The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Role of Overdiagnosis and Reclassification in the Marked Increase of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Incidence
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma is rising dramatically. This increase may reflect increased disease burden, reclassification of related cancers, or overdiagnosis resulting from increased diagnostic intensity, particularly upper endoscopy for patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease or Barrett esophagus. METHODS: We used the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to extract information on incidence, stage distribution, and disease-specific mortality for esophageal adenocarcinoma as well as information on related cancers. RESULTS: From 1975 to 2001, the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma rose approximately sixfold in the United States (from 4 to 23 cases per million), a relative increase greater than that for melanoma, breast, or prostate cancer. Reclassification of squamous cell carcinoma is an unlikely explanation for the rise in incidence, because the anatomic distribution of esophageal cancer in general has changed. The only location with increased incidence is the lower third of the esophagus-the site where adenocarcinoma typically arises. Reclassification of adjacent gastric cancer is also unlikely because its incidence has also increased. Because there has been little change in the proportion of patients found with in situ or localized disease at diagnosis since 1975 (from 25% to 31%) and because esophageal adenocarcinoma mortality has increased more than sevenfold (from 2 to 15 deaths per million), overdiagnosis can be excluded as an explanation for the rise in incidence. CONCLUSION: The rising incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma represents a real increase in disease burden.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Pennathur, A., Gibson, M. K., Jobe, B. A., & Luketich, J. D. (2013) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60643-6 · Cited by 2,390
What are the consequences of the disappearing human microbiota?
Blaser, M. J., & Falkow, S. (2009) · Nature Reviews Microbiology · doi:10.1038/nrmicro2245 · Cited by 855
Pech, O., Behrens, A., May, A., Nachbar, L., Gossner, L., Rabenstein, T., Manner, H., Guenter, E., Huijsmans, J., Vieth, M., et al. (2008) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2007.142539 · Cited by 678
Pech, O., May, A., Manner, H., Behrens, A., Pohl, J., Weferling, M., Hartmann, U., Manner, N., Huijsmans, J., Gossner, L., et al. (2014) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2013.11.006 · Cited by 499
Kano, M., Seki, N., Kikkawa, N., Fujimura, L., Hoshino, I., Akutsu, Y., Chiyomaru, T., Enokida, H., Nakagawa, M., & Matsubara, H. (2010) · International Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1002/ijc.25284 · Cited by 441
Metadata
- Authors
- Pohl, H., & Welch, H. G.
- Venue
- JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-01-18
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 142-146
- ISSN
- 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2105
- OpenAlex
- W2122380766
- Cited by
- 1,270
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 64.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Role of Overdiagnosis and Reclassification in the Marked Increase of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Incidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/dji024
- The paper
- Pohl, H., & Welch, H. G. (2005). The Role of Overdiagnosis and Reclassification in the Marked Increase of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Incidence. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji024
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.