ArticleHeliyon2023
Endoscopic therapy versus esophagectomy for T1bN0M0 esophageal cancer: A population-based study using propensity score matching.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Therapeutic outcomes of different treatment approaches for T1a-M3/T1b esophageal cancer and development of a prognostic prediction model.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Analyzing risk factors and constructing a predictive model for superficial esophageal carcinoma with submucosal infiltration exceeding 200 micrometers.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic therapy is an optional strategy for the treatment of esophageal cancer (EC) under an early stage, especially stage T1a. However, its efficacy in the treatment of T1b EC has not been thoroughly assessed. We investigated the efficacy of esophagectomy, endoscopic therapy, as well as chemoradiotherapy in patients with T1bN0M0 EC. Methods: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (SEER) was employed to identify patients diagnosed with T1bN0M0 EC. Patient demographics were compared among the endoscopic therapy, esophagectomy, and chemoradiotherapy groups. Our study employed Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression model to evaluate patient outcomes and long-term survival rates. The overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates were compared among patients with EC who underwent endoscopic therapy or esophagectomy, employing propensity score matching (PSM). Results: A total of 820 patients diagnosed with T1bN0M0 EC were identified. The number of patients who received endoscopic therapy, esophagectomy, and chemoradiotherapy was 173, 556, and 91, respectively. Patients subjected to endoscopic therapy and esophagectomy had greatly longer OS and CSS than those who underwent chemoradiotherapy. Patients treated with esophagectomy had longer OS than endoscopic therapy patients, but there were no differences in CSS between the two groups. PSM generated 153 patient pairs among T1bN0M0 patients, demonstrating that both the esophagectomy and endoscopic therapy groups exhibited comparable OS and CSS rates. Conclusion: Endoscopic therapy and esophagectomy were associated with a significant survival advantage compared with chemoradiotherapy in patients with T1bN0M0 EC. In contrast, after PSM, among the EC patients with stage T1bN0M0, OS and CSS did not differ after endoscopic therapy or esophagectomy. These results indicate that endoscopic therapy could be a viable alternative to esophagectomy in patients diagnosed with T1bN0M0 EC.
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.