ArticleThoracic cancer2021
Optimal radiotherapy dose in cervical esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy: A population based study.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of radiation dose on the efficacy of definitive chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced esophageal carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer biology & therapy · 2023Pooled it
- Effects of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) on survival benefits and poor prognostic factors in patients with cervical cancer.Biomedical engineering online · 2025Article
- Definitive chemo-radiotherapy in cervical oesophageal cancer: a comprehensive review of literature.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2024Review
- High vs. low radiotherapy dose in locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients treated with neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy: an endemic area population-based study.Discover oncology · 2022Article
- Optimal radiotherapy dose in cervical esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy: A population based study.Thoracic cancer · 2021Article
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 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe optimal radiotherapy dose for locally advanced cervical esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (C-ESqCC) treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (dCCRT) is unclear. Here, we aimed to compare the survival of those treated with high dose versus standard dose via a population based approach.
methodsEligible C-ESqCC patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2017 were identified via the Taiwan Cancer Registry. We used propensity score (PS) weighting to balance observable potential confounders between groups. The hazard ratio (HR) of death and incidence of esophageal cancer mortality (IECM) were compared between high (60-70 Gy) and standard dose (50-50.4 Gy). We also evaluated the outcome in supplementary analyses via alternative approaches.
resultsOur primary analysis consisted of 141 patients in whom covariates were well balanced after PS weighting. The HR of death when high dose was compared with standard dose was 0.65 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.4-1.03, p = 0.07). The HR of IECM was 0.74 (p = 0.45). The HR of OS remained similarly insignificant in supplementary analyses.
conclusionsWe observed a trend in favor of high radiotherapy dose versus standard dose for C-ESqCC treated with dCCRT in this population-based nonrandomized study. Further studies are needed to confirm the findings of the study.
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.