ArticleCancer2017
Utilization of surgical treatment for local and locoregional esophageal cancer: Analysis of the National Cancer Data Base.
Article in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and Safety of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy with or without Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Resectable Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: a Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Racial and ethnic disparities in esophageal cancer survival are greatest at curable stages: a population-based study.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for intraoperative video analysis in robotic-assisted esophagectomy.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Review
- Article
- How to distinguish thoracic and cervical lymph nodes during minimally invasive esophagectomy.Thoracic cancer · 2022Article
- The Effect of the Appropriate Timing of Radiotherapy on Survival Benefit in Patients with Metastatic Esophageal Cancer Who Have Undergone Resection of Primary Site: A SEER Database Analysis.Journal of oncology · 2022Article
- The Academic Facility Is Associated with Higher Utilization of Esophagectomy and Improved Overall Survival for Esophageal Carcinoma.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2021Article
- Understanding health-seeking and adherence to treatment by patients with esophageal cancer at the Uganda cancer Institute: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- The Influence of Different Treatment Strategies on the Long-Term Prognosis of T1 Stage Esophageal Cancer Patients.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Evolving changes of minimally invasive esophagectomy: a single-institution experience.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Disparities in esophageal cancer: less treatment, less surgical resection, and poorer survival in disadvantaged patients.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2020Article
- Cost-effectiveness of chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy versus chemoradiation alone in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
- Trends in Treatment of T1N0 Esophageal Cancer.Annals of surgery · 2019Article
- Regionalization of esophagectomy: where are we now?Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Review
- Transcervical minimally invasive esophagectomy using da Vinci® SP™ Surgical System: a feasibility study in cadaveric model.Surgical endoscopy · 2019Article
- Influence of Patients' Age in the Utilization of Esophagectomy for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.Journal of laparoendoscopic & advanced surgical techniques. Part A · 2019Article
- Optimal Therapy in Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer: a National Cancer Database Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have suggested that esophagectomy is severely underused for patients with resectable esophageal cancer. The recent expansion of endoscopic local therapies, advances in surgical techniques, and improved postoperative outcomes have changed the therapeutic landscape. The impact of these developments and evolving treatment guidelines on national practice patterns is unknown.
methodsPatients diagnosed with clinical stage 0 to III esophageal cancer were identified from the National Cancer Database (2004-2013). The receipt of potentially curative surgical treatment over time was analyzed, and multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with surgical treatment.
resultsThe analysis included 52,122 patients. From 2004 to 2013, the overall rate of potentially curative surgical treatment increased from 36.4% to 47.4% (P < .001). For stage 0 disease, the receipt of esophagectomy decreased from 23.8% to 17.9% (P < .001), whereas the use of local therapies increased from 34.3% to 58.8% (P < .001). The use of surgical treatment increased from 43.4% to 61.8% (P < .001), from 36.1% to 45.0% (P < .001), and from 30.8% to 38.6% (P < .001) for patients with stage I, II, and III disease, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, divergent practice patterns and adherence to national guidelines were noted between academic and community facilities.
conclusionsThe use of potentially curative surgical treatment has increased for patients with stage 0 to III esophageal cancer. The expansion of local therapies has driven increased rates of surgical treatment for early-stage disease. Although the increased use of esophagectomy for more advanced disease is encouraging, significant variation persists at the patient and facility levels. Cancer 2017;123:410-419. © 2016 American Cancer Society.
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.