Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34565343›Full record

Trial reportBMC cancer2021

Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma, a randomized controlled trial (ROBOT-2 trial).

E Tagkalos, P C van der Sluis, F Berlth, A Poplawski, E Hadzijusufovic, H Lang, M I van Berge Henegouwen, S S Gisbertz, B P Müller-Stich, J P Ruurda and 4 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readEquivalence TrialMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04306458 (Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Thoraco-laparoscopic Esophagectomy Versus Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer, a Randomized Controlled Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 56 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
14.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT04306458 narecruitingnot on this map

Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Thoraco-laparoscopic Esophagectomy Versus Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer, a Randomized Controlled Trial (ROBOT-2 Trial).

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Medical Center MainzRan2021 to 2028Enrolled218ConditionsEsophageal AdenocarcinomaArmsMinimally invasive esophagectomy, daVinci Xi system
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

56 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Health-related quality of life in esophageal cancer: a state-of-the-art review of patient-reported outcomes and an evidence and gap map.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

E Tagkalos *Department of General-, Visceral- and Transplant Surgery, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstrasse 1, D-55131, Mainz, Germany.
P C van der Sluis *Department of General-, Visceral- and Transplant Surgery, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstrasse 1, D-55131, Mainz, Germany.
F BerlthDepartment of General-, Visceral- and Transplant Surgery, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstrasse 1, D-55131, Mainz, Germany.
A PoplawskiInstitute for Medical Biometry, Epidemiology and Informatics (IMBEI), University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany.
E HadzijusufovicDepartment of General-, Visceral- and Transplant Surgery, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstrasse 1, D-55131, Mainz, Germany.
H LangDepartment of General-, Visceral- and Transplant Surgery, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstrasse 1, D-55131, Mainz, Germany.
M I van Berge HenegouwenDepartment of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
S S GisbertzDepartment of Surgery, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
B P Müller-StichDepartment of General, Visceral, and Trauma Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
J P RuurdaDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
M SchiesserChirurgisches Zentrum Zürich, Klinik Hirslanden, Zürich, Switzerland.
P M SchneiderChirurgisches Zentrum Zürich, Klinik Hirslanden, Zürich, Switzerland.
R van HillegersbergDepartment of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
P P Grimminger *Department of General-, Visceral- and Transplant Surgery, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstrasse 1, D-55131, Mainz, Germany. peter.grimminger@unimedizin-mainz.de.
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DEAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLKlinik Hirslanden · CHUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLHeidelberg University · DE

Funding

Intuitive Surgical 2019 grand cycle
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma or cancer of the gastroesophageal junction, radical esophagectomy with 2-field lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of the multimodality treatment with curative intent. Both conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) were shown to be superior compared to open transthoracic esophagectomy considering postoperative complications. However, no randomized comparison exists between MIE and RAMIE in the Western World for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma.

methodsThis is an investigator-initiated and investigator-driven multicenter randomized controlled parallel-group superiority trial. All adult patients (age ≥ 18 and ≤ 90 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3, M0) esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction and with European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 will be assessed for eligibility and included after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 218) with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction are randomized to either RAMIE (n = 109) or MIE (n = 109). The primary outcome of this study is the total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes specified per lymph node station.

conclusionThis is the first randomized controlled trial designed to compare RAMIE to MIE as surgical treatment for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction in the Western World. The hypothesis of the proposed study is that RAMIE will result in a higher abdominal and mediastinal lymph node yield specified per station compared to conventional MIE. Short-term results and the primary endpoint (total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes per lymph node station) will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient within this trial.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04306458 . Registered 13th March 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04306458; Date of first enrolment 18.01.2021; Target sample size 218; Recruitment status: Recruiting; Protocol version 2; Issue date 10.03.2020; Rev. 02.02.2021; Authors ET, PCvdS, PPG.

Indexed as

Esophagogastric JunctionAbdomenAdenocarcinomaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyFemaleGermanyHumansLaparoscopyLymph Node ExcisionMaleMediastinumMiddle AgedEsophageal adenocarcinomaIvor-LewisLymphadenectomyMIERAMIE

Identifiers

PMID34565343
PMCPMC8474742
OpenAlexW3203415560

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.