ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2022
Neoadjuvant versus definitive radiochemotherapy of locoregionally advanced oesophageal cancer-who benefits?
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dual-tracer PET/CT protocol with [Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2024Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeFor years, there have been discussions on whether neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy followed by surgery (nRCT-S) is superior to definitive radiochemotherapy (dRCT) as the standard of care for locoregionally advanced oesophageal cancer (OC). This retrospective study aimed to evaluate our patient cohort regarding differences in survival and recurrence between nRCT‑S and dRCT.
methodsData from 68 patients with dRCT and 33 patients with nRCT‑S treated from 2010 to 2018 were analysed. Comorbidities were recorded using the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Recurrence patterns were recorded as in-field or out-field. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to compare survival data (overall survival [OS], progression-free survival [PFS], and locoregional control [LRC]).
resultsPatients with nRCT‑S showed significantly lower CCI values than those with dRCT (p = 0.001). The median follow-up was 47 months. The median OS times were 31 months for nRCT‑S and 12 months for dRCT (p = 0.009), the median PFS times were 11 and 9 months, respectively (p = 0.057), and the median LRC times were not reached and 23 months, respectively (p = 0.037). The only further factor with a significant impact on OS was the CCI (p = 0.016). In subgroup analyses for comorbidities regarding differences in OS, the superiority of the nRCT‑S remained almost significant for CCI values 2-6 (p = 0.061).
conclusionOur study showed significantly longer OS and LRC for patients with nRCT‑S than for those with dRCT. Due to different comorbidities in the groups, it can be deduced from the subgroup analysis that patients with few comorbidities seem to especially profit from nRCT‑S.
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.