ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2018
Long-term survival of the middle and lower thoracic esophageal cancer patients after surgical treatment through left or right thoracic approach.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Survival of Esophageal Cancer in China: A Pooled Analysis on Hospital-Based Studies From 2000 to 2018.Frontiers in oncology · 2019Pooled it
- Right versus left thoracic approach esophagectomy for patients with neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Prognostic prediction model for patients with pathological T1N0 stage esophageal squamous cell carcinoma undergone esophagectomy.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Left compared with right thoracic approach thoracotomy in esophageal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Article
- Effect of different surgical approaches on the prognosis of patients with postoperative radiotherapy for stage IIB-IVA esophageal squamous cancer.World journal of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- Efficacy and safety of esophagectomy via left thoracic approach versus via right thoracic approach for middle and lower thoracic esophageal cancer: a multicenter randomized clinical trial (NST1501).Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Left versus right approach for middle and lower esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A propensity score-matched study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Survival risk prediction model for patients with pTJournal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2021Article
- Postoperative Adjuvant Therapy for Patients with pN+ Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.BioMed research international · 2021Article
- Right Compared With Left Thoracic Approach Esophagectomy for Patients With Middle Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Article
- Effects of lymph node metastasis of thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma on design of radiotherapy target volume.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEsophageal cancer is one of the most prevalent malignancies with a high incidence and mortality in China, the main treatment for esophageal cancer at present is still surgery-based multimodality treatment, and surgery is still the most effective measure. However, the modes of surgical treatment for esophageal cancer have been diverse. The surgical approaches can be mainly divided into the left thoracic approach and right thoracic approach in China. The long-term survival of the patients treated through right approach was reported better than that through left thoracic approach, but until now no statistically significant difference was found between two approaches, especially, for those with middle and lower thoracic esophageal cancer without suspected upper mediastinal lymph node metastasis in preoperative examinations, no definite conclusion have been made on selection of the approach, therefore, this studies try to compare the long-term survival between two approaches .
methodsThe data of 402 cases with complete resection and two-field lymph node dissection from January, 2011 to December, 2011 in the Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences was retrospectively reviewed and analyzed. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis and life-table in SPSS 22.0 and Stata 14.0 were used to analyze the survival.
resultsTotally, 402 cases were surgically treated either via left or right thoracic approach. The overall 5-year survival rate of this series was 38%, it was 37% in 281 cases surgically treated through left approach, and 39% in 121 cases through right approach (P=0.908). The 5-year survival of 256 patients without suspected lymph node metastasis in the upper mediastinum based on the preoperative examinations surgically treated through left approach was 38% versus 43% of 88 cases through right approach (P=0.404). After PSM, the 5-year survival of 110 cases surgically treated through left approach was 32% versus 40% of another matched 110 cases through right approach (P=0.146). for the patients without suspected lymph node metastasis in the upper mediastinum based on preoperative examinations, the 5-year survival of 88 surgically treated through left approach was 33% versus 44% of another matched 88 cases through right approach (P=0.239).
conclusionsFor the middle and lower thoracic esophageal cancer patients, whether or not who has suspected lymph node metastasis in the upper mediastinum based on preoperative CT and EUS, the surgical treatment through right thoracic approach can achieve better but not significantly better overall survival than that through left thoracic approach. Further prospective randomized clinical trials are still needed to verify this disputed issue on approach selection.
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.