Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37721586›Full record

ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2023

Oncological recurrence following pathological complete response after neoadjuvant treatment in patients with esophageal cancer - a retrospective cohort study.

Julian Hipp, Jasmina Kuvendjiska, Hans Christian Hillebrecht, Stephan Herrmann, Sylvia Timme-Bronsert, Stefan Fichtner-Feigl, Jens Hoeppner, Markus K Diener

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Julian HippDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79100, Freiburg, Germany.
Jasmina KuvendjiskaDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79100, Freiburg, Germany.
Hans Christian HillebrechtDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79100, Freiburg, Germany.
Stephan HerrmannDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79100, Freiburg, Germany.
Sylvia Timme-BronsertInstitute for Surgical Pathology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine - University of Freiburg, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.
Stefan Fichtner-FeiglDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79100, Freiburg, Germany.
Jens HoeppnerDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, UKSH Campus Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Germany.
Markus K DienerDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79100, Freiburg, Germany. markus.diener@uniklinik-freiburg.de.
University Medical Center Freiburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate recurrence in patients with post-neoadjuvant pathological complete response (pCR) and in patients with complete response of primary tumor but persisting lymphatic spread of disease (non-pCR, ypT0ypN +) of esophageal cancer.

methodsSeventy-five patients (63 pCR, 12 non-pCR) were analyzed retrospectively. Pattern and incidence of local and distant recurrence as well as the impact on overall (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were evaluated. The efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy according to FLOT protocol was compared to neoadjuvant chemoradiation according to CROSS protocol.

resultsIn the pCR group, isolated local recurrence was diagnosed in 3%, while no isolated local recurrence was observed in the non-pCR group due to the high incidence of distant recurrence. Distant recurrence was most common in both cohorts (isolated distant recurrence: pCR group 10% to non-pCR group 55%; simultaneous distant and local recurrence: pCR group 3% to non-pCR group 18%). Median time to distant recurrence was 5.5 months, and median time to local recurrence was 8.0 months. Cumulative incidence of distant recurrence (with and without simultaneous local recurrence) was 16% (± 6%) in pCR patients and 79% (± 13%) in non-pCR patients (hazard ratio (HR) 0.123) estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. OS (HR 0.231) and DFS (HR 0.226) were significantly improved in patients with pCR compared to patients with non-pCR. Advantages for FLOT protocol compared to CROSS protocol, especially with regard to distant control of disease (HR 0.278), were observed (OS (HR 0.361), DFS (HR 0.226)).

conclusionDistant recurrence is the predominant site of treatment failure in patients with pCR and non-pCR grade 1a regression, whereby recurrence rates are much higher in patients with non-pCR.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsNeoadjuvant TherapyDisease-Free SurvivalHumansRetrospective StudiesTreatment FailureChemoradiationChemotherapyEsophageal cancerEsophagogastric junction cancerMultimodal treatmentNeoadjuvant treatmentOncologic surgeryPathological complete responseVisceral surgery

Identifiers

PMID37721586
PMCPMC10506930
OpenAlexW4386818249

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.