Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34223965›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2022

Short-term outcome of Ivor Lewis esophagectomy following neoadjuvant chemoradiation versus perioperative chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction: a propensity score-matched analysis.

Patrick Sven Plum, Alexander Damanakis, Lisa Buschmann, Angela Ernst, Rabi Raj Datta, Lars Mortimer Schiffmann, Thomas Zander, Hans Fuchs, Seung-Hun Chon, Hakan Alakus and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Patrick Sven Plum *Department of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplantation Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. Patrick.plum@uk-koeln.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8165-4553
Alexander Damanakis *Department of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplantation Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Lisa BuschmannDepartment of Pediatrics, Klinikum Konstanz, 78464, Constance, Germany.
Angela ErnstInstitute of Medical Statistics and Computational Biology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Rabi Raj DattaDepartment of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplantation Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Lars Mortimer SchiffmannDepartment of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplantation Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Thomas ZanderDepartment I of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Hans FuchsDepartment of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplantation Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Seung-Hun ChonDepartment of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplantation Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Hakan AlakusDepartment of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplantation Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Wolfgang SchröderDepartment of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplantation Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Arnulf Heinrich HölscherCenter for Esophageal Diseases, Elisabeth-Krankenhaus Essen, Klara-Kopp-Weg 1, 45138, Essen, Germany.
Christiane Josephine BrunsDepartment of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplantation Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Marc BludauDepartment of General, Visceral, Cancer and Transplantation Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Cologne, University of Cologne, Kerpener Straße 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
University of Cologne · DEElisabeth-Krankenhaus Essen · DEKlinikum Konstanz · DE

Funding

Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung 2016-Kolleg-19
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with locally advanced esophageal or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma benefit from multimodal therapy concepts including neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT), respectively, perioperative chemotherapy (pCT). However, it remains unclear which treatment is superior concerning postoperative morbidity.

methodsIn this study, we compared the postsurgical survival (30-day/90-day/1-year mortality) (primary endpoint), treatment response, and surgical complications (secondary endpoints) of patients who either received nCRT (CROSS protocol) or pCT (FLOT protocol) due to esophageal/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Between January 2013 and December 2017, 873 patients underwent Ivor Lewis esophagectomy in our high-volume center. 339 patients received nCRT and 97 underwent pCT. After 1:1 propensity score matching (matching criteria: sex, age, BMI, ASA score, and Charlson score), 97 patients per subgroup were included for analysis.

resultsAfter matching, tumor response (ypT/ypN) did not differ significantly between nCRT and pCT (p = 0.118, respectively, p = 0.174). Residual nodal metastasis occurred more often after pCT (p = 0.001). Postsurgical mortality was comparable within both groups. No patient died within 30 or 90 days after surgery while the 1-year survival rate was 72.2% for nCRT and 68.0% for pCT (p = 0.47). Only grade 3a complications according to Clavien-Dindo were increased after pCT (p = 0.04). There was a trend towards a higher rate of pylorospasm within the pCT group (nCRT: 23.7% versus pCT: 37.1%) (p = 0.061). Multivariate analysis identified pCT, younger age, and Charlson score as independent variables for pylorospasm.

conclusionBoth nCRT and pCT are safe and efficient within the multimodal treatment of esophageal/gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. We did not observe differences in postoperative morbidity. However, functional aspects such as gastric emptying might be more frequent after pCT.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaEsophageal NeoplasmsChemoradiotherapyEsophagectomyEsophagogastric JunctionHumansNeoadjuvant TherapyPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeChemoradiationChemotherapyEsophageal/gastroesophageal adenocarcinomaIvor Lewis esophagectomyNeoadjuvant treatmentOutcomePrognosis

Identifiers

PMID34223965
PMCPMC9016042
OpenAlexW3179295440

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.