Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38433231›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2024

Multicenter analysis on the value of standard (chemo)radiotherapy in elderly patients with locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction.

Tilman Bostel, Eirini Nikolaidou, Daniel Wollschläger, Arnulf Mayer, Justus Kaufmann, Anne Hopprich, Alexander Rühle, Anca-Ligia Grosu, Jürgen Debus, Christian Fottner and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

14 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Tilman Bostel *Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany. tilman.bostel@web.de.
Eirini Nikolaidou *Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
Daniel WollschlägerInstitute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics (IMBEI), University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Arnulf MayerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
Justus KaufmannDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
Anne HopprichDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131, Mainz, 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 (DKTK) Partner Site Mainz, German Cancer Research Center (Dkfz), Heidelberg, Germany.
Markus MoehlerGerman Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Partner Site Mainz, German Cancer Research Center (Dkfz), Heidelberg, Germany.
Peter GrimmingerGerman Cancer Consortium (DKTK) Partner Site Mainz, German Cancer Research Center (Dkfz), Heidelberg, Germany.
Heinz SchmidbergerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Mainz, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany.
Nils Henrik NicolayDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Freiburg - Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany.
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEHeidelberg University · DEGerman Cancer Research Center · DECommunity Cancer Center · USLeipzig University · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo assess the tolerability and oncological results of chemoradiation in elderly patients with locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction.

methodsThis multi-center retrospective analysis included 86 elderly patients (≥ 65 years) with esophageal or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (median age 73 years; range 65-92 years) treated with definitive or neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy. The treatment was performed at 3 large comprehensive cancer centers in Germany from 2006 to 2020. Locoregional control (LRC), progression-free survival (PFS), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), overall survival (OS), and treatment-associated toxicities according to CTCAE criteria v5.0 were analyzed, and parameters potentially relevant to patient outcomes were evaluated.

resultsThirty-three patients (38%) were treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery, while the remaining patients received definitive (chemo)radiation. The delivery of radiotherapy without dose reduction was possible in 80 patients (93%). In 66 patients (77%), concomitant chemotherapy was initially prescribed; however, during the course of therapy, 48% of patients (n = 32) required chemotherapy de-escalation due to treatment-related toxicities and comorbidities. Twenty-nine patients (34%) experienced higher-grade acute toxicities and 14 patients (16%) higher-grade late toxicities. The 2-year LRC, DMFS, PFS, and OS amounted to 72%, 49%, 46%, and 52%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery was shown to be associated with significantly better PFS (p = 0.006), DMFS (p = 0.006), and OS (p = 0.004) compared with all non-surgical treatments (pooled definitive radiotherapy and chemoradiation). No such advantage was seen over definitive chemoradiation. The majority of patients with neoadjuvant therapy received standard chemoradiotherapy without dose reduction (n = 24/33, 73%). In contrast, concurrent chemotherapy was only possible in 62% of patients undergoing definitive radiotherapy (n = 33/53), and most of these patients required dose-reduction or modification of chemotherapy (n = 23/33, 70%).

conclusionsIn our analysis, omission of chemotherapy or adjustment of chemotherapy dose during definitive radiotherapy was necessary for the overwhelming majority of elderly esophageal cancer patients not eligible for surgery, and hence resulted in reduced PFS and OS. Therefore, optimization of non-surgical approaches and the identification of potential predictive factors for safe administration of concurrent chemotherapy in elderly patients with (gastro)esophageal adenocarcinoma is required.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaEsophageal NeoplasmsStomach NeoplasmsAgedEsophagogastric JunctionHumansRetrospective StudiesAdenocarcinomaAEGChemoradiationElderly patientsEsophageal cancerGastroesophageal Junction tumorRadiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID38433231
PMCPMC10910868
OpenAlexW4392372179

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.