Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41288834›Full record

ArticleEsophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society2026

Feasibility of endoscopic response evaluation after induction chemotherapy for determining treatment strategies in esophageal cancer: a post hoc analysis of the CROC trial.

Chikatoshi Katada, Tetsuji Yokoyama, Akinori Watanabe, Yasuo Hamamoto, Ayumu Hosokawa, Takashi Kojima, Hiroki Hara, Takako Yoshii, Hirofumi Fujii, Hironori Yamaguchi and 13 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors.

Chikatoshi KatadaDepartment of Medical Oncology, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Kawaharacho, Shogoin, Sakyo, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan. ckatada@kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp.ORCID 0000-0002-2713-4661
Tetsuji YokoyamaDepartment of Health Promotion, National Institute of Public Health, 2-3-6 Minami, Wako, Saitama, 351-0197, Japan.
Akinori WatanabeDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami, Sagamihara, 252-0374, Japan.
Yasuo HamamotoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Institute of Science Tokyo, 1-5-45 Yushima, Bunkyo-Ku, Tokyo, 113-8510, Japan.
Ayumu HosokawaDepartment of Clinical Oncology, University of Miyazaki Hospital, 5200 Kihara, Kiyotake, Miyazaki, 889-1692, Japan.
Takashi KojimaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, 277-8577, Japan.
Hiroki HaraDepartment of Gastroenterology, Saitama Cancer Center, 780 Komuro, Ina, Kitaadachi-gun, Saitama, 362-0806, Japan.
Takako YoshiiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Saitama Cancer Center, 780 Komuro, Ina, Kitaadachi-gun, Saitama, 362-0806, Japan.
Hirofumi FujiiDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Jichi Medical University, 3311-1 Yakushiji, Shimotsuke, Tochigi, 329-0498, Japan.
Hironori YamaguchiDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Jichi Medical University, 3311-1 Yakushiji, Shimotsuke, Tochigi, 329-0498, Japan.
Takako Eguchi NakajimaDepartment of Early Clinical Development, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Kawaharacho, Shogoin, Sakyo, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Naoki IzawaDepartment of Clinical Oncology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, 2-16-1 Sugao, Miyamae-ku, Kawasaki, 216-8511, Japan.
Takayuki AndoThird Department of Internal Medicine, University of Toyama, 2630 Sugitani, Toyama, 930-0194, Japan.
Motoo NomuraDepartment of Medical Oncology, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Kawaharacho, Shogoin, Sakyo, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Keishi YamashitaDivision of Advanced Surgical Oncology, Research and Development Center for New Medical Frontiers, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami, Sagamihara, 252-0374, Japan.
Shogo KawakamiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami, Sagamihara, 252-0374, Japan.
Hiromichi IshiyamaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami, Sagamihara, 252-0374, Japan.
Yusuke InoueDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami, Sagamihara, 252-0374, Japan.
Yasutoshi SakamotoTranslational Research Support Office, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, 277-8577, Japan.
Hideki IshikawaDepartment of Molecular-Targeting Cancer Prevention, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kajii-cho, Kawaramachi-Hirokoji, Kamigyo-ku, Kyoto, 602-8566, Japan.
Manabu MutoDepartment of Medical Oncology, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, 54 Kawaharacho, Shogoin, Sakyo, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan.
Makoto TaharaDepartment of Head and Neck Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, 6-5-1 Kashiwanoha, Kashiwa, 277-8577, Japan.
Wasaburo KoizumiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kitasato University School of Medicine, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami, Sagamihara, 252-0374, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe CROC trial assessed a response-guided approach using endoscopic criteria to identify candidates for definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) as an alternative to surgery for resectable thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Precise evaluation of treatment response following induction chemotherapy is essential for determining curative strategies.

methodsThis post hoc analysis of the CROC trial investigated the interobserver concordance of endoscopic response evaluation and its clinical implications. Eighty-seven patients with resectable thoracic ESCC underwent three cycles of induction chemotherapy with docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil. Endoscopic responses were centrally reviewed by three expert oncologists and categorized as remarkable response (RR), limited partial response, or poor response. Patients were classified as having definitive RR, definitive non-RR, or uncertain response based on reviewer agreement.

resultsA comprehensive consensus was achieved, with 51.7% (45/87) and 31.0% (27/87) of patients categorized as definitive RR and definitive non-RR, respectively, whereas 17.2% (15/87) were classified as uncertain response. Patients with definitive RR and uncertain response exhibited high complete response (CR) rates to dCRT at 89.7% (35/39) and 90.9% (10/11), respectively, whereas those with definitive non-RR demonstrated a lower CR rate of 25.0% (1/4).

conclusionsHigh interobserver concordance supports standardizing endoscopic evaluation criteria. Furthermore, an uncertain response may indicate the suitability of dCRT because of favorable outcomes.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophageal Squamous Cell CarcinomaEsophagoscopyInduction ChemotherapyAdultAgedChemoradiotherapyCisplatinDocetaxelFeasibility StudiesFemaleFluorouracilHumansMaleMiddle AgedCisplatinDocetaxelFluorouracilChemoradiotherapyCROC trialDCFEsophageal cancerInduction chemotherapy

Identifiers

PMID41288834

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.