ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2023
Long-term survival in esophagectomy for early-stage esophageal cancer versus endoscopic resection plus additional chemoradiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic resection versus esophagectomy for T1bN0M0 esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2026Pooled it
- A novel esophagus-preserving strategy for T1b esophageal cancer combining endoscopic submucosal dissection and thoracoscopic lymph nodes sampling: the first case series.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Additional chemoradiotherapy versus esophagectomy for early esophageal cancer: an integrated analysis of reconstructed time-to-event data.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Article
- Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Esophagectomy is still advised as an additional treatment for patients with superficial esophageal cancer (EC, T1a-T1b) after endoscopic resection (ER). However, esophagectomy often deteriorates the general condition of EC patients. In recent years, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) has been recognized as a reliable, non-surgical treatment that can improve the prognosis. How to combine ER with adjuvant therapy to bring maximal benefits to patients has become a hot clinical research hot topic. However, the current studies have mostly been conducted retrospectively, in single centers, and with small clinical samples; there have been few prospective and large sample size randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the outcomes of adjuvant CRT versus esophagectomy in the treatment of early EC, and to provide a reference for clinical research and practice. Methods: A comprehensive and extensive literature search was performed via the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science online and all randomized cohort studies and retrospective cohort studies were collected. The quality of research was evaluated according to Cochrane's quality standards, and statistical analysis was conducted with Stata 13.0 and RevMan 5.3 software and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Results: A total of 9 cohort studies, including 790 patients, were included for meta-analysis. The long term effects of the esophagectomy group were better than those of the CRT after ER group [odds ratio (OR) =6.08, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.96 to 18.84, P=0.002] in disease-free survival (DFS) [hazard ratio (HR) =0.24, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.85, P=0.03] and overall survival (OS) (HR =1.02, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.82, P=0.94). Other survival indicators showed no significant difference (P>0.05). Conclusions: The 2 groups showed no significant results in OS. Although we found that CRT may be suitable for patients with high-risk of relapse or unable to tolerate surgery, it cannot totally replace surgical treatment; further randomized trials are required to verify this view.
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.