ArticleDiseases (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Is There Bias in the Assessment of Contraindications for Resection? Disparities in the Surgical Management of Early-Stage Esophageal Cancer.
Article in Diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResection is considered the standard of care for patients with localized esophageal cancer who are "physiologically fit". Patients who do not meet this standard are considered contraindicated to receive surgery. We hypothesized that among patients with non-metastatic esophageal cancer, the consideration of contraindication status would vary based on clinical and demographic factors and would vary between institutions.
methodsWe identified patients with non-metastatic gastric and esophageal cancer in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2004 to 2018. Patients were categorized into three groups based on surgical treatment: surgical resection (including endoscopic mucosal resection), resection contraindicated, and refusal of resection based on the coding of the "reason for no surgery" data element. Demographic, clinical, and institutional characteristics were compared between the groups using bivariate and multivariate techniques to identify factors associated with contraindicated status. A subgroup analysis of cT1N0M0 patients was also used to assess every institution in the NCDB's observed-expected ratio for contraindication status.
resultsIn total, 144,591 patients with non-metastatic disease met inclusion criteria: 124,972 (86%) underwent resection, 13,793 (10%) were contraindicated for resection, and 5826 (4%) refused resection. Contraindication was associated with age, non-Hispanic Black race, socioeconomic status, Charlson-Deyo score, insurance type, institution characteristics, clinical T-stage, and clinical N-stage. There were 9459 patients who were cT1N0M0 and had no co-morbidities. In this cohort, there were more than 1000-fold differences between individual programs regarding observed-expected ratio of contraindication status when adjusting for clinical and demographic characteristics.
conclusionsVariation in the assessment of contraindication status varies dramatically between institutions. Underserved minorities, including age, race, and insurance type, are risk factors for being considered contraindicated. These findings highlight the disparities that exist regarding surgical care of non-metastatic esophageal cancer in the United States.
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.