Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35837204›Full record

ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2022

Treatment paradigms and survival outcomes in esophageal adenocarcinoma with liver metastasis: a retrospective cohort study using the SEER database.

Jing Guo, Chang-Yong Tong, Jian-Guang Shi, Xin-Jian Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Jing GuoDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo, China.
Chang-Yong TongDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo, China.
Jian-Guang ShiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo, China.
Xin-Jian LiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Esophageal adenocarcinoma with liver metastasis (EACLM) at the time of diagnosis has a poor prognosis and few therapeutic options. The best treatment options and prognostic factors for EACLM patients are unclear. The present study sought to explore the optimal treatment modalities for and the prognosis of these patients. Methods: Patients diagnosed with EACLM at the time of diagnosis were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database between 2010 and 2015. The last follow-up date was December 31, 2018. Treatment patterns were divided into four groups: local therapy (surgery/radiation), systemic therapy [chemotherapy (CT)], combination therapy (surgery/radiation + CT), and no treatment. The Kaplan-Meier (K-M) method and log-rank test were used for overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS). Univariable and multivariable Cox regression were performed to identify the prognostic factors. Propensity score-matching (PSM) analyses were performed for sensitive analyses. Results: A total of 925 patients diagnosed with EACLM were included in the study. The median OS was 12, 10, 3, and 2 months for combination therapy, systemic therapy, local therapy, and no treatment, respectively (P<0.001). After PSM, the patients who received systemic treatment had a better OS (median 9 Conclusions: EACLM patients might benefit the most from systemic therapy and combination therapy. For patients who are well-tolerated, combination therapy should be considered as a preferable option.

Indexed as

Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC)liver metastasisprognostic factorsurvivaltreatment

Identifiers

PMID35837204
PMCPMC9274064

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.