAntineoplastic Agentsadvanced gastroesophageal cancerfrailtygeriatric oncologyreal‑worldreduced performance status

Identifiers

PMID33760115
PMCPMC7979263
OpenAlexW3138725790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.