Salvage endoscopic resection after definitive chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer: a Western experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is increasingly used as a nonsurgical treatment for esophageal cancer. In Japanese studies, salvage endoscopic resection (ER) has emerged as a promising strategy for local failure after definitive CRT. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of salvage ER in a Western setting. METHODS: Gastroenterologists from Europe and the United States were invited to submit their experience with salvage endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) after definitive CRT. Participating gastroenterologists completed an anonymized database, including patient demographics, clinicopathologic variables, and follow-up on survival and recurrence. RESULTS: Gastroenterologists from 10 endoscopic units in 6 European countries submitted information on 25 patients. A total of 35 salvage ER procedures were performed, of which 69% were ESD and 31% EMR. Most patients had squamous cell carcinoma (64%) of the middle or lower esophagus (68%) staged as cT2-3 (68%) and cN+ (52%) before definitive CRT. The median time from end of definitive CRT to ER was 22 months (interquartile range, 6-47). The en-bloc resection rate was 92% for ESD and 46% for EMR. During a median of 24 months (interquartile range, 12-59) of follow-up after salvage ER, 52% developed a recurrence (11 locoregional, 2 distant). The 5-year recurrence-free survival, overall survival, and disease-specific survival were 36%, 52%, and 79%, respectively. No major intra- or postprocedural adverse events, such as bleeding or perforation, were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In carefully selected esophageal cancer patients, salvage ER is technically feasible after definitive CRT. Further prospective research is recommended to validate the safety and effectivity of salvage ER for the management of local failure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".