ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Center2023
Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (NST 1502): a multicenter prospective cohort study.
Article in Journal of the National Cancer Center, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Tumor-associated lymphatic vessel density is a reliable biomarker for prognosis of esophageal cancer after radical resection: a systemic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy of laryngeal mask airway versus endotracheal tube during total minimally invasive oesophagectomy: a randomized controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Technical key points and short-term outcomes of fascia-guided radical esophagectomy: a single-center retrospective database analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Comparison of Endoscopic and Intraoperative Approaches in the Management of Delayed Gastric Conduit Emptying After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Minimally invasive or open esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a comprehensive systematic review of surgical and survival outcomes.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Effects of driving pressure-guided lung-protective ventilation strategy on respiratory mechanics, oxygenation, and postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy: a randomized clinical trial.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Postoperative adjuvant PD-1 immunotherapy survival and body-mass-index dynamics in esophageal cancer: A real-world retrospective study.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Robotic-assisted versus conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study from a high-volume center.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Surgical Timing and Outcomes in Esophageal Cancer: Insights from One- and Two-Stage Esophagectomies in a Polish Cohort.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Nomogram-based risk stratification to analyze the value of receiving postoperative adjuvant therapy after neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous carcinoma.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Prevention and Management of Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Palsy in Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Current Status and Future Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- 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
30 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Whether minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is superior to open esophagectomy (OE) in the treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is still uncertain. Therefore, this multicenter prospective study aimed to compare MIE with OE in postoperative parameters and long-term survival. Methods: All hospitalized patients with cT1b-3N0-1M0 thoracic ESCC treated by MIE or OE were enrolled from 19 selected centers from April 1, 2015 to December 31, 2018. The propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to minimize the selection bias. The basic clinicopathological characteristics and 3-year overall survival (OS) as well as disease-free survival (DFS) of two groups were compared by R version 3.6.2. Results: MIE were performed in 1,387 patients and OE in 335 patients. 335 cases in each group were finally matched by PSM, and no significant differences in the essential demographic characteristics were observed between the MIE and OE groups after PSM. Compared with OE, MIE had significantly less intraoperative bleeding, less total drainage volume, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and harvested significantly more lymph nodes (LNs) (all Conclusions: Compared with OE, MIE is a safe and effective treatment approach with similar mortality and morbidity. It has the advantages in harvesting more LNs, improving postoperative recovery and survival of stage cII ESCC patients.
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.