Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 329

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Long-Term Follow-Up of a Community Assignment, One-Time Endoscopic Screening Study of Esophageal Cancer in China

Open access
Wei, Wen-Qiang, Chen, Zhi-Feng, He, Yu-Tong, Feng, Hao, Hou, Jun, Lin, Dong-Mei, Li, Xin-Qing, Guo, Cui-Lan, Li, Shao-Sen, Wang, Guo-Qing, Dong, Zhi-Wei, Abnet, Christian C., Qiao, You-Lin·2015·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Purpose: There are no global screening recommendations for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Endoscopic screening has been investigated in areas of high incidence in China since the 1970s. This study aimed to evaluate whether an endoscopic screening and intervention program could reduce mortality caused by ESCC. Methods: Residents age 40 to 69 years were recruited from communities with high rates of ESCC. Fourteen villages were selected as the intervention communities. Ten villages not geographically adjacent to intervention villages were selected for comparison. Participants in the intervention group were screened once by endoscopy with Lugol's iodine staining, and those with dysplasia or occult cancer were treated. All intervention participants and a sample consisting of one tenth of the control group completed questionnaires. We compared cumulative ESCC incidence and mortality between the two groups. Results: Three thousand three hundred nineteen volunteers (48.62%) from an eligible population of 6,827 were screened in the intervention group. Seven hundred ninety-seven volunteers from an eligible population of 6,200 in the control group were interviewed. Six hundred fifty-two incident and 542 fatal ESCCs were identified during the 10-year follow-up. A reduction in cumulative mortality in the intervention group versus the control group was apparent (3.35% v 5.05%, respectively; P < .001). Furthermore, the intervention group had a significantly lower cumulative incidence of ESCC versus the control group (4.17% v 5.92%, respectively; P < .001). Conclusion: We showed that endoscopic screening and intervention significantly reduced mortality caused by esophageal cancer. Detection and treatment of preneoplastic lesions also led to a reduction in the incidence of this highly fatal cancer.

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 · 10.1200/jco.2014.58.0423

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.

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

Cited by

See all 329

Metadata

Authors
Wei, W.-Q., Chen, Z.-F., He, Y.-T., Feng, H., Hou, J., Lin, D.-M., Li, X.-Q., Guo, C.-L., Li, S.-S., Wang, G.-Q., Dong, Z.-W., Abnet, C. C., & Qiao, Y.-L.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2015-06-10
Volume
33
Issue
17
Pages
1951-1957
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1963213007
Cited by
329
References
0
FWCI
14.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Long-Term Follow-Up of a Community Assignment, One-Time Endoscopic Screening Study of Esophageal Cancer in China. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2014.58.0423
The paper
Wei, W.-Q., Chen, Z.-F., He, Y.-T., Feng, H., Hou, J., Lin, D.-M., Li, X.-Q., Guo, C.-L., Li, S.-S., Wang, G.-Q., Dong, Z.-W., Abnet, C. C., & Qiao, Y.-L. (2015). Long-Term Follow-Up of a Community Assignment, One-Time Endoscopic Screening Study of Esophageal Cancer in China. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2014.58.0423

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.