ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
Self-expandable metal stents in esophageal cancer before preoperative neoadjuvant therapy: efficacy, safety, and long-term outcomes.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and efficacy of conventional compared to segmented esophageal fully covered self-expanding metal stents: a retrospective multicenter case-control study.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Best Practices in Esophageal, Gastroduodenal, and Colonic Stenting.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- The Impact of Pretreatment Esophageal Stenosis on Survival of Esophageal Cancer Patients.Annals of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Predictors of adverse events and early mortality after esophageal stent placement in a low resource setting: a series of 3823 patients in Kenya.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelf-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement for malignant dysphagia before preoperative neoadjuvant therapy (NT) is controversial.
aimEvaluate SEMS placement impact on clinical and oncologic outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer who underwent surgery after NT.
methodsRetrospective study of esophageal cancer patients referred for esophagectomy after NT. A propensity score was built consisting of the conditional probability of having had a SEMS given a set of baseline variables. In the SEMS group, patients underwent SEMS placement followed by NT and esophagectomy, whereas in the non-SEMS group, patients underwent only NT and esophagectomy.
resultsOne hundred patients were included, 29 in the SEMS group and 71 in the non-SEMS group. Median follow-up was 18 months. SEMS-related adverse events occurred in 20.7% of the patients. After propensity score analysis, SEMS use decreased delta dysphagia score (regression coefficient [RC]: - 2.69, 95% CI - 3.18 to - 2.21), dysphagia grade before surgery (RC: - 0.74, 95% CI - 1.22 to - 0.27), hospital readmissions at 1 month (OR 0.18; p = 0.019), but increased overall morbidity after surgery (OR 3.02; p = 0.045). No significant differences were found regarding delta albumin levels and albumin levels before surgery, delta weight and weight before surgery, death related to surgery, number of lymph nodes harvested, R0 resection rate, tumor recurrence, recurrence-free survival, overall survival, and 30-day, 6-month, and 3-year mortality.
conclusionSEMS placement improved dysphagia and allowed patients to maintain an equal nutritional status compared to patients without dysphagia during NT. Although postsurgical morbidity was higher in patients with SEMS placement, postsurgical mortality and oncological outcome were not different.
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.