Perioperative chemotherapy alone versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced distal esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer: A 10-year review of the British Columbia (BC) Cancer Registry.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4028 Background: The optimal treatment strategy for resectable cancer of the distal esophagus (ESOPH) and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) remains controversial. This study evaluates patterns of practice in BC, rates of complete surgical resection, and survival outcomes of patients treated with perioperative chemotherapy alone (CA), per MAGIC or FLOT4 protocol, versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT), per CROSS protocol. Methods: We undertook a provincial analysis of initially resectable, locally advanced, cancer of the ESOPH and/or GEJ who underwent surgery in BC, from 2008 to 2018. Baseline patient, tumor, treatment, and clinical outcome data were collected from the BC Cancer Registry. Kaplan-Meier survival and multivariate regression analyses were conducted. Results: Among 575 patients, 468 underwent surgery and were included (Table). More surgeries were aborted intraoperatively in the CA cohort compared to CRT (12% vs 2%, p<0.001). There was no difference in age, sex, or ECOG performance status among the cohorts, and 83% were adenocarcinoma. While 82% of ESOPH involving GEJ (N = 251, 54%) is treated with CRT, only 53% of GEJ alone (N=217, 46%) is treated with CRT (p<0.001). CRT is associated with a higher rate of complete or partial pathologic response compared to CA (59% vs 39%, p=0.002). R0 resection rate was 90% and 94% in the CA and CRT cohort, respectively (p=0.383). There is no statistically significant difference in overall survival, with medians of 29.6 and 26.0 months for patients treated with CA and CRT, respectively (p=0.723). Cancer-specific survival is also not significantly different (p=0.565). In the CA cohort, 37% of patients complete all 8 cycles of FLOT and 52% of patients complete all 6 cycles of MAGIC (p=0.396). Conclusions: Patients treated with CRT have higher rates of complete resection and pathologic response, but their survival is not significantly different compared to those treated with CA. [Table: see text]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".