ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2026
Where You Live and Where You Are Treated: Addressing Disparities in Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.
Article in Annals of surgical 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
backgroundLower socioeconomic status conveys a known survival disadvantage for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). The potential role of the treating center volume in mitigating this disparity has not been described to date.
methodsNon-metastatic EAC patients were identified (NCDB 2012-2021). High- and low-risk zip code groups were derived from income and education quartiles. Center volume was delineated as "low" or "high," with an annual threshold of ≥ 10 esophagectomies. Standard chi-square modeling, multivariable Cox hazard regression models, and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used where appropriate.
resultsOf 7462 EAC patients, 38.2% (n = 2849) resided in high-risk zip code areas, and 87.1% were treated at low-volume centers. Clinical (p = 0.230) and pathologic (p = 0.992) staging distribution did not differ across zip codes. High-volume centers saw a slightly increased proportion of advanced disease (p = 0.001). Patients at high-volume centers experienced better survival (5-year overall survival [5yOS], 44.97%) than their low-volume counterparts (5yOS, 40.62%) (p < 0.001). Patients residing in high-risk zip code areas demonstrated worse 5yOS than their low-risk counterparts (38.20% vs 43.74%; p < 0.001). Evaluation of low-volume centers showed that the high-risk zip code group had shorter survival than their low-risk counterparts (36.80% vs 43.21%; p < 0.001). Interestingly, in high-volume centers, survival across zip code groups was notably comparable (45.69% vs 46.20%; p = 0.80).
conclusionsCenter expertise may offer an avenue for mitigating sociodemographic survival disparities in esophageal cancer. As discussions regarding centralized oncologic care continue, particular attention should be paid to the impact of high-volume center referral on the treatment of patients with social risk factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42873429What 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.