ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal oncology2022
Does chemotherapy regimen matter in the neoadjuvant treatment of esophageal cancer?
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 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.
- Weekly cisplatin and nab-paclitaxel neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy increases pathological complete response in locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A real-world study.Oncology letters · 2026Article
- Prognostic Value of the PILE Score in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Higher Neoadjuvant Radiation Dose is Associated with Lower Overall Survival in Resected Esophageal Cancer: A Propensity-Matched National Cancer Database Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Application of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant chemotherapy in curative surgery for esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has become the mainstay of treatment for locally advanced esophageal cancer. CALGB 9781 trial established cisplatin and 5-flourouracil (5-Fu) with radiotherapy as superior to surgery alone while the CROSS trial established paclitaxel, carboplatin, and radiotherapy as superior to surgery alone. Previous data has been unclear as to which regimen provides a superior pathologic response. This study aims to look at this. This study aims to look at this. Methods: A retrospective chart review at a single institution of patients who underwent esophagectomies after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with either cisplatin and 5-Fu or carboplatin and paclitaxel between 2012-2020 was performed. Demographics as well as staging, response rates, and modified Ryan scores were collected. Univariate analysis between the two groups was performed. Results: A total of 82 patients were identified between 2012-2020 who underwent esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. In total, 74 (90.2%) received carboplatin and paclitaxel while 8 (9.8%) received 5-Fu and carboplatin. Both groups included patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and adenocarcinoma. No significant factors were found in terms of patient comorbidities or pathologic staging. There was no significant difference in modified Ryan score between the two groups (P=0.745). Conclusions: This study evaluates the degree and presence of pathologic response between the two neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy modalities used for esophageal cancer. Our results, in contrast to other studies, suggest no significant difference with regards to pathologic response rate. Furthermore, our findings suggest that use of the least toxic regimen would make sense.
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.