ArticleCureus2024
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy vs Chemoradiotherapy for Malignancy of Esophagus: A Prospective Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- INCENP and CDCA8 predict neoadjuvant chemotherapy response and outcomes in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Nature communications · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNeoadjuvant chemoradiation (NACRT) followed by surgery has become the standard of care for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). This study compared the tolerability and oncological benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) with those of NACRT for the treatment of ESCC.
methodsA prospective quasi-experimental comparative study was conducted from July 2019 to August 2023 to assess the efficacy of the NACT regimen of two cycles of paclitaxel and carboplatin as an alternative to standard NACRT. Either NACT or NACRT was given to patients with resectable ESCC (clinical stage IB-IIIC), after which they underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy. Radiological and pathological responses to neoadjuvant therapy, perioperative morbidity, mortality, and recurrence-free and overall survival rates were compared.
resultsOut of the 74 patients enrolled, 63 were included in the study after exclusion. Of these, 30 received NACT, and 33 received NACRT. The baseline demographics, tumor characteristics, incidence of neoadjuvant therapy-related adverse events, and perioperative morbidity were comparable between the two groups. The median number of lymph nodes retrieved (21 vs 19, p=0.19) and R0 resection rate (100% vs 94%) were similar. Although the pathological response was significantly better in the NACRT arm, at a median follow-up of 32.5 (20.75-48) months, there was a non-significant trend toward better recurrence-free survival in the NACRT group (57 vs 36 months, p-value - 0.831), with median overall survival yet to be achieved in both groups.
conclusionCompared with NACRT, NACT for ESCC is well tolerated and has non-inferior oncological outcomes. NACT could be a feasible alternative to NACRT in such patients, especially if the radiotherapy option is not feasible or available.
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.