Observational studyMedicine2019
A comparative analysis of clinicopathological factors between esophageal small cell and basaloid squamous cell carcinoma.
Observational study in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multimodality Therapy and Survival Outcomes in Resectable Primary Small Cell Carcinoma of the Esophagus: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- A diagnostic pitfall; Small cell carcinoma-like features in basaloid squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus.Histology and histopathology · 2023Article
- A Comparative Analysis of the Gene Expression Profiles of Small Cell Esophageal Carcinoma, Small Cell Lung Cancer, and Esophageal Adeno/Squamous Carcinoma.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Article
- Primary small cell carcinoma of the esophagus: progression in the last decade.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Review
- Review
- Low Albumin to Fibrinogen Ratio Predicts Poor Overall Survival in Esophageal Small Cell Carcinoma Patients: A Retrospective Study.Cancer management and research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Esophageal small cell carcinoma (E-SmCC) and basaloid squamous cell carcinomas (BSCCs) are both highly aggressive malignancies, but their detailed differences in clinical behaviors have remained virtually unknown. In addition, treatment strategies of the patients with E-SmCC have not been established. 29 cases of E-SmCC and 39 with BSCC were examined in this study to clarify the clinical features and outcome of the patients with E-SmCC and to compare the findings with those of BSCC. E-SmCCs presented a more advanced status than BSCC (TNM Stage: P = .002). Esophagectomy was performed in 15 small cell carcinoma patients and 14 were treated with non-surgical/systemic therapy. The clinical outcome of the small cell carcinoma cases was significantly worse than those with BSCC (P = .001), but results of a stage-stratified analysis revealed that the Stage I small cell carcinoma patients presented favorable prognosis (3-year survival rate 100%, n = 4). In contrast, among those with Stage II-IV, clinical outcome tended to be better in the systemic therapy group (3-year survival rate 49%, n = 13) than the surgically treated group (3-year survival rate 0%, n = 12). E-SmCC was a more aggressive neoplasm than BSCC. However, early detection could possibly improve the clinical outcome of patients with E-SmCC. Systemic therapy could also benefit the patients with advanced disease (Stage II-IV).
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.