The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Optimum Lymphadenectomy for Esophageal Cancer
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Using Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration data, we sought to (1) characterize the relationship between survival and extent of lymphadenectomy, and (2) from this, define optimum lymphadenectomy. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: What constitutes optimum lymphadenectomy to maximize survival is controversial because of variable goals, analytic methodology, and generalizability of the underpinning data. METHODS: A total of 4627 patients who had esophagectomy alone for esophageal cancer were identified from the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration database. Patient-specific risk-adjusted survival was estimated using random survival forests. Risk-adjusted 5-year survival was averaged for each number of lymph nodes resected and its relation to cancer characteristics explored. Optimum number of nodes that should be resected to maximize 5-year survival was determined by random forest multivariable regression. RESULTS: For pN0M0 moderately and poorly differentiated cancers, and all node-positive (pN+) cancers, 5-year survival improved with increasing extent of lymphadenectomy. In pN0M0 cancers, no optimum lymphadenectomy was defined for pTis; optimum lymphadenectomy was 10 to 12 nodes for pT1, 15 to 22 for pT2, and 31 to 42 for pT3/T4, depending on histopathologic cell type. In pN+M0 cancers and 1 to 6 nodes positive, optimum lymphadenectomy was 10 for pT1, 15 for pT2, and 29 to 50 for pT3/T4. CONCLUSIONS: Greater extent of lymphadenectomy was associated with increased survival for all patients with esophageal cancer except at the extremes (TisN0M0 and >or=7 regional lymph nodes positive for cancer) and well-differentiated pN0M0 cancer. Maximum 5-year survival is modulated by T classification: resecting 10 nodes for pT1, 20 for pT2, and >or=30 for pT3/T4 is recommended.
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
Cites
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
Ishwaran, H., Kogalur, U. B., Blackstone, E. H., & Lauer, M. S. (2008) · The Annals of Applied Statistics · doi:10.1214/08-aoas169 · Cited by 2,714
Self-citation
Cited by
Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers
Ajani, J. A., Barthel, J. S., Bentrem, D. J., D'Amico, T. A., Das, P., Denlinger, C. S., Fuchs, C. S., Gerdes, H., Glasgow, R. E., Hayman, J. A., et al. (2011) · Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network · doi:10.6004/jnccn.2011.0072 · Cited by 331
Self-citationTextbook outcome as a composite measure in oesophagogastric cancer surgery
Busweiler, L. A. D., Schouwenburg, M. G., van Berge Henegouwen, M. I., Kolfschoten, N. E., de Jong, P. C., Rozema, T., Wijnhoven, B. P. L., van Hillegersberg, R., Wouters, M. W. J. M., van Sandick, J. W., et al. (2017) · British Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.10486 · Cited by 299
Metadata
- Authors
- Rizk, N. P., Ishwaran, H., Rice, T. W., Chen, L.-Q., Schipper, P. H., Kesler, K. A., Law, S., Lerut, T. E. M. R., Reed, C. E., Salo, J. A., Scott, W. J., Hofstetter, W. L., Watson, T. J., Allen, M. S., Rusch, V. W., & Blackstone, E. H.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 2010-01
- Volume
- 251
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 46-50
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2146805326
- Cited by
- 461
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 18.45
- 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: Optimum Lymphadenectomy for Esophageal Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0b013e3181b2f6ee
- The paper
- Rizk, N. P., Ishwaran, H., Rice, T. W., Chen, L.-Q., Schipper, P. H., Kesler, K. A., Law, S., Lerut, T. E. M. R., Reed, C. E., Salo, J. A., Scott, W. J., Hofstetter, W. L., Watson, T. J., Allen, M. S., Rusch, V. W., & Blackstone, E. H. (2010). Optimum Lymphadenectomy for Esophageal Cancer. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e3181b2f6ee
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.