ReviewAnnals of surgical oncology2020
Surgical and Surgeon-Related Factors Related to Long-Term Survival in Esophageal Cancer: A Review.
Review in Annals of surgical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of Centralizing Esophageal Cancer Surgery at High-Volume Centers on Long-Term Survival: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Impact of negative lymph node removal on survival in esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC surgery · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of Anastomotic Leak on Long-Term Survival After Esophagectomy: Multivariate Meta-analysis and Restricted Mean Survival Times Examination.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Pooled it
- Association between surgical timing and postoperative outcome in patients with residual esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- Pan-cancer and multi-omics analysis: NDUFA1 is a potential therapeutic target and prognostic marker for esophageal cancer.Cell biology and toxicology · 2025Article
- Association of Upper GI Surgery of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS) Delphi consensus recommendations on the adoption of robotic upper GI surgery.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2024Article
- Article
- Long-Term Impact of Severe Postoperative Complications after Esophagectomy for Cancer: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2024Review
- Days of the week and 90-day mortality after esophagectomy: analysis of 33,980 patients from the National Clinical Database.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Article
- Unveiling Therapeutic Targets for Esophageal Cancer: A Comprehensive Review.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Review
- The "Weekday Effect"-Does It Impact Esophageal Cancer Surgery Outcomes?Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2023Article
- Article
- Dispositional optimism and all-cause mortality after esophageal cancer surgery: a nationwide population-based cohort study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Article
- [Factors Associated with the Clinical Outcomes of Iatrogenic Colonic Perforation].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2022Article
- Verification of oncological local control for hand-assisted laparoscopic abdominal lymph node dissection in esophageal cancer surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2021Article
- Epigenetic Regulator KDM4D Restricts TumorigenesisFrontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Esophagectomy is the mainstay of curative treatment for most patients with a diagnosis of esophageal cancer. This procedure needs to be optimized to secure the best possible chance of cure for these patients. Research comparing various surgical approaches of esophagectomy generally has failed to identify any major differences in long-term prognosis. Comparisons between minimally invasive and open esophagectomy, transthoracic and transhiatal approaches, radical and moderate lymphadenectomy, and high and moderate hospital volume generally have provided only moderate alterations in long-term survival rates after adjustment for established prognostic factors. In contrast, some direct surgeon-related factors, which remain independent of known prognostic factors, seem to influence the long-term survival more strongly in esophageal cancer. Annual surgeon volume is strongly prognostic, and recent studies have suggested the existence of long surgeon proficiency gain curves for achievement of stable 5-year survival rates and possibly also a prognostic influence of surgeon age and weekday of surgery. The available literature indicates a potentially more critical role of the individual surgeon's skills than that of variations in surgical approach for optimizing the long-term survival after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. This finding points to the value of paying more attention to how the skills of the individual esophageal cancer surgeon can best be achieved and maintained. Careful selection and evaluation of the most suitable candidates, appropriate and structured training programs, and regular peer-review assessments of experienced surgeons may be helpful in this respect.
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.