ArticleThoracic cancer2024
Changes in the recent three decades and survey on the current status of surgical treatment for esophageal cancer in China.
Article in Thoracic cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cervical Anastomotic Leakage After Minimally Invasive McKeown Esophagectomy in the SAFER Surgical System: Clinical Course and Predictors of Delayed Healing.Thoracic cancer · 2026Article
- Impact of hospital volume on outcomes of esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: analysis of a prospective multicenter database.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Effect of totally thoracoscopic esophagectomy on postoperative complications and serum inflammatory factors in patients with early esophageal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
- A dynamic nomogram for predicting abdominal lymph node recurrence in patients with esophageal carcinoma.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Changes in the recent three decades and survey on the current status of surgical treatment for esophageal cancer in China.Thoracic cancer · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo review the changes and survey on status quo of the surgical treatment for esophageal cancer in China. The differences in diagnosis and treatment for esophageal cancer among hospitals in different regions across China were also investigated.
methodsWe sent questionnaires to 46 hospitals across China, investigating the volume of esophageal cancer surgeries, surgical procedures, and perioperative management under the guidance of esophageal surgery chiefs.
resultsA total of 46 questionnaires were sent out and collected. The survey results showed that in the past 5 years, the volume of surgeries for esophageal cancer remained stable by 23.9% of those hospitals, increased by 30.4%, and decreased by 45.7%. Of those patients treated by surgery, 19.1% were in the early stages, and 80.9% were in locally advanced stages. In terms of surgical procedures, 73.4% of the patients were treated by minimally invasive surgery and 85.7% of esophageal substitutes were a gastric conduit, 93.1% of the substitutes were pulled to the neck through the esophageal bed. For the lymph node dissection, 78.5% of the patients had a complete two-field lymph node dissection including the para-recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph nodes. Of the patients with neoadjuvant therapy, 53.5% received chemotherapy or chemotherapy plus immunotherapy (47.0%), and 43.5% had chemoradiation.
conclusionsCurrently, in China, minimally invasive surgery-oriented multimodality treatment, including complete two-field lymph node dissection, has become the standard approach for esophageal cancer management. Over the past decade, this standardized approach has significantly improved prognosis compared to previous decades.
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.