SynthesisInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2026
Long-term outcomes of additional surgical versus nonsurgical treatment after non-curative endoscopic resection for T1 superficial esophageal cancer.
Synthesis in International journal of surgery (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy and outcomes of different treatments for pathologically high-risk superficial esophageal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- A Multidisciplinary, Digitally-Integrated Life-Cycle Management Model for Early Gastrointestinal Cancer: Enhancing Care Coordination and Continuity.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic resection (ER) is the main treatment for T1 superficial esophageal cancer (SEC). Additional surgical resection (ASR) is recommended to improve the prognosis of patients with non-curative resection who are at high risk of recurrence and metastasis. However, the survival benefit of ASR compared to non-ASR remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the survival benefits of ASR versus non-ASR, providing robust data for clinical decision-making.
methodWe searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science databases for studies published before 24 February 2025. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and disease-specific survival (DSS). Two independent reviewers screened and extracted the data and resolved disagreements by consensus. Risk of bias was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
resultsThe review identified 15 retrospective studies involving 1348 patients. Analysis showed that patients with ASR had significant survival advantages over non-ASR patients in OS, RFS, and DSS. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were as follows: OS (HR = 3.06; 95% CI: 2.11-4.43), RFS (HR = 1.68; 95% CI: 1.16-2.41), and DSS (HR = 4.11; 95% CI: 1.64-10.28). Survival curves indicated that at 3, 5, and 10 years, the OS rates were 95.9% versus 88.0%, 91.4% versus 78.2%, and 86.7% versus 56.9% for the ASR and non-ASR groups, respectively. Similarly, the RFS rates were 93.4% versus 82.9%, 83.6% versus 73.8%, and 74.5% versus 57.5%. For DSS, the rates were 98.4% versus 94.5%, 97.8% versus 91.1%, and 97.8% versus 87.9%. Log-rank tests confirmed significance for all comparisons except 10-year DSS.
conclusionsFor patients with T1 SEC who had non-curative ER, ASR therapy provides advantages over non-ASR therapy. However, within 5 years, the DSS difference between the ASR and non-ASR groups is likely to be minimal, with a range of approximately 4-6%.
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.