ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2024
Dose escalation in radical radio(chemo)therapy for cervical and upper thoracic esophageal cancer with 3DCRT/IMRT (ChC&UES): a multicenter retrospective study.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 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.
- Long-term outcomes of patients with esophageal cancer recommended for surgery but treated non-surgically: a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Radical surgery versus definitive radiotherapy in treatment of locoregional upper esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.BMC cancer · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCervical and upper thoracic esophageal cancer (ESCA) presents treatment challenges due to limited clinical evidence. This multi-center study (ChC&UES) explores radical radio(chemo)therapy efficacy and safety, especially focusing on radiation dose.
methodWe retrospectively analyzed clinical data from 1,422 cases across 8 medical centers. According to the radiation dose for primary gross tumor, patients were divided into standard dose radiotherapy (SD, 50-55 Gy) or high dose (HD, > 55 Gy) radiotherapy. HD was further subdivided into conventional- high-dose group (HD-conventional, 55-63 Gy) and ultra-high-dose group (HD-ultra, ≥ 63 Gy). Primary outcome was Overall Survival (OS).
resultsThe median OS was 33.0 months (95% CI: 29.401-36.521) in the whole cohort. Compared with SD, HD shown significant improved survival in cervical ESCA in Kaplan-Meier (P = 0.029) and cox multivariate regression analysis (P = 0.024) while shown comparable survival in upper thoracic ESCA (P = 0.735). No significant difference existed between HD-conventional and HD-ultra in cervical (P = 0.976) and upper thoracic (P = 0.610) ESCA. Incidences of radiation esophagitis and pneumonia from HD were comparable to SD (P = 0.097, 0.240), while myosuppression risk was higher(P = 0.039). The Bonferroni method revealed that, for both cervical and upper thoracic ESCA, HD-ultra enhance the objective response rate (ORR) compared to SD (P < 0.05).
conclusionHD radiotherapy benefits cervical but not upper thoracic ESCA, while increasing bone marrow suppression risk. Further dose escalating (≥ 63 Gy) doesn't improve survival but enhances ORR.
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.