ArticleScientific reports2025
Esophageal cancer trends in the US from 1992 to 2019 with projections to 2044 using SEER data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A prospective cohort study evaluating disease-specific mortality in patients with early-stage Barrett's esophagus-related neoplasia following endoscopic therapy.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Spatiotemporal Transcriptomic Dissection Uncovers Age-Dependent Deceleration of Esophageal Cell Differentiation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Prognostic impact of treatment modalities and examined lymph nodes count on survival in T3-4 esophageal cancer: a retrospective cohort and predictive modeling study from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- The Impact of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Therapy on Non-Tumorous Barrett's Dysplasia of the Esophagus: A Multicenter Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
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
Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has increased substantially to become the most common type of esophageal cancer in the United States, surpassing esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Whether the increasing incidence of EAC is linked to trends in esophageal cancer mortality is unclear. We analyzed esophageal cancer data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-12 cancer registry program, using Joinpoint regression for trend analysis and a decomposition method to attribute changes to population growth, population aging, and epidemiological changes. Age-period-cohort models were employed to estimate incidence and mortality through 2044. Between 1992 and 2019, 39,700 individuals were diagnosed with esophageal cancer, and 35,259 deaths were recorded from 1993 to 2019. The overall incidence of esophageal cancer declined [average annual percent change (AAPC), - 0.7%], but the incidence of EAC increased by an AAPC of 1.6% per year (P < 0.001) from 1992 to 2019. The overall mortality rates decreased by an annual percentage change of 1.0% [95% confidence intervals - 1.2% to - 0.7%] from 1998 to 2019, primarily related to decline in ESCC in 1996-2019. The mortality of EAC increased by an AAPC of 2.2% per year (P < 0.001) over the study period and increased for all demographic characteristic groups. Population aging and growth largely explain the increase in esophageal cancer over the last 3 decades. Future projections (2019-2044) suggest a 31% increase in incidence and deaths, with EAC rates continuing to rise (AAPC, 0.25; 95% CI 0.23-0.28). The number of esophageal cancer cases and deaths have significantly increased and projections indicate that this trend will continue. Effective measures must be taken to address the burden of esophageal cancer.
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.