ArticleChirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)2025
[Evidence for the extent and oncological benefit of lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer].
Article in Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prognosis for esophageal cancer is determined in particular by the depth of infiltration (T stage) and lymph node metastasis (N status). In patients with locally advanced tumors, surgical resection is the current standard. The extent of the lymphadenectomy depends on the localization of the tumor, analogous to the choice of surgical technique. For adequate tumor staging and achievement of pN0 status, seven lymph nodes without tumor metastases are necessary by definition but the current guidelines recommend 20 lymph nodes as a benchmark in an expert consensus. Despite the importance of the lymph node status for the prognosis of the patient and the already standardized use of targeted imaging of sentinel lymph nodes in other oncological disciplines, there is neither a validated method nor sufficient evidence for the benefit of lymph node mapping in esophageal cancer. The discussion about the prognostic advantage of lymphadenectomy is particularly interesting in T1 early stage cancer. Due to the technical advances of interventional endoscopy in recent years, organ preservation using endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has not only become possible but also safe to carry out and thus established as the standard with better functional results; however, if one or more risk factors are present, endoscopic ablation is no longer defined as curative and should be supplemented by further treatment, usually non-organ-preserving resection. The step from organ-preserving interventional treatment with a low complication rate to a surgical procedure with significant mortality and morbidity as well as functional limitations seems immense and requires optimization, especially in view of the technical developments of surgery in recent years. This can either aim to identify the risk of lymph node metastases more precisely or to minimize the morbidity/mortality and functional limitations of additive treatment procedures. Approaches to this are currently the subject of research and have already been safely applied in individual pilot projects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39820665What 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.