Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36937445›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2023

Chemoradiotherapy in geriatric patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus: Multi-center analysis on the value of standard treatment in the elderly.

Tilman Bostel, Sati Akbaba, Daniel Wollschläger, Arnulf Mayer, Eirini Nikolaidou, Markus Murnik, Simon Kirste, Alexander Rühle, Anca-Ligia Grosu, Jürgen Debus and 5 more

Open access · goldFull text read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Management of esogastric cancer in older patients.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

15 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Tilman BostelDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Sati AkbabaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Daniel WollschlägerGerman Cancer Consortium (Deutsches Konsortium fur Translationale Krebsforschung - DKTK) Partner Site Mainz, German Cancer Research Center (Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum - DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Arnulf MayerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Eirini NikolaidouDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Markus MurnikDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Freiburg - Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany.
Simon KirsteDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Freiburg - Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany.
Alexander RühleDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Freiburg - Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany.
Anca-Ligia GrosuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Freiburg - Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany.
Jürgen DebusDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Christian FottnerGerman Cancer Consortium (Deutsches Konsortium fur Translationale Krebsforschung - DKTK) Partner Site Mainz, German Cancer Research Center (Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum - DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Markus MoehlerGerman Cancer Consortium (Deutsches Konsortium fur Translationale Krebsforschung - DKTK) Partner Site Mainz, German Cancer Research Center (Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum - DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Peter GrimmingerGerman Cancer Consortium (Deutsches Konsortium fur Translationale Krebsforschung - DKTK) Partner Site Mainz, German Cancer Research Center (Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum - DKFZ), Heidelberg, Germany.
Heinz SchmidbergerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Nils Henrik NicolayDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Freiburg - Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany.
German Cancer Research Center · DEJohannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEUniversity Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEHeidelberg University · DELeipzig University · DEUniversity of Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: To evaluate the tolerability and outcomes of chemoradiation in elderly patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Materials and methods: This multi-center retrospective analysis included 161 patients with SCC of the esophagus with a median age of 73 years (range 65-89 years) treated with definitive or neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy between 2010 and 2019 at 3 large comprehensive cancer centers in Germany. Locoregional control (LRC), progression-free survival (PFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), overall survival (OS), and treatment-associated toxicities were analyzed, and parameters determining patient outcomes and treatment tolerance were assessed. Results: The delivery of radiotherapy without dose reduction was possible in 149 patients (93%). In 134 patients (83%), concomitant chemotherapy was initially prescribed; however, during the course of therapy, 41% of these patients (n = 55) required chemotherapy de-escalation due to treatment-related toxicities. Fifty-two patients (32%) experienced higher-grade acute toxicities, and 22 patients (14%) higher-grade late toxicities. The 2-year LRC, DMFS, PFS, and OS rates amounted to 67.5%, 33.8%, 31.4%, and 40.4%, respectively. Upon multivariate analysis, full-dose concomitant chemotherapy (vs. no or modified chemotherapy) was associated with significantly better DMFS (p=0.005), PFS (p=0.005) and OS (p=0.001). Furthermore, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by tumor resection (vs. definitive chemoradiotherapy or definitive radiotherapy alone) significantly improved PFS (p=0.043) and OS (p=0.049). We could not identify any clinico-pathological factor that was significantly associated with LRC. Furthermore, definitive (chemo)radiotherapy, brachytherapy boost and stent implantation were significantly associated with higher-grade acute toxicities (p<0.001, p=0.002 and p=0.04, respectively). The incidence of higher-grade late toxicities was also significantly associated with the choice of therapy, with a higher risk for late toxicities when treatment was switched from neoadjuvant to definitive (chemo)radiotherapy compared to primary definitive (chemo)radiotherapy (p<0.001). Conclusions: Chemoradiation with full-dose and unmodified concurrent chemotherapy has a favorable prognostic impact in elderly ESCC patients; however, about half of the analyzed patients required omission or adjustment of chemotherapy due to comorbidities or toxicities. Therefore, the identification of potential predictive factors for safe administration of concurrent chemotherapy in elderly ESCC patients requires further exploration to optimize treatment in this vulnerable patient cohort.

Indexed as

chemoradiationelderly patientsesophageal cancerradiotherapysquamous cell cancer

Identifiers

PMID36937445
PMCPMC10022427
OpenAlexW4323041719

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read132
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.