ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2017
Salvage esophagectomy: safe therapeutic strategy?
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Definitive Chemoradiotherapy Versus Trimodality Therapy for Resectable Oesophageal Carcinoma: Meta-analyses and Systematic Review of Literature.World journal of surgery · 2019Pooled it
- Esophagectomy after definitive chemoradiation in esophageal cancer: a safe therapeutic strategy.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2024Article
- Long-term survival after esophagectomy with distal pancreatectomy for locally advanced esophageal cancer with pancreatic invasion: a case report.Surgical case reports · 2021Article
- Time to surgery in thoracic cancers and prioritization during COVID-19: a systematic review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
- Can We Increase the Resection Rate by Minimally Invasive Approach? Experience from 100 Minimally Invasive Esophagectomies.Journal of oncology · 2019Article
- Salvage esophagectomy combined with partial aortic wall resection following thoracic endovascular aortic repair.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2018Article
- The Usefulness of the Modified Advanced Lung Cancer Inflammation Index (mALI) as a Prognostic Factor in Patients With Esophageal Cancer who Have Undergone Curative Resection.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objectives of this review were to assess both the short- and long-term clinical outcomes in patients managed with definitive chemoradiotherapy, and salvage esophagectomy subsequently in comparison to those neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by planned esophagectomy (NCRS) for esophageal cancer from published literature. Eleven studies comprising 1,906 patients were included, 563 in the salvage group and 1,343 in the NCRS group. Pooled analysis showed no significant difference between salvage and NCRS groups in overall survival [hazard ratio (HR) =1.17; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.94-1.46, P=0.148], postoperative mortality [pooled odds ratios (POR) =1.12; 95% CI, 0.52-2.41, P=0.775], pulmonary complications (POR =1.24; 95% CI, 0.83-1.86, P=0.292) and positive resection margin incidence (POR =1.29; 95% CI, 0.94-1.76, P=0.114). However, within the salvage group there were increases in postoperative morbidity (POR =1.30; 95% CI, 1.00-1.67, P=0.046) and anastomotic leak (POR =1.88; 95% CI, 1.41-2.51, P<0.001). Herein we found that salvage esophagectomy has similar short- and long-term mortality in comparison to planned esophagectomy following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. However, anastomotic leak is increased following salvage esophagectomy suggesting the need for this practice to be reserved for high volume surgeons within high volume centers.
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.