Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39875671›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2025

Validation of mortality risk scores after esophagectomy.

Sabine Schiefer, Nerma Crnovrsanin, Ingmar F Rompen, Nicolas Jorek, Mohammed Al-Saeedi, Thomas Schmidt, Henrik Nienhüser, Leila Sisic

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Sabine SchieferDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Nerma CrnovrsaninDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Ingmar F RompenDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Nicolas JorekDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Mohammed Al-SaeediDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Thomas SchmidtDepartment of General, Visceral and Cancer Surgery, University Hospital of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Henrik NienhüserDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Leila SisicDepartment of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany. leila.peters@med.uni-heidelberg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOncological esophagectomy is the mainstay in esophageal cancer treatment, but perioperative mortality remains a significant concern. Various scoring systems exist to identify patients at high risk for postoperative complications and death. In the following, we aim to evaluate and compare these different scoring systems.

methodsWe analyzed data from 714 patients who underwent esophagectomy between 2002 and 2021. Each patient's risk was calculated using three models: the International Esodata Study Group (IESG) 90-day mortality risk prediction, the Steyerberg 30-day mortality score, and the Fuchs et al. preoperative in-hospital mortality score (Fuchs score). The diagnostic performance of these models was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

resultsOf the 714 patients, the majority (87.67%) underwent abdomino-thoracic esophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis. The IESG score classified 52.1% as very low, 26.6% low, 17.5% middle, 2.8% high, and 1% as very high risk, while the Fuchs score identified 94.5% as low-risk and 5.5% as high-risk patients. Mortality rates were 6.9% at 90 days, 3.4% at 30 days, and 6.7% in-hospital. The area under the ROC curve was 0.634 (95%CI: 0.557-0.712) for the IESG model, 0.637 (95%CI: 0.526-0.747) for the Steyerberg score, and 0.686 (95%CI: 0.611-0.760) for the Fuchs score.

conclusionsExisting risk score systems provide a possibility for preoperative risk stratification, particularly for identifying high-risk patients. However, due to their limited predictive ability, improvements are needed to apply these strategies effectively in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyPostoperative ComplicationsAgedFemaleHospital MortalityHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsROC CurveEsophagus cancerMortality risk scoreRisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID39875671
PMCPMC11775027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.