ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
A full-cycle integrated management model for esophageal cancer in county health systems: effects on care processes, clinical outcomes, quality of life, and cost-utility.
Article 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Esophageal cancer (EC) remains a major public health challenge in high-incidence, resource-limited county settings, where fragmented services often lead to delayed diagnosis, suboptimal multidisciplinary care, and poor continuity of follow-up. We developed a county-adapted, integrated "prevention-screening-treatment" model with full-cycle closed-loop management and evaluated its effectiveness. Methods: We conducted a controlled pilot study in Anxi County, Fujian Province, China. The intervention was delivered through a county-township-village three-tier service network supported by a digital management platform and standardized quality-of-life (QoL) assessment. Two hundred adults with pathologically confirmed EC were enrolled and assigned (non-randomly, based on enrollment in the program pathway at first presentation) to the intervention group receiving the integrated full-cycle management model (n=100) or to a control group receiving usual county-level care (n=100). Primary outcomes included diagnostic delay, multidisciplinary team (MDT) participation, standardized follow-up, and survival outcomes. Secondary outcomes included treatment adherence, complications, QoL (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OES18), and cost-utility (cost per quality-adjusted life year, QALY). Between-group comparisons used χ² tests and t tests; longitudinal QoL used repeated-measures analysis; and survival used Cox regression. Results: Compared with controls, the intervention group had shorter diagnostic delay (46.8 ± 13.2 vs 88.5 ± 17.6 days; p < 0.001), higher MDT participation (91.0% vs 34.0%; p < 0.001), higher standardized follow-up (86.0% vs 32.0%; p < 0.001), and lower loss to follow-up (4.0% vs 17.0%; p = 0.001). One-, two-, and three-year overall survival was higher in the intervention group (88.0%, 75.0%, and 67.0%) than in controls (71.0%, 57.0%, and 55.0%). QoL improved more over time in the intervention group, with significant group-by-time interactions for key functional and symptom domains (all p < 0.001). Direct medical and indirect costs were lower, while QALYs were higher (0.696 ± 0.127 vs 0.602 ± 0.119; p < 0.001), resulting in a lower cost per QALY. Conclusions: A county-adapted, integrated full-cycle EC management model supported by a three-tier service network, digital tools, and standardized QoL measurement improved care processes, outcomes, and cost-utility. This approach appears feasible and potentially scalable to similar high-incidence county 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.