Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Can involved-field irradiation replace elective nodal irradiation in chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Xiaoyue Wang
  • , Chuanwang Miao
  • , Zhen Chen
  • , Wanhu Li
  • , Shuanghu Yuan
  • , Jinming Yu
  • , Xudong Hu

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

Abstract

Chemoradiotherapy is the most common treatment for inoperable esophageal cancer. However, there is no consensus on the delineation of the clinical target volume. Elective nodal irradiation (ENI) is recommended for inoperable esophageal cancer. A few studies have reported a decrease in the incidence of radiation-related toxicity of involved-field irradiation (IFI) for esophageal cancer. A systematic review and pooled analysis were performed to determine whether IFI in definitive chemoradiotherapy was more beneficial than ENI for esophageal cancer. The results showed no significant differences in the overall survival and local control rates between the IFI and ENI arms. Meanwhile, the incidences of esophageal and lung toxicities were significantly decreased in the IFI arm. These results suggest that IFI is a feasible treatment option for locally advanced esophageal cancer, especially to minimize irradiation-related toxicity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2087-2095
Number of pages9
JournalOncoTargets and Therapy
Volume10
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 11 2017
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Wang et al.

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • Chemoradiotherapy
  • Elective nodal irradiation
  • Esophageal cancer
  • Involved-field irradiation
  • Meta-analysis

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Can involved-field irradiation replace elective nodal irradiation in chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this