ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2024
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endoscopic histological validation of clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy for esophageal cancer.Endoscopy · 2026Article
- Dynamic whole-body positron emission tomography/computed tomography for predicting treatment response to chemoradiotherapy in patients with esophageal cancer.Oncology letters · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe curative strategy for patients with esophageal cancer without distant metastases consists of esophagectomy with preceding chemo(radio)therapy (CRT). In 10-40% of patients treated with CRT, no viable tumor is detectable in the resection specimen (pathological complete response (pCR)). This study aims to define the clinical outcomes of patients with a pCR and to assess the accuracy of post-CRT FDG-PET/CT in the detection of a pCR.
methodsFour hundred sixty-three patients with cancer of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction who underwent esophageal resection after CRT between 1994 and 2013 were included. Patients were categorized as pathological complete responders or noncomplete responders. Standardized uptake value (SUV) ratios of 135 post-CRT FDG-PET/CTs were calculated and compared with the pathological findings in the corresponding resection specimens.
resultsOf the 463 included patients, 85 (18.4%) patients had a pCR. During follow-up, 25 (29.4%) of these 85 patients developed recurrent disease. Both 5-year disease-free survival (5y-DFS) and 5-year overall survival (5y-OS) were significantly higher in complete responders compared to noncomplete responders (5y-DFS 69.6% vs. 44.2%; P = 0.001 and 5y-OS 66.5% vs. 43.7%; P = 0.001). Not pCR, but only pN0 was identified as an independent predictor of (disease-free) survival.
conclusionPatients with a pCR have a higher probability of survival compared to noncomplete responders. One third of patients with a pCR do develop recurrent disease, and pCR can therefore not be equated with cure. FDG-PET/CT was inaccurate to predict pCR and therefore cannot be used as a sole diagnostic tool to predict pCR after CRT for esophageal cancer.
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.