SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Comparative efficacy and outcomes of different treatments for pathologically high-risk superficial esophageal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic resection (ER) is increasingly used for superficial esophageal cancer (SEC), but pathological examination may reveal features associated with lymph-node metastasis or recurrence. The optimal management of patients with pathologically high-risk SEC remains uncertain because high-quality randomized evidence is lacking and direct comparisons among the available treatment strategies remain limited. Methods: We performed a systematic review and frequentist network meta-analysis according to PRISMA (PROSPERO CRD420251164650). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to December 17, 2025. Random-effects models were used as the primary analyses for overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and disease-specific survival (DSS). Study-level subgroup analysis, network meta-regression, and sensitivity analyses were used to examine the robustness and comparability of the evidence. Results: Thirty-four studies were included. The OS, RFS, and DSS networks contained 2,621, 2,173, and 1,274 participants, respectively. Compared with primary esophagectomy (ESO), ER followed by esophagectomy (ER+ESO) had an OS hazard ratio (HR) of 0.562 (95% CI 0.311-1.015; P = 0.056). The corresponding HRs were 0.480 for RFS (95% CI 0.235-0.983; P = 0.045) and 0.206 for DSS (95% CI 0.069-0.619; P = 0.005). No other strategy differed significantly from ESO. Global inconsistency was not detected for OS or DSS, whereas the RFS network showed significant between-design inconsistency. Study-level subgroup and network meta-regression analyses did not identify statistically significant effect modification by pathological-stage composition, T1b proportion, or lymphovascular invasion burden. Conclusions: ER+ESO was associated with favorable RFS and DSS estimates in selected patients suitable for surgery, with a similar direction of effect for OS. These findings may support ER+ESO as an important post-ER treatment option when surgical tolerance is acceptable. ER followed by chemoradiotherapy may represent a clinically relevant organ-preserving strategy, particularly for patients in whom esophagectomy is not preferred or feasible. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251164650, identifier CRD420251164650.
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.