ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2015
Prognostic Value of the Circumferential Resection Margin in Esophageal Cancer Patients After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prognostic impact of tumor length in esophageal Cancer: a systematic review and Meta-analysis.BMC cancer · 2021Pooled it
- Circumferential resection margin and early recurrence after neoadjuvant-treated hybrid ivor lewis esophagectomy: a single-center cohort study.BMC surgery · 2026Observational
- Article
- Clinical impact of remnant lymphatic invasion on the recurrence of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after esophagectomy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.Oncology letters · 2022Article
- Effect of circumferential resection margin status on survival and recurrence in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Outcome of microscopically non-radical oesophagectomy for oesophageal and oesophagogastric junctional cancer: nationwide cohort study.BJS open · 2021Article
- Margin Positivity in Resectable Esophageal Cancer: Are there Modifiable Risk Factors?Annals of surgical oncology · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- Prognostic value of lymphovascular invasion in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Annals of translational medicine · 2019Article
- Prognostic value of circumferential resection margin in T3N0M0 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Annals of translational medicine · 2018Article
- Impact of incremental circumferential resection margin distance on overall survival and recurrence in oesophageal adenocarcinoma.BJS open · 2018Article
- Adhering to Quality Measures in Esophagectomy Is Associated With Improved Survival in All Stages of Esophageal Cancer.The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCircumferential resection margins (CRM) for esophageal cancer (EC), defined by the College of American Pathologists (CAP; >0 mm) or the Royal College of Pathologists (RCP; >1 mm) as tumor-free (R0), are based on a surgery-alone approach. We evaluated the usefulness of both definitions in current practice with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT).
methodsCRMs were measured in 209 patients (104 with nCRT) with locally advanced EC after transthoracic esophagectomy. Local recurrence and cancer related death were scored as events. Patients were followed for at least 2 years or until death. Prognostic factors (P < 0.1 in univariate analyses) for 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) and local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were incorporated in multivariate Cox regression analyses. Both CRM measurements were analyzed separately and prognostic cutoff values (0-1.0 mm) were assessed in both groups.
resultsIndependent prognostic factors (P < 0.05) for 2-year DFS were tumor length, lymph node ratio, angioinvasion, and CAP R0 in the surgery-alone group and pN stage (P < 0.01) in the nCRT group. Prognostic factors (P < 0.05) for 2-year LRFS were CAP, lymph node ratio, and tumor length in the surgery-alone group, and CAP and grade in the nCRT group. Optimal CRM cutoff values between 0.0 and 0.2 mm were prognostic for 2-year DFS in the surgery-alone and at 0.3 mm for the nCRT group.
conclusionsnCRT affected the CRM cutoff values. After nCRT, the CRM R0 according to the CAP was only prognostic for 2-year LRFS. However, in the surgery-alone group, it was prognostic for both the 2-year DFS and LRFS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.