Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34113556›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021

Optimal Range of Lymphadenectomy in Pathological Stage T1 and T2 Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Hansheng Wu, Weitao Zhuang, Shujie Huang, Xueting Guan, Yuju Zheng, Zefeng Xie, Gang Chen, Jiming Tang, Haiyu Zhou, Liang Xie and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 48% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Hansheng WuDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China.
Weitao ZhuangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Shujie HuangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Xueting GuanDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China.
Yuju ZhengDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China.
Zefeng XieDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, China.
Gang ChenDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Jiming TangDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Haiyu ZhouDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Liang XieDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Xiaosong BenDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Zihao ZhouDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Zijun LiDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Rixin ChenDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Guibin QiaoDepartment of Thoracic Surgery, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital, Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China.
Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital · CNGuangdong Academy of Medical Sciences · CNShantou University · CNFirst Affiliated Hospital of Shantou University Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLymph node metastasis is a primary contributor to tumor progression in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), and the optimal extent of lymphadenectomy during esophagectomy remains controversial. This study aimed to investigate the appropriate number of lymph nodes to be dissected in pT1-2Nany stage ESCC to achieve the best prognosis and avoid missing positive lymph nodes (PLNs).

methodsA total of 497 patients with pT1 to pT2 esophageal cancer from two institutions were retrospectively analyzed and their surgical and pathological records were critically reviewed. Stepwise analyses were conducted by calculating a serial of hazard ratios and odd ratios to determine the optimal range of lymphadenectomy for overall survival (OS).

resultsThe best survival outcome can be obtained when the number of lymph node examined (NLNE) is 10-18 in pT1N0 ESCC, while the NLNE should exceed 24 in pT2N0 diseases. In patients with pT1-2Nany and pT2Nany ESCC, resection of 15-25 and 24-37 lymph nodes, respectively, could provide significant added value for identifying positive nodal metastasis. When the NLNE exceeds this appropriate range, resection of extra lymph node is not helpful to improve the probability of finding PLNs.

conclusionsFor ESCC patients undergoing radical esophagectomy, the optimal extent of lymphadenectomy is 15-25 for pT1Nany disease and 24-37 for pT2Nany disease.

Indexed as

esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC)lymphadenectomynegative lymph nodeprognosissurgical strategy

Identifiers

PMID34113556
PMCPMC8186312
OpenAlexW3165607094

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.