ReviewCureus2026
Barriers to Guideline-Based Management of Esophageal Carcinoma: A Narrative Review With Special Reference to North East India.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Esophageal carcinoma remains one of the most lethal malignancies worldwide. It poses a significant public health challenge in India, particularly in the North-Eastern region, where the disease burden is among the highest in the country. Contemporary management has evolved into a multidisciplinary, stage-directed, and increasingly biomarker-informed approach. This approach incorporates accurate staging, nutritional assessment, neoadjuvant or perioperative therapy, surgery, definitive chemoradiotherapy, immunotherapy, palliation, and structured follow-up. However, the successful implementation of guideline-based care requires coordinated delivery of multiple healthcare services across the cancer care continuum. This narrative review examines barriers to guideline-based management of esophageal carcinoma, with special reference to North East India. A literature search of PubMed, Google Scholar, major oncology guidelines, and relevant regional publications was conducted to identify evidence on diagnosis, staging, treatment delivery, nutritional support, multidisciplinary care, access to surgery and radiotherapy, financial challenges, and healthcare-system barriers. Findings were synthesized along the patient care pathway from symptom onset to long-term follow-up. Available evidence suggests that substantial implementation gaps exist despite advances in evidence-based management. Delayed presentation, malnutrition, geographical isolation, poor transportation infrastructure, linguistic diversity, financial toxicity, fragmented referral pathways, limited access to specialized oncology services, treatment authorization requirements, and loss to follow-up contribute to deviations from guideline-concordant care. These challenges are particularly relevant in North East India, where difficult terrain, dispersed populations, and high disease incidence place additional strain on healthcare delivery systems. The review proposes practical, locally adapted strategies to improve implementation, including dysphagia-to-treatment fast-track pathways, nutrition-first assessment, multidisciplinary coordination, patient navigation services, language-sensitive counselling, accommodation and food support, tele-follow-up, and alignment of public healthcare packages with contemporary evidence-based treatment requirements. Improving outcomes in esophageal carcinoma will require not only advances in clinical management but also systematic efforts to ensure that guideline-recommended care is accessible, affordable, and deliverable within regional healthcare settings.
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.