Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

Underutilization of the CROSS Regimen Among US Radiation Oncologists: A National Survey of Practice Patterns

DAVID A. ELLIOTT, SHUSHAN R. RANA, NIMA NABAVIZADEH, YIYI CHEN, AARON KUSANO, JOHN M. HOLLAND and TIMUR MITIN
Anticancer Research November 2018, 38 (11) 6375-6379; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.12996
DAVID A. ELLIOTT
1University of Toledo Medical Center, Department of Radiation Oncology, Toledo, OH, U.S.A
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: david.elliott2@utoledo.edu
SHUSHAN R. RANA
2Oregon Health & Science University, Department of Radiation Medicine, Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, OR, U.S.A
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
NIMA NABAVIZADEH
2Oregon Health & Science University, Department of Radiation Medicine, Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, OR, U.S.A
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
YIYI CHEN
2Oregon Health & Science University, Department of Radiation Medicine, Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, OR, U.S.A
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
AARON KUSANO
3Anchorage and Valley Radiation Therapy Center, Anchorage, AK, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
JOHN M. HOLLAND
2Oregon Health & Science University, Department of Radiation Medicine, Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, OR, U.S.A
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TIMUR MITIN
2Oregon Health & Science University, Department of Radiation Medicine, Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, OR, U.S.A
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Aim: To examine patterns of clinical practice in locally advanced esophageal cancer among US radiation oncologists after publication of the CROSS trial. Materials and Methods: US radiation oncologists were surveyed on 13 questions pertaining to the management of esophageal cancer. Respondents' demographics and their clinical rationale were analyzed for statistical association with their treatment recommendations. Results: Few respondents (15%) offered the CROSS regimen to patients considered suitable surgical candidates, while a near-equivalent number (16%) prescribed between 41.4 and 50.4 Gy contingent upon radiation planning parameters. Among respondents who prescribed 50.4 Gy, 50% and 17% reported concurrent administration of carboplatin/paclitaxel and cisplatin/5-FU, respectively. Higher radiation doses, over 50.4 Gy, were utilized by 15% and 38% of respondents for borderline surgical candidates and candidates unfit for surgery, respectively. The majority of respondents believed that higher complete pathological response and R0 resection would be achieved, as well as higher toxicity conferred using 50.4 Gy instead of 41.4 Gy. A clinical trial comparing 41.4 Gy to 50.4 Gy with concurrent carboplatin/paclitaxel was supported by 76% of respondents. Conclusion: Despite results from the CROSS trial, the majority of responding US radiation oncologists do not offer 41.4 Gy with concurrent chemotherapy for surgically-fit patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, believing that a higher dose will translate to improved response.

  • Esophageal cancer
  • chemoradiotherapy
  • radiation dose
  • survey
  • practice patterns

Esophageal cancer predominantly manifests as a locally aggressive malignancy, ranking it globally as the sixth leading cause of cancer-related deaths (1). In 2018, there will be an estimated 17,290 individuals diagnosed with esophageal cancer with estimated deaths of 15,850 patients (2). Its clinical behavior has correspondingly shifted therapeutic management from a single modality to more aggressive tri-modality therapy (TMT) in the form of pre-operative chemoradiation (3-6).

CALGB 9781 was one of the initial prospective evaluations of preoperative chemoradiation, which randomized esophageal cancer patients to concurrent 50.4 Gy, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil followed by surgery versus surgery alone. With significant improvement in median overall survival (OS) to 4.5 years with TMT compared to 1.8 years in the surgery-alone arm, the current standard radiation dose was extrapolated from this study (4). However, this trial closed early due to poor accrual and reported on only 56, out of 500 planned patients, who were treated in the pre-intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) era. The CROSS trial is the most recent randomized trial elucidating the role of preoperative (TMT), and it reported on a larger number of operable patients (n=368) randomized to surgery alone versus 41.4 Gy, carboplatin, and paclitaxel, followed by surgery. TMT with radiation dose at 41.4 Gy conferred a median OS of 49.4 months versus 24.0 months among surgery-alone patients. Furthermore, a R0 resection was achieved in 92% with TMT compared to 29% in the surgery alone patients (5).

As the CROSS trial did not specifically address dose de-escalation compared to the North American standard radiation dose, the adoption of the CROSS regimen has been met with uncertainty (7). In this light, we implemented a survey to ascertain the management of esophageal cancer among US radiation oncologists after the publication of the CROSS regimen.

Materials and Methods

Study population. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained for formulation and dissemination of an electronic email-based survey. A national database of radiation oncology personnel including attending and resident physicians was used to invite participation; respondents were assured anonymity. No honorarium for survey completion was offered. In the pre-determined interval of data acquisition and final analysis, we received 296 evaluable responses.

Survey design. The survey was comprised of thirteen questions. The initial five questions addressed respondent demographics. Questions 6-8 asked respondents to choose their preferred treatment option for patients considered good, borderline, or unresectable surgical candidates. The remaining questions addressed physicians' beliefs in regard to radiation dose, 50.4 Gy vs. 41.4 Gy, its effect on toxicity, pathologic complete response, R0 resection and the physician's willingness to enroll to a trial comparing 41.4 Gy vs. 50.4 Gy with concurrent carboplatin/paclitaxel. Data were securely collected and stored using the institutional Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCAP) (8).

Statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics were applied to report basic respondent characteristics. Univariate and multivariate nominal logistic regression analysis was performed to examine final treatment recommendations based on physician-respondent characteristics and clinico-pathologic rationale. Application of statistical tests was performed with senior departmental biostatisticians. All p-values were two-sided. In an attempt to reduce false positive results, an alpha level of 0.01 declared statistical significance. JMP Version 12 (Cary, NC) was used for statistical analysis.

Results

Physician demographics. Physician demographics included year since completing residency, practicing setting, practice region, and approximation of definitive esophageal cases seen over the last year are summarized in Table I. Over half (56%) of the respondents were over 10 years from completion of residency, while the majority of the remainder were either new graduates or less than 10 years from completion of residency. Sixty-one percent treated greater than five definitive cases of esophageal cancer within the previous calendar year. The response rates between academic and private practice centers were similar.

Management recommendations. Radiation oncologist recommendations based on surgeon-evaluated operative candidacy are summarized in Table II. The most common pre-operative or definitive regimen administrated across all patients is carboplatin/paclitaxel in combination with 50.4 Gy. Chemoradiation to 50.4 Gy with concurrent cisplatin/5-FU is used by 17%, 19% and 23% of respondents for good, borderline and poor surgical candidates, respectively. Few (15%) respondents recommend the CROSS regimen for good surgical candidates. For resectable candidates, dosimetric planning parameters influenced 16% of respondents on their use of either 41.4 or 50.4 Gy. Dose escalation beyond 50.4 Gy with concurrent chemotherapy is prescribed by 15% and 38% of physicians for borderline surgical candidates and poor surgical candidates, respectively.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Characteristics of 296 US radiation oncologists who responded to the survey.

Factors influencing recommendations. Eighty-five percent (n=251) of respondents held the opinion that 50.4 Gy yields a higher pathologic complete response rate than 41.4 Gy. On multivariate analysis, these subset of respondents were more likely to prescribe doses higher than 41. 4 Gy for good surgical candidates, and private practice physicians were more likely than academic radiation oncologists to hold this opinion. There was a trend toward significance among physicians in closer temporal proximity, namely less than 10 years, to their training to hold the opposite view (Table III).

Sixty-six percent (n=195) of respondents believe 50.4 Gy increases the likelihood of R0 resection compared to 41.4 Gy. The significant influences on this opinion were similar to those observed regarding higher dose and pathologic response. The additional distinct significant parameter was that physicians with less than 10 years of post-residency experience were less likely to believe doses higher than 41.4 Gy would lead to higher likelihood of R0 resection (Table IV).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Recommended treatments by US radiation oncologists based on patient's surgical candidacy.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Correlation between physician's belief that 50.4 Gy of radiation therapy yields a higher pathological complete response compared to 41.4 Gy and respondent's characteristics.

Fifty-four percent (n=158) of respondents believe that 50.4 Gy causes more toxicity than 41. 4 Gy. Multivariate analysis determined that physicians early in their career (<10 years practicing) were significantly more likely to believe 50.4 Gy causes more toxicity than 41.4 Gy (p=0.01) (Table V).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table IV.

Correlation between physician's belief that 50.4 Gy of radiation therapy increases resectability and the likelihood of R0 resection compared to 41.4 Gy and respondent's characteristics.

Interest in a prospective comparison of 50.4 vs. 41.4 Gy in esophageal tri-modality therapy. Seventy-six percent (n=223) of respondents were willing to enroll patients in a neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy clinical trial comparing 41.4 Gy to 50.4 Gy with concurrent carboplatin/paclitaxel in locally advanced esophageal cancer (Table VI). Physicians early in their career were more willing to enroll to a trial addressing this question (p<0.001). There was no significant correlation between common radiation doses used in physician practice and willingness to enroll in a clinical trial comparing 41.4 Gy, including those that commonly treated to doses >50.4 Gy (Table VI).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table V.

Correlation between physician's belief that 50.4 Gy of radiation therapy would cause more toxicity compared to 41.4 Gy and respondent's characteristics.

Discussion

Tri-modality therapy is the standard of care for patients with resectable locally advanced esophageal cancer (4-6, 9-15). In the United States, 50.4 Gy with concurrent cisplatin/5-FU was adopted nearly two decades ago as the standard treatment.

The more contemporary investigation of TMT in the CROSS trial implemented a lower dose of radiation of 41.4 Gy with concurrent carboplatin/paclitaxel chemotherapy. Despite the lower radiation dose, this TMT regimen maintained superior efficacy over surgery, appears to be similar in efficacy, and better tolerated than cisplatin/5-FU and 50.4 Gy (5, 15). Nevertheless, a substantially low number (15%) of US radiation oncologists implement the CROSS regimen in good surgical candidates who are receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. However, physicians have changed the concurrent chemotherapy to carboplatin/paclitaxel while maintaining the higher radiation dose of 50.4 Gy with thoughts that the higher radiation dose increases the likelihood of R0 resection and pathological complete response; while possibly leading to higher toxicity (16). These data also support enrolling on a clinical trial comparing 41.4 Gy versus 50.4 Gy in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table VI.

Correlation between physician's willingness to enroll a patient with operable esophageal cancer on a randomized trial of 41.4 vs. 50.4 Gy of radiation therapy with concurrent chemotherapy and respondent's characteristics.

This study revealed insights into why US providers may continue to use higher doses of radiotherapy while changing the chemotherapy backbone to the better tolerated CROSS regimen. The respondents to the survey were evenly distributed in age, location, practice location and time from training. Data are challenging to extrapolate to all practicing radiation oncologists in the US, but can serve as an indicator of current practice patterns.

US practicing radiation oncologist continue to practice and believe that higher radiation dose correlates to a high likelihood of tumor response; however, there are insufficient data to support this conclusion, especially in the era following RTOG 0617, which failed to show a benefit of radiation dose escalation in non-small cell lung cancer. While the data from this survey supports enrollment in a clinical trial comparing 50.4 Gy to 41.4 Gy with concurrent carboplatin/paclitaxel; this is a costly endeavor that would require a considerable number of patients to accurately assess a difference between the two radiotherapy doses. This is a question that may be answered in the future with hospital or population-based databases.

Conclusion

This study reports the current practice patterns among US radiation oncologists for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer: poor adoption of the CROSS regimen for resectable patients due to beliefs of improved pathological complete response rate and R0 resection with a higher radiation dose.

Acknowledgements

REDCap was used in data acquisition (1 UL1 RR024140 01).

  • Received September 11, 2018.
  • Revision received September 24, 2018.
  • Accepted September 28, 2018.
  • Copyright© 2018, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved

References

  1. ↵
    1. Ferlay J,
    2. Shin HR,
    3. Bray F,
    4. Forman D,
    5. Mathers C,
    6. Parkin DM
    : Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 127: 2893-2917, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Siegel RL,
    2. Miller KD,
    3. Jemal A
    : Cancer statistics, 2018. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians 68: 7-30, 2018.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Eisterer W,
    2. DEV A,
    3. Kendler D,
    4. Spechtenhauser B,
    5. Konigsrainer A,
    6. Nehoda H,
    7. Virgolini I,
    8. Lukas P,
    9. Bechter O,
    10. Woll E,
    11. Ofner D
    : Triple induction chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer. A phase II study. Anticancer research 31: 4407-4412, 2011.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Tepper J,
    2. Krasna MJ,
    3. Niedzwiecki D,
    4. Hollis D,
    5. Reed CE,
    6. Goldberg R,
    7. Kiel K,
    8. Willett C,
    9. Sugarbaker D,
    10. Mayer R
    : Phase III trial of trimodality therapy with cisplatin, fluorouracil, radiotherapy, and surgery compared with surgery alone for esophageal cancer: CALGB 9781. J Clin Oncol 26: 1086-1092, 2008.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. van Hagen P,
    2. Hulshof MC,
    3. van Lanschot JJ,
    4. Steyerberg EW,
    5. van Berge Henegouwen MI,
    6. Wijnhoven BP,
    7. Richel DJ,
    8. Nieuwenhuijzen GA,
    9. Hospers GA,
    10. Bonenkamp JJ,
    11. Cuesta MA,
    12. Blaisse RJ,
    13. Busch OR,
    14. ten Kate FJ,
    15. Creemers GJ,
    16. Punt CJ,
    17. Plukker JT,
    18. Verheul HM,
    19. Spillenaar Bilgen EJ,
    20. van Dekken H,
    21. van der Sangen MJ,
    22. Rozema T,
    23. Biermann K,
    24. Beukema JC,
    25. Piet AH,
    26. van Rij CM,
    27. Reinders JG,
    28. Tilanus HW,
    29. van der Gaast A
    : Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med 366: 2074-2084, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Walsh TN,
    2. Noonan N,
    3. Hollywood D,
    4. Kelly A,
    5. Keeling N,
    6. Hennessy TP
    : A comparison of multimodal therapy and surgery for esophageal adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med 335: 462-467, 1996.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Haque W,
    2. Verma V,
    3. Butler EB,
    4. Teh BS
    : Radiation dose in neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy for esophageal cancer: patterns of care and outcomes from the National Cancer Data Base. Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology 9: 80-89, 2018.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Harris PA,
    2. Taylor R,
    3. Thielke R,
    4. Payne J,
    5. Gonzalez N,
    6. Conde JG
    : Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) - A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 42: 377-381, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Apinop C,
    2. Puttisak P,
    3. Preecha N
    : A prospective study of combined therapy in esophageal cancer. Hepatogastroenterology 41: 391-393, 1994.
    OpenUrlPubMed
    1. Bosset JF,
    2. Gignoux M,
    3. Triboulet JP,
    4. Tiret E,
    5. Mantion G,
    6. Elias D,
    7. Lozach P,
    8. Ollier JC,
    9. Pavy JJ,
    10. Mercier M,
    11. Sahmoud T
    : Chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery compared with surgery alone in squamous-cell cancer of the esophagus. N Engl J Med 337: 161-167, 1997.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Burmeister BH,
    2. Smithers BM,
    3. Gebski V,
    4. Fitzgerald L,
    5. Simes RJ,
    6. Devitt P,
    7. Ackland S,
    8. Gotley DC,
    9. Joseph D,
    10. Millar J,
    11. North J,
    12. Walpole ET,
    13. Denham JW
    : Surgery alone versus chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery for resectable cancer of the oesophagus: a randomised controlled phase III trial. Lancet Oncol 6: 659-668, 2005.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Le Prise E,
    2. Etienne PL,
    3. Meunier B,
    4. Maddern G,
    5. Ben Hassel M,
    6. Gedouin D,
    7. Boutin D,
    8. Campion JP,
    9. Launois B
    : A randomized study of chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgery versus surgery for localized squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. Cancer 73: 1779-1784, 1994.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Lee JL,
    2. Park SI,
    3. Kim SB,
    4. Jung HY,
    5. Lee GH,
    6. Kim JH,
    7. Song HY,
    8. Cho KJ,
    9. Kim WK,
    10. Lee JS,
    11. Kim SH,
    12. Min YI
    : A single institutional phase III trial of preoperative chemotherapy with hyperfractionation radiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for resectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Ann Oncol 15: 947-954, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Nygaard K,
    2. Hagen S,
    3. Hansen HS,
    4. Hatlevoll R,
    5. Hultborn R,
    6. Jakobsen A,
    7. Mantyla M,
    8. Modig H,
    9. Munck-Wikland E,
    10. Rosengren B,
    11. et al
    : Pre-operative radiotherapy prolongs survival in operable esophageal carcinoma: a randomized, multicenter study of pre-operative radiotherapy and chemotherapy. The second Scandinavian trial in esophageal cancer. World J Surg 16: 1104-1109; discussion 1110, 1992.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Urba SG,
    2. Orringer MB,
    3. Turrisi A,
    4. Iannettoni M,
    5. Forastiere A,
    6. Strawderman M
    : Randomized trial of preoperative chemoradiation versus surgery alone in patients with locoregional esophageal carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 19: 305-313, 2001.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Nabavizadeh N,
    2. Shukla R,
    3. Elliott DA,
    4. Mitin T,
    5. Vaccaro GM,
    6. Dolan JP,
    7. Maggiore RJ,
    8. Schipper PH,
    9. Hunter JG,
    10. Thomas CR Jr..,
    11. Holland JM
    : Preoperative carboplatin and paclitaxel-based chemoradiotherapy for esophageal carcinoma: results of a modified CROSS regimen utilizing radiation doses greater than 41.4 Gy. Dis Esophagus 29: 614-620, 2016.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 38 (11)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 38, Issue 11
November 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Underutilization of the CROSS Regimen Among US Radiation Oncologists: A National Survey of Practice Patterns
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
5 + 7 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Underutilization of the CROSS Regimen Among US Radiation Oncologists: A National Survey of Practice Patterns
DAVID A. ELLIOTT, SHUSHAN R. RANA, NIMA NABAVIZADEH, YIYI CHEN, AARON KUSANO, JOHN M. HOLLAND, TIMUR MITIN
Anticancer Research Nov 2018, 38 (11) 6375-6379; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.12996

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Underutilization of the CROSS Regimen Among US Radiation Oncologists: A National Survey of Practice Patterns
DAVID A. ELLIOTT, SHUSHAN R. RANA, NIMA NABAVIZADEH, YIYI CHEN, AARON KUSANO, JOHN M. HOLLAND, TIMUR MITIN
Anticancer Research Nov 2018, 38 (11) 6375-6379; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.12996
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgements
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Pelvic Recurrence After Curative Resection for Rectal Adenocarcinoma: Impact of Surgery on Survival
  • Glasgow Prognostic Score Predicts Survival and Recurrence Pattern in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Hepatectomy
  • Small Bowel Lipomatosis: An Unusual Radiological Finding in Patients With Renal Cell Cancer on Pazopanib
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Esophageal cancer
  • chemoradiotherapy
  • radiation dose
  • survey
  • practice patterns
Anticancer Research

© 2023 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire