ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2024
Outcomes from a single institution cohort of 248 patients with stage I-III esophageal cancer treated with radiotherapy: Comparison of younger and older populations.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Article
- A Canadian experience of palliative advanced practice radiation therapy TIPS: Training, implementation, practice and sustainability.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Outcomes for patients receiving radiotherapy (RT) for non-metastatic esophageal cancer at a single institution were assessed, as well as the impact of factors including age and intensity modulated RT (IMRT) planning on patient outcomes. A retrospective cohort of patients treated with RT for stage I-III esophageal cancer between 2010 and 2018 was identified. Among 248 identified patients, 28 % identified as older (≥75 years of age). Other than histology, there were no other statistically significant differences in patient and tumour characteristics between the younger and older populations. Treatments varied between the two age groups, with significantly less older patients completing trimodality treatments (17 % vs 58 %). Median overall survival (M-OS) and progression-free survival (M-PFS) were 20 months and 12 months for all patients and 40 months and 26 months for trimodality patients, respectively. In the older patients, the M-OS improved from 13 months for all to 34 months for trimodality patients; and M-PFS from 10 months to 16 months. On multivariate analysis, the use of trimodality therapy showed improved OS (HR 0.26, p < 0.001). In the non-surgical older patient group, significantly better survival was seen in patients who had a heart V30Gy under 46 %. There was no significant difference in M-OS in patients planned with IMRT compared with 3D-conformal RT. Clinical outcomes in the treatment of esophageal cancer vary significantly by treatment approach, with the most favourable results in those receiving trimodality therapy. Among older patients deemed fit after assessment by the multidisciplinary team for trimodality treatments, the M-OS is comparable to the younger patient group.
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.