FLOT-regimen Chemotherapy and Transthoracic en bloc Resection for Esophageal and Junctional Adenocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The FLOT4-AIO trial established the FLOT regimen as a compelling option for gastric, junctional and esophageal adenocarcinoma. Data on FLOT with en-bloc transthoracic esophagectomy (TTE) are limited. This study explored operative complications, tolerance, toxicity, physiological impact, and oncologic outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: An observational cohort study on consecutive patients at 3 tertiary centers undergoing FLOT and TTE. Toxicity, operative complications (per ECCG definitions), tumor regression grade (TRG), recurrences and survival were documented, as well as pre and post FLOT assessment of sarcopenia and pulmonary physiology. RESULTS: 175 patients (cT2-4a, Nany) commenced treatment, 84% male, median age 65, 94% cT3/T4a, 73% cN+. 89% completed 4 preoperative cycles, and 35% all cycles. Grade 3/4 toxicities included neutropenia (12%), diarrhoea (13%), and infection (15%). Sarcopenia increased from 18% to 37% (P = 0.020), and diffusion capacity (DLCO) decreased by 8% (-34% + 25%; P < 0.010). On pathology, ypT3/4 was 59%, and ypN+54%, with 10% TRG 1, 14% TRG 2, and 76% TRG3-5, and R0 95%. 161 underwent TTE, with an in-hospital mortality of 0.6%, 24%-pneumonia, 11%-anastomotic leak, and Clavien Dindo ≥III in 27%. At a median follow up of 12 months (1-85), 33 relapsed, 8 (5%) locally, and 3yr survival was 60%. CONCLUSION: FLOT and en bloc TTE was safe, with no discernible impact on operative complications, with 24% having a major pathologic response. Caveats include a limited pathologic response in the majority, and negative impact on muscle mass and lung physiology, and low use of adjuvant cycles. These data may provide a real-world benchmark for this complex care pathway.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".