↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of Outcome of Esophagectomy Versus Nonsurgical Treatment for Resectable Esophageal Cancer with Clinical Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Surgical Oncology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of Outcome of Esophagectomy Versus Nonsurgical Treatment for Resectable Esophageal Cancer with Clinical Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy
Published in
Annals of Surgical Oncology, March 2018
DOI 10.1245/s10434-018-6437-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yu Ohkura, Junichi Shindoh, Masaki Ueno, Toshiro Iizuka, Harushi Udagawa

Abstract

Treatment for patients who have achieved clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant therapy has not been established, and there is no consensus regarding the indications for either esophagectomy or nonsurgical treatment. Among 1,545 patients with esophageal cancer at Toranomon Hospital between January 2006 and August 2017, 39 who achieved cCR after neoadjuvant treatment were divided into two groups according to treatment: esophagectomy group (n = 18) and nonsurgical treatment group (n = 21) for comparison. No significant intergroup difference was observed in baseline characteristics. Pathological complete response was confirmed in 13 (72.2%) of the 18 patients who underwent esophagectomy, whereas residual tumor was detected at the location of primary tumor in 2 (11.1%) patients, and lymph node metastasis was found in 3 (16.7%) patients. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) was significantly longer in the esophagectomy group than in the nonsurgical group (p = 0.002). Disease-specific survival (DSS) was significantly longer in the esophagectomy group (p = 0.007). However, no significant intergroup difference was observed in overall survival estimated based on all deaths, including respiratory failure and aspiration pneumonia (p = 0.451). With improved diagnostic accuracy, nonsurgical treatment can be an option for patients estimated as cCR after treatment administered in a neoadjuvant setting. However, surgical resection is considered more appropriate because of residual tumor in some patients with cCR and because of superior DSS and RFS following esophagectomy compared with nonsurgical treatment. Future studies must focus on ameliorating late postoperative complications, such as respiratory failure and aspiration pneumonia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Student > Master 3 14%
Researcher 3 14%
Other 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 6 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Engineering 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 May 2018.
All research outputs
#3,657,341
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#1,069
of 6,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,226
of 331,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Surgical Oncology
#23
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,471 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,699 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.