ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2024
Combined Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy Induction for Screening of Patients with Cervical Esophageal Carcinoma for Subsequent Local Treatment: A New Treatment Paradigm.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDefinitive chemoradiotherapy is recommended as the primary treatment for cervical esophageal carcinoma (CEC). However, local control rates remain unsatisfactory for some patients. Therefore, in this study, we introduced a new treatment paradigm for individuals with CEC, customizing the choice between subsequent local treatments based on their response to induction chemotherapy and immunotherapy. PATIENTS AND
methodsInduction treatment comprised two to four cycles of chemotherapy combined with programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitors. Patients achieving complete response (CR) or near CR after induction treatment underwent definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT), while those not achieving CR or near CR underwent surgical resection.
resultsAmong the 40 eligible patients, 14 (35.0%) achieved a CR or near CR after induction treatment. Of the ten patients achieving a CR or near CR, one developed an esophageal fistula after dCRT (10.0%). Among the eight non-CR or non-near CR patients receiving chemoradiotherapy, six developed esophageal fistula (75.0%). Among the 26 patients who did not achieve CR or near CR after induction treatment, the 1-year cancer specific survival (CSS) rates were 93.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.815-1%] for the 18 patients in the surgery group, and 71.4% (95% CI 0.447-1%) for the 8 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group (p = 0.027). The overall laryngeal preservation rate was 85.0% (34/40), with a functional laryngeal preservation rate of 77.5% (31/40).
conclusionThe approach consisting of combined immunotherapy and chemotherapy successfully identified patients who were responding well to induction treatment and who were sensitive to radiotherapy, for chemoradiotherapy; thus, improving laryngeal preservation rates. In addition, it also identified patients with poor responses to induction treatment and radiotherapy, for timely surgery; hence, reducing radiotherapy complications and enhancing survival.
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.