↓ Skip to main content

Comparative Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant Treatments for Resectable Gastroesophageal Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparative Effectiveness of Neoadjuvant Treatments for Resectable Gastroesophageal Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2018.00872
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhaolun Cai, Yiqiong Yin, Zhou Zhao, Chunyu Xin, Zhaohui Cai, Yuan Yin, Chaoyong Shen, Xiaonan Yin, Jian Wang, Zhixin Chen, Ye Zhou, Bo Zhang

Abstract

Background: Several neoadjuvant treatments are available for patients with resectable gastroesophageal cancer. We did a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare available treatments, summarizing the direct and indirect evidence. Method: We searched relevant databases for randomized controlled trials of neoadjuvant treatments for resectable gastroesophageal cancer which compared two or more of the following treatments: surgery alone, perioperative docetaxel, oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (FLOT), and neoadjuvant treatments listed in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline. Then we performed a NMA to summarize the direct and indirect evidence to estimate the relative efficacy for outcomes including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival and R0 resection rate. We calculated odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% credible intervals (CrI) for dichotomous data and time-to-event data, respectively. We also calculated the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value of each intervention to obtain a hierarchy of treatments. Result: Eight eligible trials (2434 patients) were included in our NMA. The treatment with the highest probability of benefit on OS as compared with surgery alone was perioperative FLOT [HR = 0.58 with 95% CrI: (0.43, 0.78), SUCRA = 93%], followed by preoperative radiotherapy, paclitaxel, and carboplatin (RT/PC) [HR = 0.68 with 95% CrI: (0.53, 0.87), SUCRA = 72%], perioperative cisplatin with fluorouracil (CF) [HR = 0.70 with 95% CrI: (0.51, 0.95), SUCRA = 68%], and perioperative epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil or capecitabine (ECF/ECX) [HR = 0.75 with 95% CrI: (0.60, 0.94), SUCRA = 56%]. Conclusion: Compared with surgery alone, perioperative CF, perioperative ECF/ECX, perioperative FLOT, and preoperative RT/PC significantly improved survival. Perioperative FLOT is likely to be the most effective neoadjuvant treatment for the disease. Further clinical studies are needed and justified.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Lecturer 1 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Other 3 17%
Unknown 6 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 11%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Unknown 6 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 April 2022.
All research outputs
#7,229,289
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#3,090
of 17,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,037
of 331,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#68
of 377 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,645 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 377 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.