| Title |
Comparison of the prognosis of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy treatment with surgery alone in esophageal carcinoma: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
OncoTargets and therapy, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ott.s145063 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hai-Feng Ma, Guo-Xiao Lv, Zhong-Fang Cai, Da-Hai Zhang |
| Abstract |
Resection remains the best treatment for carcinoma of the esophagus in terms of local control, but local recurrence and distant metastasis remain an issue after surgery. Chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) followed by surgery was associated with significantly improved survival benefit, but the effectiveness of neoadjuvant therapy in patients with resectable esophageal carcinoma remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in resectable esophageal carcinoma compared to surgery alone (SA). A search for publications that compared the efficacy of CRT with SA in resectable esophageal carcinoma was conducted. After a rigorous review of the quality, the data were extracted from eligible trials. The major outcomes measures were odds ratios (ORs). The ORs with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals were the principal measure of effects. For the meta-analysis, Revman 5.3 software was used to analyze the combined pooled ORs using fixed- or random-effects models according to the heterogeneity. Our findings revealed that, compared with SA, neoadjuvant CRT was associated with improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival times, but the 3- and 5-year OS did not show a statistical difference (P≥0.05). The adjuvant chemotherapy group did not show significant improvement on reference rate and metastasis rate compared with the control group. CRT does significantly improve progression-free survival and OS in patients with esophageal cancer compared with SA. However, further assessment is still warranted on the role of CRT in future trials with well-selected patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 25% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 5% |
| Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 9 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 June 2018.
All research outputs
#19,951,180
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#1,447
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#251,834
of 342,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#51
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,877 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.