ArticleBMC surgery2025
Tailoring treatment for esophageal cancer: a retrospective comparison of chemoradiation with and without esophagectomy.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLocally advanced esophageal cancer remains a significant therapeutic challenge, with the optimal treatment strategy still debate. While previous studies suggest that concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT) can improve survival, the role of esophagectomy following CCRT in patients with partial or no response has not been well-characterized, particularly in resource-limited settings. This study aimed to evaluate the survival benefit of esophagectomy following CCRT, with particular focus on non-complete responders (non-CR).
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of 132 patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer treated at Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital between 2013 and 2022. Patients were categorized based on initial treatment into preoperative CCRT or definitive CCRT groups. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared using multivariable Cox regression. A secondary analysis stratified patients into three groups by clinical response and surgical status: CR without surgery, non-CR with surgery, and non-CR without surgery. To reduce baseline imbalances and selection bias, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied in the non-CR subgroup initially intended for preoperative CCRT.
resultsBaseline characteristics were balanced except for tumor location. Median follow-up was 1.23 years (IQR: 0.64-2.50). Overall, 1-/2-year PFS was 27.97%/17.80%, while OS was 60.47%/37.33%. Median survival did not differ between preoperative versus definitive CCRT (1.20 vs. 1.52 years, p = 0.346). However, in the surgical-status analysis, patients undergoing post-CCRT esophagectomy showed significantly improved PFS and OS versus non-surgical non-CR patients (PFS HR: 2.89, p < 0.001; OS HR: 2.97, p = 0.001). Notably, surgical non-CR patients achieved OS comparable to CR patients without esophagectomy (HR: 1.12, p = 0.812). To minimize selection bias, we conducted an IPTW-adjusted analysis in the subgroup of non-CR patients initially assigned to preoperative CCRT. After IPTW, the survival benefit of surgery remained significant, with improved PFS (HR: 3.75; 95% CI: 1.40-10.08; p = 0.009) and OS (HR: 2.74; 95% CI: 1.57-4.77; p < 0.001) compared to CCRT alone.
conclusionEsophagectomy after CCRT provides survival benefits equivalent to achieving CR with CCRT alone, particularly for non-CR patients. These results advocate for surgical integration as a salvage strategy for incomplete responders in locally advanced esophageal cancer.
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.