Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27088503›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Endoscopic Tumor Length Should Be Reincluded in the Esophageal Cancer Staging System: Analyses of 662 Consecutive Patients.

Michele Valmasoni, Elisa Sefora Pierobon, Alberto Ruol, Carlo Alberto De Pasqual, Gianpietro Zanchettin, Lucia Moletta, Renato Salvador, Mario Costantini, Stefano Merigliano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Michele Valmasoni3rd Surgical Clinic - Center for Esophageal Disease, Department of Surgical, Oncological and Gastroenterological Sciences, University Hospital of Padova, Padova 35128, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1462-8275
Elisa Sefora Pierobon3rd Surgical Clinic - Center for Esophageal Disease, Department of Surgical, Oncological and Gastroenterological Sciences, University Hospital of Padova, Padova 35128, Italy.
Alberto Ruol3rd Surgical Clinic - Center for Esophageal Disease, Department of Surgical, Oncological and Gastroenterological Sciences, University Hospital of Padova, Padova 35128, Italy.
Carlo Alberto De Pasqual3rd Surgical Clinic - Center for Esophageal Disease, Department of Surgical, Oncological and Gastroenterological Sciences, University Hospital of Padova, Padova 35128, Italy.
Gianpietro Zanchettin3rd Surgical Clinic - Center for Esophageal Disease, Department of Surgical, Oncological and Gastroenterological Sciences, University Hospital of Padova, Padova 35128, Italy.
Lucia Moletta3rd Surgical Clinic - Center for Esophageal Disease, Department of Surgical, Oncological and Gastroenterological Sciences, University Hospital of Padova, Padova 35128, Italy.
Renato Salvador3rd Surgical Clinic - Center for Esophageal Disease, Department of Surgical, Oncological and Gastroenterological Sciences, University Hospital of Padova, Padova 35128, Italy.
Mario Costantini3rd Surgical Clinic - Center for Esophageal Disease, Department of Surgical, Oncological and Gastroenterological Sciences, University Hospital of Padova, Padova 35128, Italy.
Stefano Merigliano3rd Surgical Clinic - Center for Esophageal Disease, Department of Surgical, Oncological and Gastroenterological Sciences, University Hospital of Padova, Padova 35128, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Esophageal cancer represents the 6th cause of cancer mortality in the World. New treatments led to outcome improvements, but patient selection and prognostic stratification is a critical aspect to gain maximum benefit from therapies. Today, patients are stratified into 9 prognostic groups, according to a staging system developed by the American Joint Committee on Cancer. Recently, trying to better select patients with curing possibilities several authors are reconsidering tumor length as a valuable prognostic parameter. Specifically, endoscopic tumor length can be easily measured with an esophageal endoscopy and, if its utility in esophageal cancer staging is demonstrated, it may represent a simple method to identify high risk patients and an easy-to-obtain variable in prognostic stratification. In this study we retrospectively analyzed 662 patients treated for esophageal cancer, stratified according to cancer histology and current staging system, to assess the possible role of endoscopic tumor length. We found a significant correlation between endoscopic tumor length, current staging parameters and 5-year survival, proving that endoscopic tumor length may be used as a simple risk stratification tool. Our results suggest a possible indication for preoperative therapy in early stage squamocellular carcinoma patients without lymph nodes involvement, who are currently treated with surgery alone.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaCarcinoma, Squamous CellCohort StudiesEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagoscopyHumansKaplan-Meier EstimateMultivariate AnalysisNeoplasm StagingPrognosisRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID27088503
PMCPMC4835067

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.