MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402137083 · doi:10.1093/dote/doae057.140

382. NUMBER OF LYMPH NODES RESECTED IS ASSOCIATED WITH OVERALL SURVIVAL IN PATHOLOGICALLY NODE-NEGATIVE ESOPHAGEAL CANCER

2024· article· en· W4402137083 on OpenAlexaff
Jarlath Bolger, Gail Darling, Jonathan Yeung

Bibliographic record

VenueDiseases of the Esophagus · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEsophageal cancerLymph nodeLymphOncologyInternal medicineCancerPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Lymphadenectomy is a key part of curative resection of esophageal cancer, with multiple quality assurance systems suggesting a minimum of 15 lymph nodes should be resected and subjected to pathological examination. Nevertheless, whether the absolute number of nodes resected is a surrogate marker for quality in surgery and staging, or has therapeutic benefit is debated. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of lymphadenectomy on survival in patients with resected pathologically node-negative disease (both treated and untreated with neoadjuvant therapy). Methods A review of our institutional prospectively maintained database was conducted from 2010-2020 inclusive. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer aged 18+ who consented to data inclusion. Exclusion criteria were patients undergoing resection for benign disease, patients with Siewert III tumours undergoing gastrectomy or extended total gastrectomy, patients undergoing re-operative surgery, or patients where final pathology was not available. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed as appropriate. Results 195 patients (49%) had pathologically node negative disease, with median lymph node count of 25. 47% of patients were clinically node positive, but pathologically node negative following neoadjuvant therapy. On univariable survival analysis, number of nodes resected was a significant predictor of overall survival (HR 0.96, 0.93-0.98, p=0.001). On multivariable analysis, R status (HR 4.9, 1.2-21.1, p=0.03), number of nodes resected (HR 0.97, 0.94-0.99, p=0.02) and prior cN+ status (HR 2.28, 1.16-4.49, p=0.02) were predictors of overall survival. Patients with cN0, (y)pN0 disease had improved overall survival compared with cN+, (y)pN0 (median not reached vs 43.4 months, p=0.04). Conclusion Lymphadenectomy is a key part of resection of esophageal cancer. In pathologically node negative patients, the extent of lymphadenectomy remains a key predictor of overall survival. Conversion from clinically node positive to pathologically node negative disease is associated with worse outcomes compared to clinically and pathologically node negative disease. Even in early stage cancer, a thorough, multi-field lymphadenectomy should be encouraged.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiseases of the EsophagusSame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207