Long-term outcomes of additional surgical versus nonsurgical treatment after non-curative endoscopic resection for T1 superficial esophageal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic resection (ER) is the main treatment for T1 superficial esophageal cancer (SEC). Additional surgical resection (ASR) is recommended to improve the prognosis of patients with non-curative resection who are at high risk of recurrence and metastasis. However, the survival benefit of ASR compared to non-ASR remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the survival benefits of ASR versus non-ASR, providing robust data for clinical decision-making. METHOD: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science databases for studies published before 24 February 2025. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and disease-specific survival (DSS). Two independent reviewers screened and extracted the data and resolved disagreements by consensus. Risk of bias was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: The review identified 15 retrospective studies involving 1348 patients. Analysis showed that patients with ASR had significant survival advantages over non-ASR patients in OS, RFS, and DSS. Hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were as follows: OS (HR = 3.06; 95% CI: 2.11-4.43), RFS (HR = 1.68; 95% CI: 1.16-2.41), and DSS (HR = 4.11; 95% CI: 1.64-10.28). Survival curves indicated that at 3, 5, and 10 years, the OS rates were 95.9% versus 88.0%, 91.4% versus 78.2%, and 86.7% versus 56.9% for the ASR and non-ASR groups, respectively. Similarly, the RFS rates were 93.4% versus 82.9%, 83.6% versus 73.8%, and 74.5% versus 57.5%. For DSS, the rates were 98.4% versus 94.5%, 97.8% versus 91.1%, and 97.8% versus 87.9%. Log-rank tests confirmed significance for all comparisons except 10-year DSS. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with T1 SEC who had non-curative ER, ASR therapy provides advantages over non-ASR therapy. However, within 5 years, the DSS difference between the ASR and non-ASR groups is likely to be minimal, with a range of approximately 4-6%.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".