ArticleSurgery today2025
Accuracy of the preoperative estimation of esophageal invasion length of adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction and its discrepancy with the pathological measurement.
Article in Surgery today, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe incidence of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) adenocarcinoma has increased worldwide. As the EGJ is located at the boundary between the thoracic and abdominal cavities, the optimal surgical approach is a subject of debate and estimation of the esophageal invasion length (EIL) is an important factor in its selection.
methodsData from our in-house database were extracted for consecutive patients with Siewert type I, II and III EGJ adenocarcinoma (EIL ≤ 4 cm), who underwent transhiatal or transthoracic surgical resection between 2010 and 2016. The clinical records of these patients were reviewed and the accuracy of EIL estimation and its discrepancy with the pathological measurement were analyzed.
resultsA total of 82 patients were included in the final analysis. We established that EIL was underestimated in 49 of these patients (59.8%). The mean-distance discrepancy between the preoperative and pathological diagnosis of EIL in the underestimation group was 7.0 mm. Multivariate analysis revealed that submucosal cancer spread was an independent risk factor for underestimation (P < 0.01). The mean length of submucosal cancer spread was longer for undifferentiated histologic type EGJ adenocarcinomas. (P < 0.01).
conclusionsThe EIL was underestimated in approximately 60% of EGJ adenocarcinomas requiring surgical treatment. Thus, careful management is necessary, especially for EGJ adenocarcinoma of the undifferentiated histologic type.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39499292What 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.