Trial reportCancer communications (London, England)2024
Concurrent chemoradiotherapyof different radiation doses and different irradiation fields for locally advanced thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A randomized, multicenter, phase III clinical trial.
Trial report in Cancer communications (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nimotuzumab Combined With Concurrent Curative Radiotherapy and S-1 in 75 Years and Older Patients With Stage II-IVB Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Phase II Study.International journal of cancer · 2026Trial
- Concurrent chemoradiotherapyof different radiation doses and different irradiation fields for locally advanced thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A randomized, multicenter, phase III clinical trial.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2024Trial
- Dynamic Changes of ctDNA-Based MRD and Genomic Mutations Predict Prognosis in ESCC Treated With Definitive Radiotherapy.Cancer science · 2026Article
- Clinical Outcomes of Neoadjuvant Chemoimmunotherapy Versus Chemoradiation Combined with Immunotherapy in Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- A new perspective on radiotherapy in the comprehensive treatment of cancer.Precision radiation oncology · 2026Review
- Patterns of regional recurrences after treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Article
- Iparomlimab and tuvonralimab (QL1706) combined definitive chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (QL1706-IIT-02): a single arm, phase 2 trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Definitive chemoradiotherapy plus immune checkpoint inhibitors for locally advanced unresectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: survival and progression patterns in a propensity-matched cohort.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Nivolumab with definitive chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (NOBEL): a multicentre, single-arm, phase 2 feasibility trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Article
- Current status and perspectives of esophageal cancer: a comprehensive review.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2025Review
- Effect of Multi-Leaf Collimator Angle Optimization on the Planning Parameters in Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for Thoracic Tumors.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
42 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConcurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) is the standard treatment for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, the optimal radiotherapy regimen, particularly in terms of total dose and planned range of irradiation field, remains unclear. This phase III clinical trial aimed to compare the survival benefits between different radiation doses and different target fields.
methodsThis trial compared two aspects of radiation treatment, total dose and field, using a two-by-two factorial design. The high-dose (HD) group received 59.4 Gy radiation, and the standard-dose (SD) group received 50.4 Gy. The involved field irradiation (IFI) group and elective nodal irradiation (ENI) group adopted different irradiation ranges. The participants were assigned to one of the four groups (HD+ENI, HD+IFI, SD+ENI and SD+IFI). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS). The synergy indexwas used to measure the interaction effect between dose and field.
resultsThe interaction analysis did not reveal significant synergistic effects between the dose and irradiation field. In comparison to the target field, patients in IFI or ENI showed similar OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.80-1.23, p = 0.930) and PFS (HR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.82-1.25). The HD treatment did not show significantly prolonged OS compared with SD (HR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.72-1.11, p = 0.318), but it suggested improved PFS (25.2 months to 18.0 months). Among the four groups, the HD+IFI group presented the best survival, while the SD+IFI group had the worst prognosis. No significant difference in the occurrence of severe adverse events was found in dose or field comparisons.
conclusionsIFI demonstrated similar treatment efficacy to ENI in CCRT of ESCC. The HD demonstrated improved PFS, but did not significantly improve OS. The dose escalation based on IFI (HD+IFI) showed better therapeutic efficacy than the current recommendation (SD+ENI) and is worth further validation.
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.