Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40112851›Full record

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.

Berend J van der Wilk, Ben M Eyck, Bas P L Wijnhoven, Sjoerd M Lagarde, Camiel Rosman, Bo J Noordman, Maria J Valkema, Tanya M Bisseling, Peter-Paul L O Coene, Marc J van Det and 25 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIComparative StudyEquivalence Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

64 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Beyond theJCO precision oncology · 2026
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

35 authors.

Berend J van der WilkDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands. Electronic address: b.vanderwilk@erasmusmc.nl.
Ben M EyckDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Bas P L WijnhovenDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Sjoerd M LagardeDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Camiel RosmanDepartment of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Bo J NoordmanDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Maria J ValkemaDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Tanya M BisselingDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Peter-Paul L O CoeneDepartment of Surgery, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Marc J van DetDepartment of Surgery, ZGT Hospital, Almelo, Netherlands.
Jan Willem T DekkerDepartment of Surgery, Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis, Delft, Netherlands.
Jolanda M van DierenDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Michail DoukasDepartment of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Stijn van EsserDepartment of Surgery, Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis, Delft, Netherlands.
W Edward FietsDepartment of Medical Oncology, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, Netherlands.
Henk H HartgrinkDepartment of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.
Joos HeisterkampDepartment of Surgery, Elisabeth Tweesteden Hospital, Tilburg, Netherlands.
I Lisanne HolsterDepartment of Gastroenterology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Bastiaan KlarenbeekDepartment of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
David van KlaverenDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Eva KouwDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Gelre Hospital, Apeldoorn, Netherlands.
Ewout A KouwenhovenDepartment of Surgery, ZGT Hospital, Almelo, Netherlands.
Misha D LuyerDepartment of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
Bianca MostertDepartment of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Grard A P NieuwenhuijzenDepartment of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, Netherlands.
Liekele E OostenbrugDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Heerlen, Netherlands.
Jean-Pierre PierieDepartment of Surgery, Medical Centre Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, Netherlands.
Johanna W van SandickDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Meindert N SosefDepartment of Surgery, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Heerlen, Netherlands.
Manon C W SpaanderDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Roelf ValkemaDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Edwin S van der ZaagDepartment of Surgery, Gelre Hospital, Apeldoorn, Netherlands.
Ewout W SteyerbergDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.
J Jan B van LanschotDepartment of Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
SANO Study Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Chemoradiotherapy, AdjuvantEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyNeoadjuvant TherapyWatchful WaitingAdultAgedChemoradiotherapyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlands

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.