Combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy (without surgery) compared with radiotherapy alone in localized carcinoma of the esophagus
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Esophageal carcinoma can be managed primarily with either a surgical or radiotherapeutic (non surgical) approach. Strategies to improve the outcome of either modality alone include the use of combined modalities. Combination chemotherapy radiotherapy is one approach that has been explored over the years with increasing application in clinical practice especially in North America. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone in the outcome of patients with localized esophageal carcinoma. Outcomes of interest include overall survival, cause specific survival, local recurrence, dysphagia relief, quality of life, acute and chronic toxicities. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane strategy for identifying randomized trials was combined with MeSH headings including esophageal neoplasms, radiotherapy, chemotherapy combined modality, drug therapy combination. MEDLINE, CancerLIT and EMBASE were searched using this strategy. In addition, the Cochrane library was also searched. References from relevant articles and personal files were included. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials in patients with localized esophageal cancer, with one arm employing radiotherapy alone, and one arm employing combination radiotherapy chemotherapy were included. Studies comparing non chemotherapy agents such as pure radiotherapy sensitisers, immunostimulants, planned esophagectomy, were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by two independent reviewers, and the trial quality was assessed using both the Jadad scoring and Detsky checklist. Sensitivity analysis was planned to explore sources of heterogeneity where heterogeneity existed. The factors hypothesized a priori included combination versus sequential treatment, quality of study, biological effective radiotherapy dose (i.e. Radiotherapy dose) cisplatin versus non cisplatin containing trials, and 5FU versus non 5FU containing trials. Odds Ratio (OR) and 95% confidence limits were used to assess the significance of the difference between the treatment arms. Absolute risk difference and number needed to treat (NNT) were used to express the magnitude of difference where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen randomized trials were included in the analysis. There were eight concomitant and five sequential radiotherapy and chemotherapy (RTCT) studies. The studies were analyzed separately due to observed heterogeneity across all the studies and biological considerations. Concomitant RTCT provided significant overall reduction in mortality at 1 and 2 years. The mortality in the control arms was 62% and 83% respectively. Combined RTCT provided an absolute reduction of mortality by 7% (95% CI 1-15%) and 7% (95% CI 0-15%) respectively. Expressed as NNT, this is 12 and 12 respectively. At longer follow up, the results were heterogeneous, cautioning against pooling of the data. There was a reduction in the overall local recurrence rate. The local recurrence rate for the control arms was in the order of 68%. Combined RTCT provided an absolute reduction of local recurrence rate of 12% (95% CI 3-22%) with a NNT of 9. There was significant increase of severe and life threatening toxicities with a NNH of 6, with this approach. The sensitivity analysis did not identify any factor that interacted with the results, or subgroup in which the benefit appear to be limited to. The results from the sequential RTCT studies were heterogeneous and could not be pooled. Factors hypothesized a priori did not identify any single source that could account for a significant component of the heterogeneity. Examining the results individually, there was no data to support clinical benefit. This approach was also accompanied by significant toxicities. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: When a non-operative approach is selected, then concomitant RTCT is superior to the RT alone. This approach is accompanied by significant toxicities. In patients who are in good general condition, and the risk benefit has been thoroughly discussed with the patient, co thoroughly discussed with the patient, concomitant RTCT should be considered for the management of esophageal cancer compared with radiotherapy alone.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".