Trial reportBJS open2025
Intrathoracic versus cervical anastomosis after totally or hybrid minimally invasive transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the randomized ICAN trial.
Trial report in BJS open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is a worldwide trend towards minimally invasive oesophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis in oesophageal cancer surgery. Minimally invasive oesophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis has been shown to result in fewer anastomotic leaks, but cost-effectiveness is yet to be established. The aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of transthoracic minimally invasive oesophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis compared with cervical anastomosis.
methodsA prospective economic evaluation was performed alongside the ICAN trial, a randomized clinical superiority trial. Patients with mid/distal oesophageal or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer were randomly assigned to transthoracic minimally invasive oesophagectomy with either intrathoracic or cervical anastomosis. Quality-adjusted life-years, mean healthcare, and societal costs were assessed for both groups at 9 and 21 months after surgery.
resultsA total of 245 patients randomized for transthoracic minimally invasive oesophagectomy with either intrathoracic (122) or cervical (123) anastomosis were included in the cost-effectiveness analysis. After 9 months, the intrathoracic group yielded 0.58 (95% confidence interval (c.i.) 0.55 to 0.61) quality-adjusted life-years per patient, compared with 0.56 (0.52 to 0.58) quality-adjusted life-years for the cervical group. After 9 months, both mean healthcare costs (20 573 (95% c.i. 17 623 to 24 177) versus 28 039 (23 574 to 33 116) euros), and societal costs (24 590 (21 237 to 29 074) versus 33 383 (27 885 to 38 805) euros), per patient were lower in the intrathoracic anastomosis group. Similarly, at 21 months no statistically significant difference was found (mean difference 0.08 (-0.05 to 0.2) quality-adjusted life-years), whereas minimally invasive oesophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis was less costly than that with cervical anastomosis (mean difference -9930 (-16 301 to -2521) euros). The higher costs in the cervical anastomosis group were mainly due to longer lengths of stay owing to complications.
conclusionTransthoracic minimally invasive oesophagectomy with intrathoracic anastomosis was found to be cost-effective compared with transthoracic minimally invasive oesophagectomy with cervical anastomosis.
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.