ArticleWorld journal of surgery2010
Differential pathologic variables and outcomes across the spectrum of adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction.
Article in World journal of surgery, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Minimal length of proximal resection margin in adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: a systematic review of the literature.Updates in surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Thoracoabdominal versus transhiatal surgical approaches for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction: experiences at a single institution in China.World journal of surgical oncology · 2013Trial
- Appraisal of staging endoscopic ultrasonography in a modern high-volume esophageal program.World journal of surgery · 2013Trial
- Prediction of tissue origin of adenocarcinomas in the esophagogastric junction by DNA methylation.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2022Article
- Extent of lymphadenectomy for Barrett's cancer.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2019Review
- Siewert III adenocarcinoma: treatment update.Updates in surgery · 2017Review
- Western strategy for EGJ carcinoma.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2017Review
- The presence of lymphovascular and perineural infiltration after neoadjuvant therapy and oesophagectomy identifies patients at high risk for recurrence.British journal of cancer · 2015Article
- Evolving changes in the management of early oesophageal adenocarcinoma in a tertiary centre.Irish journal of medical science · 2013Article
- Impact of esophageal cancer staging on overall survival and disease-free survival based on the 2010 AJCC classification by lymph nodes.Journal of radiation research · 2013Article
- Carcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction in Chinese patients.World journal of gastroenterology · 2012Review
- Challenges in the treatment of gastroesophageal junction cancer.World journal of surgery · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG) as described by Siewert et al. is classified as one entity in the latest (7th Edition) American Joint Cancer Committee/International Union Against Cancer (AJCC/UICC) manual, compared with the previous mix of esophageal and gastric staging systems. The origin of AEG tumors, esophageal or gastric, and their biology remain controversial, particularly for AEG type II (cardia) tumors.
methodsWe adapted a large prospective database (n = 520: 180 type I, 182 type II, 158 type III) to compare AEG tumors under the new TNM system Pathological variables associated with prognosis were compared (pT, pN, stage, differentiation, R status, lymphovascular invasion, perineural involvement, number of positive nodes, percent of positive nodes, and tumor length), as well as overall survival.
resultsCompared with AEG type I tumors, type II and type III tumors had significantly (p < 0.05) more advanced pN stages, greater number and percentage of positive nodes, poorer differentiation, more radial margin involvement, and more perineural invasion. In AEG type I, 14/180 patients (8%) had >6 involved nodes (pN3), compared with 16 and 30% of patients classified type II and III, respectively. Median survival was significantly (p = 0.03) improved for type I patients (38 months) compared with those with tumors classified as type II (28 months) and type III (24 months). In multivariate analysis node positivity and pN staging but not AEG site had an impact on survival.
conclusionsIn this series AEG type I is associated with more favorable pathologic features and improved outcomes compared with AEG type II and III. This may reflect earlier diagnosis, but an alternative possibility, that type I may be a unique paradigm with more favorable biology, requires further study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20827475What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.