Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 461

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

Rizk, Nabil P., Ishwaran, Hemant, Rice, Thomas W., Chen, Long-Qi, Schipper, Paul H., Kesler, Kenneth A., Law, Simon, Lerut, Toni E. M. R., Reed, Carolyn E., Salo, Jarmo A., Scott, Walter J., Hofstetter, Wayne L., Watson, Thomas J., Allen, Mark S., Rusch, Valerie W., Blackstone, Eugene H.·2010·Annals of Surgery

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/sla.0b013e3181b2f6ee

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 461

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.