SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Postoperative radiotherapy for resected esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The role of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) in patients with radically resected esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of PORT compared with surgery alone in terms of survival outcomes and toxicity. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from January 1990 to June 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies (RSs) comparing PORT versus surgery alone in ESCC patients who underwent curative resection. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS), reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Secondary outcomes included locoregional recurrence (LRR), distant metastasis (DM), and treatment toxicity. Quality was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB2) for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for retrospective studies. The Jadad scale was also applied for consistency with previous meta-analyses. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity. Results: Thirty-five studies (8 RCTs, 27 RSs) comprising 11,385 patients (4,968 in the PORT group, 6,417 in the surgery alone group) were included. PORT significantly improved OS (HR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.69-0.80, Conclusion: For patients with radically resected ESCC, PORT significantly improves OS and DFS and reduces LRR, especially in those with high-risk features. A radiation dose of 50 Gy is recommended to achieve optimal benefit. Although PORT increases acute toxicity, it is generally manageable. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/search, Identifier CRD420261400043.
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.