ReviewCancers2025
Organ Preservation in Esophageal Cancer: Current Strategies, Challenges, and Future Directions.
Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Response-adapted perioperative therapy for resectable esophageal cancer in the immunotherapy era: a narrative review.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Reassessing the role of combined organ resection in cT4b esophageal cancer: feasibility, outcomes, and future directions.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Editorial: Radiation therapy and organ preservation: controversies and emerging evidence.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Esophageal cancer (EC) continues to pose a major global health burden, ranking as the ninth most common malignancy and sixth leading cause of cancer mortality, with over 600,000 new cases and 500,000 deaths annually as of 2025. While esophagectomy has long been the standard for curative intent in resectable disease, organ preservation strategies have advanced significantly, offering viable alternatives for patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) or those unsuitable for surgery due to comorbidities. These approaches encompass definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by active surveillance ("watch-and-wait"), and innovative integrations of immunotherapy and targeted therapies. This narrative review synthesizes evidence from recent clinical trials, systematic reviews, and international guidelines up to 2025, demonstrating that organ-sparing protocols can achieve comparable overall survival (OS) rates-often exceeding 50% at 5 years in selected cohorts-while substantially enhancing quality of life (QoL) by preserving esophageal function. For instance, the SANO trial (2025) confirmed non-inferiority of active surveillance post-nCRT, with 2-year OS of 74% versus 71% for standard surgery. Key challenges include imprecise response assessment, locoregional recurrences (20-30%), and treatment-related toxicities such as esophageal strictures. Emerging trials like ESOSTRATE and PALACE3 are evaluating immunotherapy-enhanced regimens, potentially expanding organ preservation to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). With genomic biomarkers and novel modalities like proton therapy, personalized organ preservation promises to broaden applicability, reduce morbidity, and improve outcomes across histological subtypes. Additionally, recent studies emphasize the role of liquid biopsies, such as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA), in monitoring treatment response and guiding surveillance, potentially reducing the need for invasive procedures and improving detection of minimal residual disease. The aim of this review is not only to summarize recent trials but to synthesize them into an operational framework that clinicians and researchers can apply: a decision algorithm for selecting organ preservation candidates. This is the novel element that distinguishes this work from prior narrative reviews.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.