Endoscopic resection with adjuvant treatment versus esophagectomy for early-stage esophageal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcome following the strategy of endoscopic R0 resection (ER) plus adjuvant treatment (AT) versus esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell cancer in T1a invading muscularis mucosa (M3)-T1b stage. METHODS: We evaluated the outcomes of 46 esophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC) patients with T1aM3-T1b stage who underwent ER + AT from the Esophageal Cancer Endoscopic Therapy Consortium (ECETC) and compared these outcomes to 92 patients who underwent esophagectomy. Propensity score matching (1:2) was used, with overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS) being compared between the two groups. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 32 months, there were no statistical differences (P = 0.226) in OS between the two groups. The 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival in the esophagectomy group was 95%, 91%, and 84%, respectively. There were no mortalities within three years in the ER + AT group. The RFS between the two groups was also not significantly different (P = 0.938). The 1-, 2-, and 3-year RFS of patients in the esophagectomy group was 90%, 90%, and 83%, respectively, while it was 97%, 94%, and 74% in the ER + AT group, respectively. The local recurrence rates between the two groups were not significantly different (P = 0.277). CONCLUSIONS: This first multicenter analysis showed similar outcomes were found regarding OS and RFS between the two groups in T1aM3-T1b stage patients. ER + AT may be considered in high-risk patients or for those who refuse esophagectomy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".