ArticleThoracic cancer2023
Combined modality therapy for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: Radiation dose and survival analyses.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- TMT-Based Quantitative Proteomic Profiling of Human Esophageal Cancer Cells Reveals the Potential Mechanism and Potential Therapeutic Targets Associated With Radioresistance.Proteomics. Clinical applications · 2025Article
- Combined modality therapy for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: Radiation dose and survival analyses.Thoracic cancer · 2023Article
- Is Site of Radiation Therapy Associated With Pathologic Complete Response in Patients With Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer?Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
- Letter to the Editor: Comment on " Is Site of Radiation Therapy Associated With Pathologic Complete Response in Patients With Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer?"Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to analyze the radiation dose and compare survival among combined modality therapy using modern radiation techniques for patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).
methodsThis retrospective study included patients with clinically staged T1-4N0-3M0 ESCC from 2014 to 2018. Patients who received combined modality therapies with curative intent were enrolled. The overall survival (OS) rates among combined modality therapy were compared. The clinical variables and impacts of radiation dose on survival were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression model.
resultsOf the 259 patients, 141 (54.4%) received definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (DCCRT); 67 (25.9%) underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (NCRT+S); 51 (19.7%) obtained surgery followed by adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (S+ACRT). Two-year OS rates of the DCCRT, NCRT+S and S+ACRT group were 48.9, 61.5 and 51.2%. In the subgroup analysis of DCCRT group, the 2-year OS of patients receiving radiation dose 55-60 Gy was 57.1%. Multivariate analyses showed that clinical stage (p = 0.004), DCCRT with 55-60 Gy (p = 0.043) and NCRT+S with pathological complete response (pCR) (p = 0.014) were significant prognostic factors for better OS. The radiation dose-survival curve demonstrated a highly positive correlation between higher radiation dose and better survival.
conclusionOur results suggest that NCRT+S can provide a favorable survival for patients with ESCC, especially in patients who achieved pCR. The optimal radiation dose might be 55-60 Gy for patients receiving DCCRT via modern radiation techniques. Further randomized clinical studies are required to confirm the survival benefits between NCRT+S and DCCRT with escalated dose.
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.