ArticleCancer medicine2022
Impact of Barrett oesophagus diagnoses and endoscopies on oesophageal cancer survival in the UK: A cohort study.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Practical Guide to Incorporating Novel Barrett's Screening/Surveillance Tools into Clinical Practice.Current gastroenterology reports · 2026Review
- The NCC mathematical modeling framework for decision-making of six major cancers.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2023Article
- Impact of Barrett oesophagus diagnoses and endoscopies on oesophageal cancer survival in the UK: A cohort study.Cancer medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent guidelines recommend endoscopic surveillance for Barrett oesophagus (BE), but the value of surveillance is still debated. Using a combination of primary care, secondary care and cancer registry datasets, we examined the impact of a prior BE diagnosis, clinical and risk factors on survival from oesophageal cancer and adenocarcinoma.
methodsRetrospective cohort study of patients aged 50 and above diagnosed with malignant oesophageal cancer between 1993 and 2014 using Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). All prior BE diagnoses and endoscopies were identified from CPRD and Hospital Episode Statistics. Histology information was obtained from linked cancer registry data. We used flexible parametric models to estimate excess hazard ratios (EHRs) for relative survival. We simulated the potential impact of lead-time by adding random lead-times from a variety of distributions to all those with prior BE.
resultsAmong our oesophageal cancer (n = 7503) and adenocarcinoma (n = 1476) cohorts only small percentages, 3.4% and 5.3%, respectively, had a prior BE diagnosis. Two-year relative survival was better among patients with BE: 48.0% (95% CI 41.9-54.9) compared to 25.2% (24.3-26.2) without. Patients with BE had a better prognosis (EHR = 0.53, 0.41-0.68). Survival was higher even if patients with BE had fewer than two endoscopies (50.0%; 43.6-57.3). A survival benefit was still observed after lead-time adjustment, with a 20% absolute difference in 2-year survival using a 5 year mean sojourn time.
conclusionsPatients with a prior BE diagnosis had a survival advantage. This was not fully explained by surveillance endoscopies.
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.