SynthesisDiseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus2026
Endoscopic resection versus esophagectomy for T1bN0M0 esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Esophagectomy remains the standard of care for T1b esophageal cancer. Guidelines support the use of endoscopic resection (ER) including endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in carefully selected patients. We compared patients with T1b esophageal cancer who underwent ER or esophagectomy. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL from inception to November 2025 for studies comparing esophagectomy and ER for patients with T1b esophageal cancer. We excluded studies if patients received neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment. Outcomes were 5-year overall survival (OS) and cancer specific survival (CSS), recurrence, and mortality. Meta-analysis (with propensity-matched data when available) was performed, with a subgroup analysis of ESD versus esophagectomy. Ten retrospective studies were identified comprising 2491 patients who underwent ER (n = 890) or esophagectomy (n = 1601). Mean age was 65.7 years with 16.1% female. Six studies grouped EMR and ESD together, three reported ESD alone, one examined EMR only. OS and CSS were available in seven and four studies, respectively. There was no significant difference between esophagectomy and ER regarding 5-year OS (HR 1.26; 95% CI 1.00-1.60; P = 0.05), 5-year CSS (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.20-2.17; P = 0.49), and 30-day mortality (HR 0.39; 95% CI 0.13-1.16; P = 0.09). Recurrence was 18.1% after esophagectomy and 17.7% after ER. Subgroup analysis showed no difference in OS or mortality. Risk of bias was high in five studies. Available retrospective comparative evidence suggests no clear difference between ER and esophagectomy for patients with T1b esophageal cancer. Randomized controlled trials are needed to reduce patient heterogeneity.
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.