ArticleIndian journal of surgical oncology2024
Debating the Optimal Preoperative Approach: NACRT vs NACT in Locally Advanced Oesophageal Cancer.
Article in Indian journal of surgical oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Health-related quality of life in esophageal cancer: a state-of-the-art review of patient-reported outcomes and an evidence and gap map.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oesophageal cancer (EC), ranking 11th in incidence and 7th in mortality globally, presents a significant health challenge, with a notable prevalence in India, especially in the northeastern region. This article examines the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in treating locally advanced EC, analyzing data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) between 2000 and 2024. NACRT, involving preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery, has shown improved survival rates, notably in the CROSS trial, which reported a 10-year overall survival benefit of 13%. Conversely, NACT is supported by key trials like the OE02 and MAGIC trials, demonstrating comparable survival outcomes. Key points of debate include compliance, complications, response and resection status, survival rates, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Compliance rates are similar for both modalities, though disease progression is more common after NACT. Postoperative complications and mortality rates are comparable, with NACTRT showing higher pathologic complete response (pCR) and R0 resection rates, potentially avoiding additional adjuvant radiation. While NACRT shows marginally better 3-year survival rates, particularly for squamous cell carcinoma, 5-year survival rates and HRQOL outcomes are similar for both treatments. NACTRT is associated with more respiratory symptoms, whereas NACT patients experience more gastrointestinal issues. Both NACT and NACTRT are viable options, with the choice depending on patient-specific factors and a thorough assessment of potential benefits and risks. Further research is needed to optimize treatment protocols for EC.
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.