ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Cost-effectiveness of precision screening for esophageal cancer based on individualized risk stratification in China: Real-world evidence from the ESECC trial.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global incidence of esophageal cancer by histological and anatomical subtypes.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of an Interpretable Machine Learning Model Based on Peripheral Blood Biomarkers for Esophageal Cancer Risk Prediction.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Global, regional, and national burden of esophageal cancer: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.Biomarker research · 2025Article
- Multi-analyte liquid biopsy approaches for early detection of esophageal cancer: the expanding role of ctDNA.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Reducing the global cancer burden with gastrointestinal screening: China's 30 years practice.Cancer biology & medicine · 2024Article
- Challenge and future of cancer screening in China: Insights from esophageal cancer screening practice.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Conventional universal endoscopic screening with pathology-based endoscopic re-examination for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is in need of reform in China. We established a "two-step" precision screening strategy using two risk prediction models and have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of this precision strategy compared with the traditional strategy based on a large population-level randomized controlled trial from a healthcare provider's perspective. Methods: Four precision screening strategies with different risk cutoffs at baseline screening and endoscopic surveillance were constructed, and then compared with traditional strategy through modeling using subjects from the screening cohort of the ESECC (Endoscopic Screening for Esophageal Cancer in China) trial. Total screening costs and the number of SDA (severe dysplasia and above in lesions of the esophagus) cases were obtained to calculate the average screening cost per SDA detected, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and protection rates. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate uncertainties. Results: Compared to traditional strategy, all precision screening strategies have much lower average costs for detection of one SDA case ($7,148~$11,537 Conclusions: Precision screening strategy for esophageal cancer based on risk stratification is more cost-effective than use of traditional screening strategy and has practical implications for esophageal cancer screening programs in China.
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.