Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37680952›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2023

Long-term esophageal cancer risk and distinct surveillance intervals after a single endoscopy screening: a multicentre population-based cohort study.

He Li, Changfa Xia, Siyi He, Xinxin Yan, Shaoli Zhang, Yi Teng, Maomao Cao, Fan Yang, Qianru Li, Hengmin Ma and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

He LiOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Centre/ National Clinical Research Centre for Cancer/ Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Changfa XiaOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Centre/ National Clinical Research Centre for Cancer/ Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Siyi HeOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Centre/ National Clinical Research Centre for Cancer/ Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Xinxin YanOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Centre/ National Clinical Research Centre for Cancer/ Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Shaoli ZhangOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Centre/ National Clinical Research Centre for Cancer/ Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Yi TengOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Centre/ National Clinical Research Centre for Cancer/ Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Maomao CaoOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Centre/ National Clinical Research Centre for Cancer/ Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Fan YangOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Centre/ National Clinical Research Centre for Cancer/ Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Qianru LiOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Centre/ National Clinical Research Centre for Cancer/ Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Hengmin MaDepartment of Preventive Management, Shandong Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shandong First Medical University and Shandong Academy of Medical Sciences, Jinan 250117, China.
Jinyi ZhouDepartment for Chronic Non-communicable Diseases Control, Jiangsu Provincial Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (Public Health Research Institute of Jiangsu Province), Nanjing 210009, China.
Shaokai ZhangDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology, Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University/Henan Cancer Hospital, Henan Engineering Research Centre of Cancer Prevention and Control, Henan International Joint Laboratory of Cancer Prevention, Zhengzhou 450008, China.
Wanqing ChenOffice of Cancer Screening, National Cancer Centre/ National Clinical Research Centre for Cancer/ Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100021, China.
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CNJiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention · CNShandong Tumor Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Endoscopy surveillance is recommended for mild-moderate dysplasia and negative endoscopy findings every 3 years and 5 years, respectively, but evidence is limited. This study aimed to assess long-term esophageal cancer (EC) incidence and mortality after a single endoscopy screening. Methods: We included individuals at high risk of EC aged 40-69 years who underwent endoscopy screening in 2007-2012 at six centres in rural China and had a baseline diagnosis of negative endoscopy findings, mild dysplasia, or moderate dysplasia. Participants were followed up for EC incidence and mortality. Cumulative incidence and mortality rates of EC were estimated by Kaplan-Meier analyses. Cox regression models were used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between baseline endoscopy diagnosis and the risk of EC incidence and mortality. EC incidence and mortality after a single endoscopy screening were compared with those of the population in rural China by the standardized incidence ratio (SIR) and standardized mortality ratio (SMR). Findings: A total of 42,827 participants (40,977 with negative endoscopy findings, 1562 with mild dysplasia, and 288 with moderate dysplasia) were included; 268 EC cases and 128 EC deaths were identified during a median follow-up of 10.62 years. The cumulative EC incidence at 10 years was 0.45% (0.38-0.52) in the group with negative endoscopy findings, 2.39% (1.62-3.16) in the mild dysplasia group, and 8.90% (5.57-12.24) in the moderate dysplasia group, and the cumulative EC mortality at 10 years was 0.23% (0.18-0.27), 0.96% (0.46-1.46), and 2.50% (0.67-4.33), respectively. Compared with individuals with negative endoscopy findings, the HRs for EC incidence and mortality in the mild dysplasia group were 3.52 (2.49-4.97) and 2.43 (1.41-4.19), and those in the moderate dysplasia group were 13.18 (8.78-19.76) and 6.46 (3.13-13.29), respectively. The SIR was 0.53 (0.40-0.70) for the group with negative endoscopy findings, 1.95 (1.69-2.24) for the mild dysplasia group, and 6.75 (6.25-7.28) for the moderate dysplasia group, with the SMRs of 0.43 (0.31-0.58), 1.07 (0.88-1.29) and 2.67 (2.36-3.01), respectively. Interpretation: Individuals with negative endoscopy findings after a single endoscopy screening had a lower EC risk than the general population for up to 10.62 years, while those with mild-moderate dysplasia had an elevated risk. Our results support endoscopy surveillance for mild-moderate dysplasia every 3 years and suggest extending the interval to 10 years after a negative endoscopy finding. Funding: National Key R&D Programme of China, Special Project of Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Basic Research Cooperation, and Sanming Project of Medicine in Shenzhen.

Indexed as

Endoscopic screeningEndoscopy surveillanceEsophageal cancerPopulation-basedScreening interval

Identifiers

PMID37680952
PMCPMC10480518
OpenAlexW4386300848

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.