ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2021
Optimal Treatment of cT2N0 Esophageal Carcinoma: Is Upfront Surgery Really the Way?
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- ISDE guidelines on the management of cT2N0 esophageal cancer.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2026Guideline
- Article
- Definition and Predictors of Early Recurrence in Neoadjuvantly Treated Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: a Dual-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Surgery alone versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery in patients with stage T2N0M0 esophageal cancer.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Role of endoscopic ultrasound in esophageal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStaging is inaccurate for cT2N0 esophageal cancer, and patients often are clinically mis-staged. This study aimed to evaluate the outcome after upfront surgery or neoadjuvant therapy, considering the impact of clinical "mis-staging."
methodsThis study reviewed patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) or adenocarcinoma (ADK) of the esophagus who underwent upfront surgery (S group) or neoadjuvant treatment (chemoradiotherapy [CRT] group) for cT2N0 cancer. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), morbidity, and mortality were evaluated. Correctly staged (cTNM = pTNM), understaged (cTNM < pTNM), and overstaged (cTNM > pTNM) patients in the S group and the CRT group were analyzed. Risk factors for unexpected lymph-node involvement were identified in the S group and for cancer-related death in the whole study cohort.
resultsThe study enrolled 229 patients with cT2N0 esophageal cancer. The 5-year OS rate was 34.2% in the S group versus 55.7% in the CRT group (p = 0.0088). The DFS also was significantly higher (p = 0.01). The morbidity and mortality rates were similar. In the S group, the cTNM was correctly staged for 21.4% and understaged for 63.4% of the patients, with 48.7% of the patients showing unexpected nodal involvement. A tumor length of 3 cm or more was an independent predictor of nodal metastases in SCC (p = 0.03), as was lymphovascular invasion (LVI) in ADK (p < 0.01). Cancer-related mortality was independently associated with lymph-node metastases (p = 0.03) and treatment by upfront surgery (p = 0.01).
conclusionGiven the high rate of understaged patients in this study (63.4%), the authors advocate for combining the induction therapy with surgery in cT2N0, achieving better survival with similar morbidity and mortality.
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.