Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Oct 27, 2026; 18(10): 123247
Published online Oct 27, 2026. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.123247
Published online Oct 27, 2026. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.123247
Table 1 Comparison of the radiation dose distribution between the two groups, mean ± SD
| Groups | GTV D95% (Gy) | CTV D95% (Gy) | PTV D95% (Gy) | Lung V20 (%) | Lung V30 (%) | Heart V30 (%) | Heart V40 (%) | Spinal cord Dmax (Gy) |
| Experimental group (n = 32) | 55.8 ± 1.2 | 54.5 ± 1.3 | 50.2 ± 1.4 | 18.3 ± 3.2 | 12.1 ± 2.8 | 20.7 ± 3.1 | 12.3 ± 2.9 | 45.8 ± 1.6 |
| Control group (n = 33) | 52.3 ± 1.5 | 47.6 ± 1.7 | 47.6 ± 1.7 | 22.5 ± 3.7 | 15.4 ± 3.0 | 24.6 ± 3.5 | 15.7 ± 3.2 | 49.3 ± 1.8 |
| t | 10.368 | 18.340 | 6.719 | 4.888 | 4.581 | 4.750 | 4.484 | 8.276 |
| P value | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | < 0.01 | < 0.01 |
Table 2 Comparison of radiation dose deviation between the two groups, mean ± SD
| Groups | Mean dose deviation (%) | SD of dose deviation (%) |
| Experimental group (n = 32) | 2.3 ± 0.5 | 1.1 ± 0.3 |
| Control group (n = 33) | 4.6 ± 0.7 | 2.4 ± 0.4 |
| t | 15.202 | 14.788 |
| P value | < 0.01 | < 0.01 |
Table 3 Comparison of short-term efficacy between the two groups, n (%)
| Groups | 3 months | 6 months | ||||||
| CR | PR | SD | PD | CR | PR | SD | PD | |
| Experimental group (n = 32) | 18 (56.3) | 9 (28.1) | 3 (9.4) | 2 (6.3) | 21 (65.6) | 8 (25.0) | 2 (6.3) | 1 (3.1) |
| Control group (n = 33) | 8 (24.2) | 12 (36.4) | 8 (24.2) | 5 (15.2) | 12 (36.4) | 11 (33.3) | 6 (18.2) | 4 (12.1) |
| χ2 | 4.584 | 4.584 | 4.447 | 4.447 | ||||
| P value | < 0.05 | < 0.05 | < 0.05 | < 0.05 | ||||
Table 4 Comparison of acute adverse reactions between the two groups, n (%)
| Group | Acute esophagitis | Acute pneumonia | Skin reactions | |||
| Grade 1-2 | Grade 3-4 | Grade 1-2 | Grade 3-4 | Grade 1-2 | Grade 3-4 | |
| Experimental group (n = 32) | 9 (31.3) | 2 (6.3) | 7 (21.9) | 1 (3.1) | 8 (25.0) | 1 (3.1) |
| Control group (n = 33) | 18 (54.5) | 5 (15.2) | 15 (45.5) | 4 (12.1) | 14 (42.4) | 4 (12.1) |
| χ2 | 8.125 | 7.099 | 4.670 | |||
| P value | < 0.05 | < 0.05 | < 0.05 | |||
Table 5 Comparison of late adverse reactions between the two groups, n (%)
| Group | Fibrosis | Stenosis | Cardiac injury | |||
| Grade 1-2 | Grade 3-4 | Grade 1-2 | Grade 3-4 | Grade 1-2 | Grade 3-4 | |
| Experimental group (n = 32) | 6 (18.8) | 1 (3.1) | 5 (15.6) | 1 (3.1) | 4 (12.5) | 0 (0.0) |
| Control group (n = 33) | 12 (36.4) | 4 (12.1) | 11 (33.3) | 3 (9.1) | 9 (27.3) | 3 (9.1) |
| χ2 | 5.031 | 4.275 | 4.986 | |||
| P value | < 0.05 | < 0.05 | < 0.05 | |||
- Citation: Gou CX, Zheng AM, Song HX, Gou QY, Tao N. Multimodal image-guided volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy for postoperative esophageal cancer: A prospective randomized controlled trial. World J Gastrointest Surg 2026; 18(10): 123247
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-9366/full/v18/i10/123247.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.123247