ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Survival outcomes of intrathoracic vs. cervical anastomosis post-esophagectomy in middle and lower thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a retrospective propensity score matching analysis.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to compare long-term survival outcomes between cervical anastomosis (CA) and intrathoracic anastomosis (IA) in patients with middle and lower thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted on 571 patients who underwent esophagectomy at a single institution. Patients were stratified into CA and IA groups based on anastomotic technique. Propensity score matching (PSM, 1:1) was applied to balance baseline covariates. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications. Results: In the unmatched cohort, CA demonstrated superior OS (median: 51.17 vs. 34.50 months; HR: 1.368, 95% CI: 1.062-1.763; p=0.015) and DFS (median: 45.07 vs. 28.87 months; HR: 1.289, 95% CI: 1.013-1.641; p=0.039) compared to IA. However, after PSM, the survival advantage attenuated (OS: HR = 1.303, 95% CI: 0.953-1.780, p=0.097; DFS: HR = 1.295, 95% CI: 0.962-1.744, p=0.089). Multivariate analysis identified pathological T3/T4 stages (OS: p=0.002-0.009; DFS: p<0.001) and lymphovascular invasion (DFS: p=0.023) as dominant prognostic factors, overshadowing anastomotic technique. The CA group exhibited more extensive lymph node dissection (>7 stations, p<0.001), but short-term mortality (30-/90-day) did not differ between groups (p≥0.382). Conclusion: In conclusion, our study suggests that there may be a potential survival advantage of CA over IA in patients undergoing esophagectomy for ESCC. However, the initial survival benefits associated with CA diminished after adjusting for confounding factors.
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.