Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34039375›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2021

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy with S-1 compared with concurrent chemoradiotherapy with docetaxel and cisplatin for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Xi-Lei Zhou, Chang-Hua Yu, Wan-Wei Wang, Fu-Zhi Ji, Yao-Zu Xiong, Wei-Guo Zhu, Yu-Suo Tong

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xi-Lei ZhouDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Huai'an First People's Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Huai'an, Jiangsu, China.
Chang-Hua YuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Huai'an First People's Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Huai'an, Jiangsu, China.
Wan-Wei WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Huai'an First People's Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Huai'an, Jiangsu, China.
Fu-Zhi JiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Huai'an First People's Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Huai'an, Jiangsu, China.
Yao-Zu XiongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Huai'an First People's Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Huai'an, Jiangsu, China.
Wei-Guo ZhuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Huai'an First People's Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Huai'an, Jiangsu, China. jshazwg@126.com.
Yu-Suo TongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Huai'an First People's Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Huai'an, Jiangsu, China. tongyusuo@163.com.
Huaian First People’s Hospital · CNNanjing Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis retrospective study was to assess and compare the toxicity and efficacy of concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) with S-1 or docetaxel and cisplatin in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

methodsPatients with locally advanced ESCC who received CCRT with S-1 (70 mg/m

resultsA total of 175 patients were included in this study (72 in the S-1 group and 103 in the DP group). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two groups. The incidence of grade 3-4 adverse events were significantly lower in the S-1 group than that of the DP group (22.2% vs. 45.6%, p = 0.002). In the DP group, elderly patients (> 60 years) had a significantly higher rate of grade 3-4 adverse events than younger patients (58.1% vs. 31.3%, p = 0.01). The objective overall response rate (complete response + partial response) was 68.1% in the S-1 group, and 73.8% the DP group (p = 0.497). The 3-year overall survival was 34.7% in the S-1 group, and 38.8% in the DP group (p = 0.422). The 3-year progression free survival in the DP group was higher than that in the S-1 group but without significant difference (33.0% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.275).

conclusionCCRT with S-1 is not inferior to CCRT with docetaxel and cisplatin and is better tolerated in in elderly patients with locally advanced ESCC.

Indexed as

ChemoradiotherapyAgedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsCisplatinDocetaxelDose Fractionation, RadiationDrug CombinationsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophageal Squamous Cell CarcinomaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOxonic AcidRetrospective StudiesCisplatinDocetaxelDrug CombinationsOxonic AcidS 1 (combination)TegafurChemoradiotherapyCisplatinDocetaxelEsophageal cancerS-1

Identifiers

PMID34039375
PMCPMC8157673
OpenAlexW3164240528

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.