ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2025
Impacts of sarcopenia on adverse events and prognosis in Chinese patients with esophageal cancer undergoing chemoradiotherapy.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prognostic value of sarcopenia in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2025Pooled it
- A LASSO-based nomogram for predicting sarcopenia-related nutritional risk in esophageal cancer patients: model development, validation, and an interactive clinical decision tool.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Integrating sarcopenia into ICU-acquired weakness risk stratification: a machine learning-based prediction model for critical care.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Sarcopenia following concurrent chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Impact of skeletal muscle loss and sarcopenia on outcomes of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Frontiers in nutrition · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sarcopenia is a common indicator of systemic nutritional status in patients with cancer progression. This study investigated the impacts of sarcopenia on adverse effects and prognosis of sarcopenia on patients with esophageal cancer receiving chemoradiotherapy. Methods: The clinical data of 158 patients with initially diagnosed esophageal cancer who received chemoradiotherapy were collected, and nutritional indexes and inflammatory markers were calculated. The cross-sectional areas of the skeletal muscle, subcutaneous fat and visceral fat were calculated using computed tomography (CT) images of the midpoint of the third lumbar (L3) vertebra. The incidence of adverse events, response evaluation, 1-year and 3-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between sarcopenia group and non-sarcopenia groups. Results: This study included 158 patients, 103 (71.5%) in the sarcopenia group and 45 (28.5%) in the non-sarcopenia group. The last follow-up date was January 31, 2024. The median follow-up time was 36 months for all patients. The chi-square test revealed no significant difference in the incidence of serious adverse events between the two groups. The complete response rates (CR) of patients in the sarcopenia and non-sarcopenia groups 1 month after chemoradiotherapy were 2.7 and 13.3%, respectively, Conclusion: Sarcopenia reduced OS in patients with EC treated with chemoradiotherapy. It can be used as an independent indicator to predict the OS of such patients, which may help in developing optimal treatment strategies.
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.