ArticleGastroenterology report2026
Comparison of long-term outcomes between endoscopic submucosal dissection and esophagectomy for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
Article in Gastroenterology report, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is increasingly being performed as a less invasive alternative to esophagectomy for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SESCC); however, comparative long-term outcome data, especially for non-curative resection (non-CR) cases and elderly patients, remain limited. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of ESD and esophagectomy using a propensity score (PS)-matched cohort. Methods: Patients with SESCC who underwent ESD or esophagectomy at a tertiary referral center between 2011 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. In the PS-matched cohort, overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), additional treatments, and adverse events were compared. Subgroup analyses were conducted for non-CR cases and elderly patients (≥70 years). Results: Among the 63 PS-matched pairs, OS, DSS, and RFS were comparable between the ESD and esophagectomy groups. The 5-year OS, DSS, and RFS rates were 89.9% versus 79.2%, 95.7% versus 94.4%, and 90.6% versus 89.1%, respectively. The ESD group had significantly fewer adverse events (47.6% vs 68.3%, Conclusions: ESD is a safe and effective alternative to esophagectomy for SESCC, including in non-CR and elderly patients. Given the limitations of preprocedural depth assessment and the high risk of complications associated with esophagectomy, staging ESD for SESCC may represent a reasonable treatment option, particularly for elderly or high-risk patients.
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.