ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
The Prognostic Role of Lymphadenectomy during Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer with Complete or Near-Complete Tumor Response after Neoadjuvant Therapy.
Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 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.
- Does Lymph Node Dissection During Esophagectomy Impact the Long-Term Prognosis for Complete Responders After Neoadjuvant Therapy? A Meta-analysis.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Preserve or ligate?-navigating perfusion-safe oncologic precision in gastroesophageal junction cancer surgery.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prognostic role of lymphadenectomy during esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in complete responders to neoadjuvant therapy is uncertain. This study aimed to help clarify this question. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis was a bi-national population-based cohort study in Sweden (2006-2024) and Finland (2006-2019). The main cohort included 515 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy after complete or near-complete tumor response without lymph node metastasis following neoadjuvant therapy. A secondary cohort included 669 patients with similar tumor response, regardless of nodal status. Data came from medical records and national health data registers. Associations between lymphadenectomy (categorized in quartiles) and 5-year mortality were assessed using multivariable Cox regression, yielding hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for age, sex, country, comorbidity, type of neoadjuvant therapy, calendar year, tumor histology, hospital volume, tumor location, tumor response, and T stage.
resultsIn the main cohort, comparing the highest quartile of lymphadenectomy (≥ 27 nodes) with the lowest (0-11 nodes) indicated decreased 5-year all-cause mortality (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34-0.88). Stratified analyses suggested no significant association for complete responders (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.39-1.16), but for near-complete responders (HR 0.32, 95% CI 0.14-0.72). The associations disappeared when assessing stage purification bias in the secondary cohort (n = 669), with the corresponding HRs of 0.91 (95% CI 0.63-1.32) for all responders, 1.01 (95% CI 0.61-1.66) for complete responders, and 0.79 (95% CI 0.47-1.33) for near-complete responders. Results were similar for 5-year disease-specific mortality.
conclusionsAfter considering stage purification bias, more extensive lymphadenectomy did not improve the long-term survival among patients with complete or near-complete tumor response after neoadjuvant therapy.
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.