ArticleEsophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society2026
Real-world comparison between neoadjuvant FLOT therapy and DCF therapy for resectable esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma.
Article in Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society, 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundsIn Western countries, the standard perioperative treatment for resectable locally advanced esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma (EGJ-AC) is 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT) therapy based on the results of the FLOT4 and ESOPEC trials. On the other hand, there was little evidence based on optimal perioperative treatment for resectable locally advanced EGJ-AC in Japan. Our previous report showed that neoadjuvant docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF) therapy demonstrated modest efficacy for resectable locally advanced EGJ-AC. Therefore, we compared neoadjuvant DCF to FLOT therapy in terms of efficacy and safety in this study.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the data of patients who received DCF or FLOT therapy for resectable EGJ-AC between 2015 and 2024 in our hospital. We assessed the R0 resection rate, histopathological response, disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival, and adverse events.
resultsThirty-two patients in the DCF therapy group and 20 patients in the FLOT therapy group were analyzed. The patients' characteristics in the DCF group and FLOT group were as follows: median age, 63/59 years; ECOG PS 0, 66%/85%, respectively. The pCR rate was numerically higher in the FLOT group (20%) compared with the DCF group (3%) (p = 0.07). Similarly, the 1-year DFS rate was higher in the FLOT group (93%) than in the DCF group (68%) (p = 0.02), although this difference did not remain statistically significant after adjustment for baseline factors. Febrile neutropenia was significantly lower in the FLOT group (0%) than in the DCF group (12.5%).
conclusionsNeoadjuvant FLOT therapy is well-tolerated and has comparable short-term efficacy to DCF therapy.
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.