Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33893544›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022

Endoscopic resection with adjuvant treatment versus esophagectomy for early-stage esophageal cancer.

Binhao Huang, Maria Christine Xu, Arjun Pennathur, Zhigang Li, Zhiguo Liu, Qi Wu, Jing Wang, Kongjia Luo, Jianying Bai, Zhi Wei and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Barrett's Esophagus: An Updated Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 10 institutions in 3 countries.

Binhao Huang *Department of Thoracic Surgery, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Maria Christine Xu *University of Toronto Schools, Toronto, Canada.
Arjun PennathurDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Zhigang LiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Zhiguo LiuXijing Hospital of Digestive Disease, The Air Force Medical University, Xian, China.
Qi WuEndoscopy Center, Peking University Cancer Hospital, Beijing, China.
Jing WangEndoscopy Center, Peking University Cancer Hospital, Beijing, China.
Kongjia LuoState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China.
Jianying BaiDepartment of Gastroenterology. Xinqiao Hospital, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Zhi WeiGastroenterology Department, The 960th Hospital of the PLA, Jinan, China.
Jiaqing XiangDepartment of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Wentao FangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai, China. vwtfang@hotmail.com.
Jie ZhangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai, China. zhangjie2289@hotmail.com.
Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center · CNShanghai Chest Hospital · CN82th Hospital of Pla · CNAir Force Medical University · CNArmy Medical University · CNPeking University · CNPeking University Cancer Hospital · CNSun Yat-sen University · CNUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center · USUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the outcome following the strategy of endoscopic R0 resection (ER) plus adjuvant treatment (AT) versus esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell cancer in T1a invading muscularis mucosa (M3)-T1b stage.

methodsWe evaluated the outcomes of 46 esophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC) patients with T1aM3-T1b stage who underwent ER + AT from the Esophageal Cancer Endoscopic Therapy Consortium (ECETC) and compared these outcomes to 92 patients who underwent esophagectomy. Propensity score matching (1:2) was used, with overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) being compared between the two groups.

resultsDuring a median follow-up of 32 months, there were no statistical differences (P = 0.226) in OS between the two groups. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival in the esophagectomy group was 95%, 91%, and 84%, respectively. There were no mortalities within three years in the ER + AT group. The RFS between the two groups was also not significantly different (P = 0.938). The 1-, 2-, and 3-year RFS of patients in the esophagectomy group was 90%, 90%, and 83%, respectively, while it was 97%, 94%, and 74% in the ER + AT group, respectively. The local recurrence rates between the two groups were not significantly different (P = 0.277).

conclusionsThis first multicenter analysis showed similar outcomes were found regarding OS and RFS between the two groups in T1aM3-T1b stage patients. ER + AT may be considered in high-risk patients or for those who refuse esophagectomy.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeChemoradiotherapyEndoscopic resectionEsophageal neoplasmsEsophagectomy

Identifiers

PMID33893544
PMCPMC8979881
OpenAlexW3198884622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.