ArticleJournal of the American College of Surgeons2019
Ongoing Challenges with Clinical Assessment of Nodal Status in T1 Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.
Article in Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Defining low-risk lesions in early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma.The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2021Article
- Infiltration Depth is the Most Relevant Risk Factor for Overall Metastases in Early Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.World journal of surgery · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has emerged as an esophageal-preserving treatment for T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC); however, only patients with negligible risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM) are eligible. Reliable clinical diagnostic tools for LNM are lacking, as such, several risk assessment scores have been developed. The purpose of this study was to externally validate 2 previously published risk scores (Lee and Weksler) for clinical prediction of LNM in T1 EAC patients.
methodsIn adherence with the Lee and Weksler scores, esophagectomy patients with pathologic T1 EAC were identified. Sub-analysis was performed in patients with clinical T1 based on EMR. Predictive accuracy of the scores was evaluated by calculating the area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve and calibration plots. The areas under the curves were compared using Venkatraman's test for paired receiver operating characteristic curves.
resultsOf 233 patients identified who met study criteria for external validation, 3 T1a and 32 T1b patients had LNM. The receiver operating characteristic curves demonstrated comparable high predictive and discriminatory capabilities with areas under the curves of 0.832 and 0.824 for the Lee and Weksler scores, respectively (p = 0.750). Results were more variable for the EMR cohort. Based on the risk thresholds defined by each score, the false-positive rate compared against the pathologic LNM status were 73% and 56% for Lee and Weksler, with 3% false negatives in the latter. On EMR, the false-positive rates were 70% and 50% for Lee and Weksler, with no false negatives.
conclusionsBoth scoring systems demonstrated good discriminatory ability and predictive accuracy for LNM, but the defined thresholds resulted in a high false-positive rate. A better scoring system based on clinical characteristics is needed to better identify patients with local disease.
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.