ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
Therapeutic outcomes of different treatment approaches for T1a-M3/T1b esophageal cancer and development of a prognostic prediction model.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The optimal treatment for esophageal cancer (EC) invading the muscularis mucosa (T1a-M3) or submucosa (T1b) remains debated. This study analyzed patients with stage T1a-M3/T1b EC from the SEER database (cycle 2004-2017). Cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were compared across five groups. Primary analysis used stable inverse probability treatment weighting (sIPTW), while sensitivity analysis applied propensity score matching (PSM) and external datasets. After sIPTW adjustment, endoscopic therapy showed significantly better CSS and OS than chemoradiotherapy (CRT) (both P < 0.0001). Compared to radical resection, endoscopic treatment had superior CSS (P = 0.038) without observed significant difference in OS (P = 0.50). Four variable selection methods built the optimal predictive model, validated internally and externally. Internal AUC values at 1, 3, and 5 years were 0.730, 0.743, and 0.769, respectively; external AUC values were 0.765, 0.731, and 0.785.
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.