SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2022
The role of involved field irradiation versus elective nodal irradiation in definitive radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer- a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Practice of radiation therapy for squamous cell esophageal cancer in Austria - a survey on behalf of the ÖGRO-GIT.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- The association between adherence to elective nodal volume guidelines and reduced distant metastasis in esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer: a retrospective analysis of elective nodal irradiation.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- Involved-Field Irradiation Versus Elective Nodal Irradiation in Patients With Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Treated With Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy.Cancer medicine · 2025Article
- Radiotherapy treatment planning for esophageal cancer: JASTRO guidelines 2024 for radiotherapy treatment planning.Journal of radiation research · 2025Review
- Advances in the treatment of unresectable locally advanced esophageal squamous carcinoma (Review).Molecular and clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Dose escalation in radical radio(chemo)therapy for cervical and upper thoracic esophageal cancer with 3DCRT/IMRT (ChC&UES): a multicenter retrospective study.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2024Article
- Knowledge domains and emerging trends in radiotherapy in oesophageal cancer from 2004 to 2023: a bibliometric analysis and visualization study.Journal of radiation research · 2024Article
- Recent progress in chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Japanese journal of clinical oncology · 2024Review
- Could elective nodal irradiation for locally advanced rectal cancer be omitted in the context of total neoadjuvant therapy? An analysis of the recurrence sites of rectal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Definitive chemo-radiotherapy in cervical oesophageal cancer: a comprehensive review of literature.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2024Review
- Editorial: Methods in radiation oncology.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- A comparative study of elective nodal irradiation and involved field irradiation in elderly patients with advanced esophageal cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to analyze whether involved field irradiation (IFI) is associated with improving survival outcomes and reducing adverse events compared with elective nodal irradiation (ENI) in patients of esophageal cancer who underwent definitive radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. Summary background data: Radiotherapy plays an important role for not surgery patients. However, the role of radiation target size is still uncertain. Methods: We searched Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Central for English and non-English publications comparing esophageal cancer patients who received radiotherapy with IFI with those with ENI. Primary outcomes included overall survival (OS) and adverse events related to radiotherapy. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Standard for non-randomized studies. We evaluated the certainty of evidence by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Results: Totally, 23 studies with 4120 patients were included. IFI group demonstrated significant improvement in the OS rates at 5 years, but not at 1, 2, and 3 years, compared with the ENI group (pooled Risk Ratio [RR], 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68-0.90; P = 0.0004; high certainty). In addition, IFI demonstrated a significant decrease in the incidence of grade ≥2 acute esophagitis (AE) (pooled RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.90; P = 0.0005; high certainty) and grade ≥3 AE (pooled RR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.38-0.69; P < 0.00001; high certainty) compared with ENI, but not in the incidence of grades ≥3 acute pneumonia, late esophagitis, and late pneumonia. Conclusions: Compared to ENI, IFI demonstrated significant improvement in OS at 5 years. The addition of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) to IFI increased the 5-year OS; however, similar results were not observed with the addition of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy to IFI and ENI. Furthermore, IFI demonstrated a significant decrease in grade ≥2 and grade ≥3 AE, while IMRT demonstrated no difference in the incidence of grade ≥3 AE. IFI and ENI do not differ in the incidence of grades ≥3 acute pneumonia, late esophagitis, and late pneumonia.
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.