ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2018
Comparison of two major staging systems of esophageal cancer-toward more practical common scale for tumor staging.
Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Article
- Pararespiratory and paradigestive lymph node metastases in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: predicting survival and refining the N staging system.BMC cancer · 2023Article
- Ideal Anatomical Landmark Points for Thoracic Esophagus Segmentation in the Chinese Population.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Article
- Predicting aggressive histopathological features in esophageal cancer with positron emission tomography using a deep convolutional neural network.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Past, present, and future of three-field lymphadenectomy for thoracic esophageal cancer.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2020Review
- Should the clinical significance of supraclavicular and celiac lymph node metastasis in thoracic esophageal cancer be reevaluated?Thoracic cancer · 2019Article
- Is the new distribution of early esophageal adenocarcinoma stages improving the prognostic prediction of the 8Journal of thoracic disease · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The latest 8th edition of TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours by Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) and 11th edition of Japanese Classification of Esophageal Cancer by Japan Esophageal Society (JES) are the two major classifications widely accepted as tools for clinical staging of esophageal cancer. Both systems consist of three main categories, i.e., T, N, and M, but large difference exists between the two. JES system has more detailed sub-classification of T1 tumors reflecting meticulous work by Japanese investigators on superficial esophageal cancer. N-category shows the largest difference. UICC defines the N-category according to only the number of the metastatic regional lymph nodes. The definition of regional nodes in UICC system is static and uniform, and supraclavicular nodes are definitely excluded. In JES system, regional nodes are subgrouped into five different patterns according to the main tumor location, and the supraclavicular nodes are always regional nodes for thoracic esophageal cancer. Japanese surgeons have described the evidence that regional nodes should be dynamically defined according to tumor location and supraclavicular nodes should be included in regional nodes. Compared to the simplified N-category, the staging matrix of UICC system is somewhat complicated. The clinical stage and pathological stage of UICC system are not identical and difference exists also between squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and adenocarcinoma. It has another system of pathological prognostic grouping. We can imagine several reasons for the difference occurred between the two systems. One is the difference of major pathology. Another reason is the difference of basic concept of cancer treatment. The relative "dependence" on radical surgery in Japan has required the detailed definition of each lymph node station and the evaluation of "efficacy index" of each station. The strict and detailed definition of lymph node stations has been regarded as an obstacle to those who are not familiar with it. Some simplification can be done but maintaining dynamic definition of regional lymph nodes linked to tumor location. If UICC system can accept this concept, I think the two systems can be unified to realize more practical and useful staging system as an international common language.
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.