An International Cohort Study of Prognosis Associated With Pathologically Complete Response Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Versus Chemoradiotherapy of Surgical Treated Esophageal Adenocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare overall (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) in esophageal adenocarcinoma patients with a pathologically complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). BACKGROUND: In the absence of survival differences in several prior studies comparing nCT with nCRT, the higher rate of pCR after nCRT has been suggested as reason to prefer this modality over nCT. METHODS: An international cohort study included data from 8 high-volume centers. Inclusion criteria was patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma, between 2008 and 2018, who had a pCR after nCT or nCRT. Univariate analysis was used to compare demographic factors, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis used to compare 5-year OS and RFS between groups. RESULTS: In all, 465 patients with pCR following neoadjuvant treatment were included; 132 received nCT and 333 received nCRT. There was no statistically significant difference in 5-year OS between groups (78.8% (nCT) vs 65.5% (nCRT), P =0.099), with a similar result demonstrated in multivariate analysis (HR=1.19, 95% CI 0.77-1.84). 5-year RFS was significantly reduced in patients with a pCR following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (75.3% (nCRT) vs 87.1% (nCT), P =0.026). Multivariate analysis confirmed nCRT was associated with a poorer 5-year RFS (HR=1.70, 95% CI 1.22-2.99). nCRT associated with a significantly greater prevalence of 5-year distant recurrence (odds ratio=2.50, 95% CI 1.25-4.99). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this international cohort study show that the prognosis of pCR following different neoadjuvant regimes differs, bringing into question the validity of this measure as an oncological surrogate when comparing neoadjuvant treatment schemes for esophageal adenocarcinoma.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".