ReviewAnnals of gastroenterological surgery2020
Advances in the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer since 1965.
Review in Annals of gastroenterological surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of the cutoff values for the number of metastatic lymph nodes for esophageal cancer staging: a multi-institutional analysis of 655 patients in Japan.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2024Article
- Clinical value of measuring plasma D-dimer levels in patients with esophageal cancer.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Clinicopathological features and prognosis of gastric tube cancer after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a nationwide study in Japan.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2022Article
- Clinical TNM staging for esophageal, gastric, and colorectal cancers in the era of neoadjuvant therapy: A systematic review of the literature.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2021Review
- Advances in the surgical treatment of esophageal cancer since 1965.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Japan, the treatment of esophageal cancer has undergone significant development since the Japanese Society for Esophageal Diseases was established in 1965 by Doctors Komei Nakayama, Shigetsugu Katsura, and Ichiro Akakura. When the Society was established, surgery was the first-line treatment for esophageal cancer. Since then, the Society has been led by three successive chairpersons-Doctors Katsura, Nakayama, and Satoh. Over this time, surgery-related mortalities declined to 5%-6% because of the rapid improvements in surgical technique. Beginning in 1980, the bilateral cervical lymph node dissection technique gained attention, and favorable long-term outcomes were gradually reported. A nationwide questionnaire survey, conducted by the Society in 1990, showed that more favorable long-term outcomes were achieved by following the three-field lymph node dissection technique than by following the two-field lymph node dissection technique. Since then, the three-field lymph node dissection technique has been recognized and widely used as the standard surgical procedure for treating esophageal cancer. After clinical studies examined the utility of various pre- and postoperative adjunctive therapies in outcome improvements, preoperative chemotherapy was recognized as the standard treatment in the therapy guidelines. Additionally, less invasive surgical methods have been developed, including endoscopic and robot-assisted surgeries, which are applied in general practice now. However, unresectable and recurrent esophageal cancers remain difficult to treat, and additional treatments should be developed.
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.