Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38457244›Full record

SynthesisCancer medicine2024

Pathologic complete response in patients with esophageal cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Charles E Gaber, Jyotirmoy Sarker, Abdullah I Abdelaziz, Ebere Okpara, Todd A Lee, Samuel J Klempner, Ryan D Nipp

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
17.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Observational
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Charles E GaberDepartment of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6752-2968
Jyotirmoy SarkerDepartment of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2528-5458
Abdullah I AbdelazizDepartment of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5039-4322
Ebere OkparaDepartment of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0766-3993
Todd A LeeDepartment of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3619-5367
Samuel J KlempnerMassachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4062-0808
Ryan D NippOU Health Stephenson Cancer Center, Oklahoma University, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4577-3248
University of Illinois Chicago · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USOU Health Stephenson Cancer Center

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNeoadjuvant chemoradiation and chemotherapy are recommended for the treatment of nonmetastatic esophageal cancer. The benefit of neoadjuvant treatment is mostly limited to patients who exhibit pathologic complete response (pCR). Existing estimates of pCR rates among patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy have not been synthesized and lack precision.

methodsWe conducted an independently funded systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42023397402) of pCR rates among patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemo(radiation). Studies were identified from Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL database searches. Eligible studies included trials published from 1992 to 2022 that focused on nonmetastatic esophageal cancer, including the gastroesophageal junction. Histology-specific pooled pCR prevalence was determined using the Freeman-Tukey transformation and a random effects model.

resultsAfter eligibility assessment, 84 studies with 6451 patients were included. The pooled prevalence of pCR after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in squamous cell carcinomas was 9% (95% CI: 6%-14%), ranging from 0% to 32%. The pooled prevalence of pCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiation in squamous cell carcinomas was 32% (95% CI: 26%-39%), ranging from 8% to 66%. For adenocarcinoma, the pooled prevalence of pCR was 6% (95% CI: 1%-12%) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 22% (18%-26%) after neoadjuvant chemoradiation.

conclusionsUnder one-third of patients with esophageal cancer who receive neoadjuvant chemo(radiation) experience pCR. Patients diagnosed with squamous cell carcinomas had higher rates of pCR than those with adenocarcinomas. As pCR represents an increasingly utilized endpoint in neoadjuvant trials, these estimates of pooled pCR rates may serve as an important benchmark for future trial design.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaCarcinoma, Squamous CellEsophageal NeoplasmsChemoradiotherapyHumansNeoadjuvant TherapyPathologic Complete Responsechemotherapyesophageal cancermeta-analysisneoadjuvant chemoradiationpathologic complete response

Identifiers

PMID38457244
PMCPMC10923050
OpenAlexW4392605344

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.