ArticleEsophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society2024
Comparison of proton-based definitive chemoradiotherapy and surgery-based therapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a multi-center retrospective Japanese cohort study.
Article in Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Proton beam therapy for esophageal cancer compared to existing treatments, including X-ray therapy and surgery.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Review
- Long-term clinical outcome of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery.American journal of cancer research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProton-based, definitive chemoradiotherapy (P-CRT) for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) previously showed comparable survival outcomes with the surgery-based therapy, i.e., neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by esophagectomy (NAC-S), in a single-institutional study. This study aimed to validate this message in a Japanese multicenter study.
methodsEleven Japanese esophageal cancer specialty hospitals have participated. A total of 518 cases with clinical Stage I-IVA ESCC between 2010 and 2019, including 168 P-CRT and 350 NAC-S patients, were enrolled and long-term outcomes were evaluated. Propensity-score weighting analyses with overlap weighting for confounding adjustment were used.
resultsThe 3-year overall survival (OS) of the P-CRT group was equivalent to the NAC-S group (74.8% vs. 72.7%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.61-1.25). Although, the 3-year P-CRT group progression-free survival (PFS) was inferior to the NAC-S group (51.4% vs. 59.6%, HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.04-1.85), the progression P-CRT group cases showed better survival than the NAC-S group (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.88), largely because of salvage surgery or endoscopic submucosal dissection for local progression. The survival advantage of P-CRT over NAC-S was more pronounced in the cT1-2 (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.29-1.26) and cStage I-II (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24-1.07) subgroups, although this trend was not evident in other populations, such as cT3-4 and cStage III-IVA.
conclusionsProton-based CRT for ESCC showed equivalent OS to surgery-based therapy. Especially for patients with cT1-2 and cStage I-II disease, proton-based CRT has the potential to serve as a first-line treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38844703What 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.