Outcome of Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer Patients Treated With Perioperative Chemotherapy and Chemoradiotherapy Followed by Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Perioperative chemotherapy (P-CT) or neoadjuvant chemoradiation (C-RT) followed by surgical resection is the standard of care for locally advanced esophageal cancer (LAEC). We present an institutional review and outcome of patients with LAEC treated with neoadjuvant C-RT or P-CT followed by surgery. METHODS: Patients were identified through the Manitoba Cancer Registry. Overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and time to recurrence (TTR) were compared using proportion hazard regression analysis. Metabolic and pathologic response rates were compared by the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients were treated with C-RT and 32 with P-CT. Fifty-two percent of the patients had pretreatment and posttreatment positron emission tomography scans before surgery. Ninety-five percent of the patients in C-RT and 91% in P-CT had a partial metabolic response or stable disease. Sixty-one percent of C-RT and 34% of P-CT patients had tumor regression grade (TRG) 0 to 1; 39% of C-RT and 66% of P-CT had TRG 2 to 3 (P=0.018). Median OS was 37 and 18 months for patients with TRG 0 to 1 and 2 to 3, respectively (P=0.013, hazard ratio [HR]=1.96). Three-year OS was 43% versus 37% (P=0.37, HR=1.30), RFS was 34% versus 26% (P=0.87, HR=0.96), and median TTR was 30 versus 13 months (P=0.07, HR=0.59) for C-RT and P-CT, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: C-RT was associated with a higher degree of pathologically tumor regression. Patients with major tumor regression had a better outcome than those with minimal to poor response. There was a trend toward improved TTR with C-RT but no difference in OS or RFS.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".