Clinical outcomes of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Alcohol consumption is a strong risk factor for both cirrhosis and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Few studies have been conducted on the treatment of ESCC in patients with cirrhosis. This study aimed to analyze the clinical outcomes of ESCC in patients with cirrhosis. Materials and methods Medical records of patients with esophageal cancer between January 2009 and December 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 479 patients with ESCC were included and divided into cirrhotic (n = 69) and non-cirrhotic (n = 410) groups. Clinical outcomes and survival according to treatment were compared between these groups. Results The cirrhotic group was younger (median age 64 years vs. 69 years, p = 0.022) and had a higher proportion of male (97.1 % vs. 88.3 %, p = 0.042) than the non-cirrhotic group. Patients with cirrhosis were less likely to undergo surgery (31.9 % vs. 47.8 %, p = 0.015) and were more likely to receive no active cancer treatment (26.1 % vs. 13.7 %, p = 0.010). Overall survival was lower in the cirrhotic group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.01–1.99; p = 0.045), however, no difference was found between Child-Pugh class A patients and those in the non-cirrhotic group (HR, 1.04 [95 % CI, 0.69–1.56]; p = 0.864). Postoperative mortality was significantly higher in cirrhotic group (27.3 % vs. 8.7 %, p = 0.011). Upon performing concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT), the clinical complete response rate (84.2 % vs. 43.3 %, p = 0.004) was better in the cirrhotic group. CRT yielded better overall survival for patients with cancer in the resectable stages in the cirrhotic group compared to surgery (HR, 0.19 [95 % CI, 0.42–0.84]; p = 0.029]. Conclusions In patient with ESCC and cirrhosis, chemoradiotherapy may be a better treatment option than surgery.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".