Consolidation Chemotherapy Rather than Induction Chemotherapy Can Prolong the Survival Rate of Inoperable Esophageal Cancer Patients Who Received Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is regarded as the standard treatment for inoperable esophageal cancers (EC). It is still controversial whether consolidation chemotherapy (CCT) or induction chemotherapy (IC) is beneficial for the patients who received CRT. Therefore, we carried out a retrospective analysis at our institution. A total of 186 inoperable EC patients from 20 October 2017 to 7 June 2021 who have previously received CRT were included in our study. The patients were divided into IC + CRT (n = 52), CCRT (n = 64), and CRT + CCT (n = 70) groups according to whether they received induction chemotherapy, consolidation chemotherapy, or not. We used Kaplan−Meier statistics to analyze their 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS. The median follow-up time for the whole group was 14.15 months. The 1-, 2-, 3- year overall survival (OS) for the CCRT group were 72.2%, 52.5%, and 29.5%, and 50.9%, 37.5%, and 25% for the IC + CRT group (p > 0.05). For the CRT + CCT group,1-, 2-, and 3-year OS were 89.8%, 59.0%, and 42.5% (p < 0.05). Adverse reactions in the three groups were mainly graded 0−3. The difference between the three groups was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). For non-surgical EC patients who received CRT, CCT after CRT but not IC before CRT can improve 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS with a low incidence of associated severe adverse effects. As a result, the addition of consolidation chemotherapy to chemoradiotherapy has significant prognostic advantages for inoperable EC patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".