ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2025
The impact of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy on nutritional status and survival in cervical esophageal cancer patients 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: This retrospective study aimed to study the effects of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) on nutritional status and overall survival (OS) of cervical esophageal cancer (CEC) patients who received concurrent chemoradiotherapy. Methods: Thirty-four CEC patients who underwent concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) were retrospectively reviewed. A series of nutritional indicators: controlling nutritional status (CONUT) score, weight, body mass index, albumin, lymphocyte counts, hemoglobin (HGB) was introduced to evaluate the nutritional status between patients with or without PEG. Results: Among the 34 patients, 18 received PEG placement (PEG group) and 16 did not (Non-PEG group). The median survival for the PEG group was 38.0 months (range, 6.0-60.3), and for the Non-PEG group, it was 43.5 months (range, 21.5-162.8). The 2, 3, and 4 year OS rates for the PEG group were 81.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 63.2-100%), 54.3% (95% CI: 25.5-83.1%), and 32.6% (95% CI: 0.0-63.6%), respectively, while the Non-PEG group had 2, 3, and 4 year OS rates of 100% (95% CI: 83.0-100%), 82.1% (95% CI: 59.2-100%), and 49.2% (95% CI: 11.4-87.0%), respectively. There was no significant difference in the OS between the PEG group and the Non-PEG group ( Conclusions: Weight loss during chemoradiotherapy and higher CONUT scores may decrease the OS rate for CEC patients. However, PEG insertion did not affect the OS rate.
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.