MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Preoperative chemotherapy for resectable thoracic esophageal cancer

2006· reference-entry· en· W4245148533 on OpenAlexaff
Kelly Vogt, Deborah Fenlon, Sarah Rhodes, Richard Malthaner

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2006
Typereference-entry
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRelative riskHazard ratioRandomized controlled trialChemotherapyMEDLINEEsophageal cancerEsophagusMeta-analysisSurgeryCancerOncologyInternal medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Surgery has been the treatment of choice for localized esophageal cancer. A number of studies have investigated whether preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery leads to an improvement in cure rates but the individual reports have been conflicting. An explicit systematic update of the role of preoperative chemotherapy in the treatment of resectable thoracic esophageal cancer is, therefore, warranted. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to determine the role of preoperative chemotherapy on patients with resectable thoracic esophageal carcinomas. SEARCH STRATEGY: Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 to 2006), EMBASE (1988 to 2006) and CANCERLIT (1993 to 2002). There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: All trials of patients with potentially resectable carcinomas of the esophagus (of any histologic type) who were randomised to having either chemotherapy or no chemotherapy before surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was survival, which was assessed using hazard ratios. This is an amendment to the original review which used relative risks to assess survival at yearly intervals. Hazard ratios (HR) have now been introduced to summarise the complete survival experience in a single analysis. The risk ratio (relative risk; RR) was used to compare rates of resections, tumour recurrences and treatment morbidity and mortality. MAIN RESULTS: There were eleven randomised trials involving 2019 patients. Eight trials (1729 patients) reported sufficient detail on survival to be included in a meta-analysis for the primary outcome. There was some evidence to suggest that preoperative chemotherapy improves survival, but this was inconclusive (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.04). There was no evidence to suggest that the overall rate of resections (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.01) or the rate of complete resections (R0) (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.15) differ between the preoperative chemotherapy arm and surgery alone. There is no evidence that tumour recurrence (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.22) or non-fatal complication rates (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.06) differ for preoperative chemotherapy compared to surgery alone. Trials reported risks of toxicity with chemotherapy that ranged from 11% to 90%. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In summary, preoperative chemotherapy plus surgery may offer a survival advantage compared to surgery alone for resectable thoracic esophageal cancer, but the evidence is inconclusive. There is some evidence of toxicity and preoperative mortality associated with chemotherapy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.098
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207