Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38067246›Full record

ArticleCancers2023

Outcomes of Primary Esophagectomy and Esophagectomy after Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Superficial Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Propensity-Score-Matched Analysis.

Minjee Kim, Tae Jun Kim, Ga Hee Kim, Yeong Chan Lee, Hyuk Lee, Byung-Hoon Min, Jun Haeng Lee, Poong-Lyul Rhee, Jae J Kim, Yang Won Min

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Minjee KimDepartment of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-0838-841X
Tae Jun KimDepartment of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea.
Ga Hee KimDepartment of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul 05505, Republic of Korea.
Yeong Chan LeeBiomedical Statistics Center, Research Institute for Future Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea.
Hyuk LeeDepartment of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-4271-7205
Byung-Hoon MinDepartment of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea.
Jun Haeng LeeDepartment of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea.
Poong-Lyul RheeDepartment of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea.
Jae J KimDepartment of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea.
Yang Won MinDepartment of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea.
Samsung Medical Center · KRAsan Medical Center · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Even though the conventional treatment for T1 esophageal cancer is surgery, ESD is becoming the primary treatment. Currently, it is unknown whether secondary esophagectomy after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is comparable to primary esophagectomy when considering outcomes in patients with T1 esophageal cancer. We compared short- and long-term clinical outcomes between the two groups. Primary surgery (esophagectomy) was performed in 191 patients between 2003 and 2014, and 62 patients underwent secondary surgery (esophagectomy) after ESD for T1 esophageal cancer between 2007 and 2019. Propensity matching was performed for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), location, pathology, degree of differentiation, tumor size, and invasion depth. Lymph node metastasis (LNM), overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and post-operative complications were compared between groups. Sixty-eight patients were included after propensity score matching; LNM, OS, DSS, and RFS were comparable between the two groups. Comparing primary and secondary surgery, the respective LNM rates were 23.5% and 26.5%, 6-year OS 78.0% and 89.7%,

Indexed as

endoscopic submucosal dissectionesophageal cancersurgery

Identifiers

PMID38067246
PMCPMC10705107
OpenAlexW4388944760

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.