Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34241725›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2021

Retrospective analysis of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus definitive chemoradiotherapy with proton beam for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Koichi Ogawa, Hitoshi Ishikawa, Katsuji Hisakura, Yuichi Hiroshima, Toshikazu Moriwaki, Takeshi Yamada, Yoshiyuki Yamamoto, Yoshimasa Akashi, Yohei Owada, Yusuke Ohara and 8 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  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

18 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Koichi OgawaDepartment of Gastrointestinal and Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8575, Japan. k-ogawa@md.tsukuba.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5710-4324
Hitoshi IshikawaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National Institutes for Quantum and Radiological Science and Technology, QST Hospital, Chiba, Japan.
Katsuji HisakuraDepartment of Gastrointestinal and Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8575, Japan.
Yuichi HiroshimaDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Proton Medical Research Center, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.
Toshikazu MoriwakiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.
Takeshi YamadaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.
Yoshiyuki YamamotoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.
Yoshimasa AkashiDepartment of Gastrointestinal and Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8575, Japan.
Yohei OwadaDepartment of Gastrointestinal and Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8575, Japan.
Yusuke OharaDepartment of Gastrointestinal and Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8575, Japan.
Tsuyoshi EnomotoDepartment of Gastrointestinal and Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8575, Japan.
Kinji FuruyaDepartment of Gastrointestinal and Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8575, Japan.
Manami DoiDepartment of Gastrointestinal and Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8575, Japan.
Osamu ShimomuraDepartment of Gastrointestinal and Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8575, Japan.
Kazuhiro TakahashiDepartment of Gastrointestinal and Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8575, Japan.
Shinji HashimotoDepartment of Gastrointestinal and Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8575, Japan.
Hideyuki SakuraiDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Proton Medical Research Center, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan.
Tatsuya OdaDepartment of Gastrointestinal and Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8575, Japan.
University of Tsukuba · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis is the first study to compare the long-term outcomes between neoadjuvant chemotherapy + surgery and definitive chemoradiotherapy with proton beam therapy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

methodsWe reviewed patients with clinical stage IB-III esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (UICC 7th edition) who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy + surgery or definitive chemoradiotherapy with proton beam therapy (2009-2017). Overall survival, progression-free survival, and recurrence or regrowth rates were compared between the two treatment groups. Subgroup analyses of overall survival according to baseline characteristics were also performed.

resultsForty-three patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy + surgery (median follow-up 47.4 months) and 60 received definitive chemoradiotherapy with proton beam therapy (median follow-up 51.5 months). Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups except for sex, tumor location, and cT classification. The neoadjuvant chemotherapy + surgery and definitive chemoradiotherapy with proton beam therapy groups had similar 3-year overall survival rates (73.1% and 61.7%, respectively, hazard ratio: 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.49-1.58, p = 0.66), 3-year progression-free survival rates (46.5% and 45%, respectively, hazard ratio: 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.62-1.70, p = 0.92), and recurrence or regrowth rates (53.5% vs. 50.0%, p = 0.84). In the subgroup analysis, favorable survival was observed after definitive chemoradiotherapy with proton beam therapy for cT1-2 disease (hazard ratio 2.58, 95% confidence interval 0.84-7.99) and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy + surgery for cT3 or higher disease (hazard ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.15-0.67, p-for-interaction = 0.002).

conclusionsLong-term outcomes were comparable between the treatments. The choice of the treatment according to cT classification might affect survival.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsEsophageal Squamous Cell CarcinomaHead and Neck NeoplasmsChemoradiotherapyEsophagectomyHumansNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProtonsRetrospective StudiesProtonsChemoradiotherapyEsophageal carcinomaEsophagectomyNeoadjuvant chemotherapyProton beam therapy

Identifiers

PMID34241725
OpenAlexW3179355218

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.