Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36187722›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2022

Use of a non-endoscopic immunocytological device (Cytosponge™) for post chemoradiotherapy surveillance in patients with oesophageal cancer in the UK (CYTOFLOC): A multicentre feasibility study.

Christopher M Jones, Heather O'Connor, Maria O'Donovan, Daniel Hayward, Adrienn Blasko, Ruth Harman, Shalini Malhotra, Irene Debiram-Beecham, Bincy Alias, Adam Bailey and 12 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03529669 (Evaluation of a Non-Endoscopic Immunocytological Device), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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.

NCT03529669 nacompletednot on this map

Evaluation of a Non-Endoscopic Immunocytological Device (Cytosponge™) for Post Chemo-radiotherapy Surveillance in Patients With Oesophageal Cancer -a Feasibility Study.

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of OxfordRan2018 to 2020Enrolled41ConditionsOesophageal CancerArmsCytosponge™
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

22 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher M JonesDepartment of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Heather O'ConnorOxford Clinical Trials Research Unit, Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Maria O'DonovanCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Daniel HaywardEarly Cancer Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Adrienn BlaskoEarly Cancer Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Ruth HarmanOncology Clinical Trials Office, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Shalini MalhotraCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Irene Debiram-BeechamEarly Cancer Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Bincy AliasEarly Cancer Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Adam BaileyOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Andrew BatemanSouthampton University Hospitals NHS Trust, Southampton, UK.
Tom D L CrosbyVelindre Cancer Centre, Velindre University NHS Trust, Cardiff, UK.
Stephen FalkBristol Haematology and Oncology Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK.
Simon GollinsNorth Wales Cancer Treatment Centre, Glan Clwyd Hospital, Denbighshire, UK.
Maria A HawkinsDepartment of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London, London, UK.
Sudarshan KadriLeicester General Hospital, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK.
Stephanie LevyOncology Clinical Trials Office, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Ganesh RadhakrishnaChristie Hospital, The Christie Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Rajarshi RoyCastle Hill Hospital, Hull University Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Hull, UK.
Raj SripadamThe Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Rebecca C FitzgeraldEarly Cancer Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Somnath MukherjeeOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
University of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBCastle Hill Hospital · GBClatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust · GBGlan Clwyd Hospital · GBLeicester General Hospital · GBThe Christie Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GBVelindre NHS Trust · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 22173Cancer Research UK 28870Medical Research Council MR/W014122/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Effective surveillance strategies are required for patients diagnosed with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) or adenocarcinoma (OAC) for whom chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is used as a potentially-curative, organ-sparing, alternative to surgery. In this study, we evaluated the safety, acceptability and tolerability of a non-endoscopic immunocytological device (the Cytosponge™) to assess treatment response following CRT. Methods: This multicentre, single-arm feasibility trial took place in 10 tertiary cancer centres in the UK. Patients aged at least 16 years diagnosed with OSCC or OAC, and who were within 4-16 weeks of completing definitive or neo-adjuvant CRT, were included. Participants were required to have a Mellow-Pinkas dysphagia score of 0-2 and be able to swallow tablets. All patients underwent a single Cytosponge™ assessment in addition to standard of care (which included post-treatment endoscopic evaluation with biopsy for patients undergoing definitive CRT; surgery for those who received neo-adjuvant CRT). The primary outcome was the proportion of consented, evaluable patients who successfully underwent Cytosponge™ assessment. Secondary and tertiary outcomes included safety, study consent rate, acceptance rate, the suitability of obtained samples for biomarker analysis, and the comparative efficacy of Cytosponge™ to standard histology (endoscopy and biopsy or post-resection specimen) in assessing for residual disease. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03529669. Findings: Between 18 Interpretation: Use of the Cytosponge Funding: Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council.

Indexed as

ChemoradiationCytospongeOesophageal CancerRadiationSurveillance

Identifiers

PMID36187722
PMCPMC9519482
OpenAlexW4296849235

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.