ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Factors associated with access and approach to esophagectomy for cancer: a National Cancer Database study.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging symptoms linking postoperative symptom clusters seven days after esophagectomy: A multicenter network analysis of 418 patients with esophageal cancer.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2026Article
- Evolution and refinements in minimally invasive esophagectomy: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Advances in Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy-An Overview of Recent Developments and a Novel Classification of Innovations in Treatment of Thoracic Esophageal Cancer.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Improving outcomes in patients with oesophageal cancer.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMinimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer has been associated with decreased pain, less blood loss, and shorter hospital stay with comparable survival to open surgery. To date, there is minimal information regarding what factors are associated with access to MIE.
methodsThe National Cancer Database (NCDB) was used to compare rates of MIE (either robotic or laparoscopic) and open esophagectomy (OE) by demographic and clinical factors. Continuous variables were compared using a linear trend test, and categorical variables were compared using Mantel-Haenszel tests. Binomial regression was performed to examine significant factors after adjusting for confounding variables.
resultsThere were 18,366 patients included in the analysis. Of all esophagectomies performed in the US, 49% were performed by OE and 51% were performed by MIE. Patients who had undergone MIE were more likely to live in the Eastern US as compared with the Midwest [odds ratio (OR) 1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58, 1.88] or the South (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.19, 1.44). They were also more likely to be treated at an academic center (OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.53, 1.75) rather than a community hospital, and to be of White race as compared with Asian race (OR 1.46; 95% CI 1.10, 1.92). There was not a significant difference in the rates of MIE between White and Black patients (OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.96, 1.32). MIE was more likely with each passing year, and higher TNM stages of cancer were less likely to be treated with MIE (P < 0.001 for all).
conclusionWhile MIE is evolving, OE is still considered standard of care with robotic approaches representing a minority of MIE. While there are several factors associated with access to MIE, including race, facility type and geographic location, these factors should be further explored to help increase access to MIE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35059836What 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.