Trial reportThe Lancet. Oncology2025
Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by active surveillance versus standard surgery for oesophageal cancer (SANO trial): a multicentre, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.
Trial report in The Lancet. Oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
64 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy and Safety of Conversion Surgery Versus Non-Surgical Treatment for Initially Unresectable Esophageal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2026Pooled it
- The safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy in locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis and systematic review.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Pooled it
- Surveillance vs Standard Surgery and Cost-Effectiveness After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Esophageal Cancer: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Perioperative pembrolizumab, trastuzumab and FLOT in HER2-positive localized esophagogastric adenocarcinoma: a phase 2 trial.Nature medicine · 2025Trial
- Optimal Neoadjuvant Approach for Resectable Esophageal Cancer in the Era of Immunotherapy.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Great Debate: Should Surgery Be Omitted in the Management of Gastroesophageal Junction Cancers?Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- Article
- Clinical significance of combining circulating tumor DNA and endoscopic response evaluation for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2026Article
- Patient-derived organoids support radiotherapy response and recurrence risk prediction in esophageal squamous cancer.iScience · 2026Article
- Clinical Machine Learning Model for Predicting Pathological Complete Response in Patients with Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma After Trimodality Therapy.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Beyond theJCO precision oncology · 2026Review
- A new paradigm for esophageal disease management: the application and future prospects of Shared Decision Making (SDM).World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Review
- Phase II randomized trial of 41.4 Gy vs. 50.4 Gy in neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for resectable esophageal cancer.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Personalized whole-genome-based ctDNA dynamics during neoadjuvant therapy across breast cancer subtypes: results from MONITOR-Breast.Future oncology (London, England) · 2026Observational
- Association between surgical timing and postoperative outcome in patients with residual esophageal cancer after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- Response-adapted perioperative therapy for resectable esophageal cancer in the immunotherapy era: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Clinicopathological Factors Influencing Survival After Trimodality Treatment in Non-Metastatic Esophageal Cancer: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Non-Operative Management of Esophageal Cancer with Complete Clinical Response After Neoadjuvant Therapy: Current Status and Future Directions.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- NRG-GI007: Phase 1 Study of OBP-301, An Oncolytic Virus, and Definitive Chemoradiation in Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2026Article
- Socioeconomic disparities in treatment and survival of oesophageal and gastric cancer in the Netherlands: a nationwide population-based study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
35 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA substantial proportion of individuals with oesophageal cancer have a pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and oesophagectomy. We aimed to investigate whether active surveillance could be an alternative for individuals with a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.
methodsWe performed a multicentre, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial in 12 Dutch hospitals. Individuals with locally advanced oesophageal cancer and a clinical complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (ie, no tumour detected with endoscopic biopsies, ultrasound, and PET-CT) underwent active surveillance or standard surgery (ie, oesophagectomy within 2 weeks after reaching clinical complete response). There were no inclusion restrictions regarding comorbidities or performance status, but participants had carcinoma, were age 18 years or older, and were treated with curative intent. Randomisation of hospitals was performed using computer-generated sequences without stratification methods, after an initial phase of all hospitals performing standard surgery. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed according to a modified intention-to-treat principle (allowing crossover at time of clinical complete response) and an intention-to-treat principle. Non-inferiority was defined as 2-year survival rate for active surveillance of 15% or less below that for standard surgery. The trial was registered within the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR-6803, and the inclusion phase has been completed.
findingsBetween Nov 8, 2017, and Jan 17, 2021, 1115 individuals were screened, of whom 309 were included. 198 underwent active surveillance and 111 underwent standard surgery. 242 (78%) participants were male and 67 (22%) were female. Median follow-up was 38 months (IQR 32-48). 2-year overall survival for active surveillance (74% [95% CI 69-78]) was non-inferior to standard surgery (71% [62-78]) after modified intention-to-treat analysis (one-sided 95% boundary: 7% lower). It remained non-inferior in the intention-to-treat analysis (75% [68-80] vs 70% [63-77], one-sided 95% boundary: 6% lower). There were no significant differences in overall survival according to modified intention-to-treat analysis (hazard ratio 1·14, two-sided 95% CI 0·74-1·78) or intention-to-treat analysis (0·83, 0·53-1·31). The frequency of postoperative complications and postoperative mortality after standard surgery or postponed surgery after active surveillance was similar between groups.
interpretationOverall survival after active surveillance for oesophageal cancer was non-inferior compared with standard surgery after 2 years. For the long-term efficacy of active surveillance, extended follow-up is required. The results of the present trial could be used for patient counselling and shared decision making.
fundingDutch Cancer Society (KWF) and Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw).
Indexed as
Identifiers
40112851What 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.