ArticlePloS one2024
Comparison of postoperative survival prognosis between early-onset and late-onset esophageal cancer: A Population-based study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Comparative analysis of early-onset and late-onset esophageal cancer burden in China, 1990-2021: based on the 2021 Global Burden of Disease Study.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2026Article
- Clinical value of predicting bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection for early esophageal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prognosis of non-distant metastatic early-onset esophageal cancer (EC) patients undergoing surgical treatment remains unclear, this study aims to compare the prognosis of early-onset and late-onset EC. Information on non-distant metastatic EC patients who underwent surgical treatment and were initially diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 was collected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline differences between early-onset and late-onset EC patients. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were used to calculate hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used to compare the overall survival (OS) between the two groups of patients. Atotal of 5320 EC patients were included, with 571 in the early-onset group and 4749 in the late-onset group. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that early-onset EC patients had better OS (HR = 0.732, 95% CI: 0.655-0.819, p<0.001). Using PSM analysis at a 1:1 ratio, we matched 557 early-onset EC patients with 557 late-onset EC patients. After matching, the multivariate Cox regression model still showed a favorable prognosis for early-onset EC (HR = 0.728, 95% CI: 0.630-0.842, p<0.001). Additionally, subgroup analysis indicated that early-onset EC patients had better long-term prognosis. Non-distant metastatic early-onset EC patients undergoing surgical treatment demonstrated better OS outcomes, confirmed by regression analysis and subgroup analysis in the matched cohort.
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.