↓ Skip to main content

Comparative effectiveness of upfront esophagectomy versus induction chemoradiation in clinical stage T2N0 esophageal cancer: A decision analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, January 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 (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 X users

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparative effectiveness of upfront esophagectomy versus induction chemoradiation in clinical stage T2N0 esophageal cancer: A decision analysis
Published in
Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, January 2018
DOI 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.01.006
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tara R. Semenkovich, Roheena Z. Panni, Jessica L. Hudson, Theodore Thomas, Leisha C. Elmore, Su-Hsin Chang, Bryan F. Meyers, Benjamin D. Kozower, Varun Puri

Abstract

We compared the effectiveness of upfront esophagectomy versus induction chemoradiation followed by esophagectomy for overall survival in patients with clinical T2N0 (cT2N0) esophageal cancer. We also assessed the influence of the diagnostic uncertainty of endoscopic ultrasound on the expected benefit of chemoradiation. We created a decision analysis model representing 2 treatment strategies for cT2N0 esophageal cancer: upfront esophagectomy that may be followed by adjuvant therapy for upstaged patients and induction chemoradiation for all patients with cT2N0 esophageal cancer followed by esophagectomy. Parameter values within the model were obtained from published data, and median survival for pathologic subgroups was derived from the National Cancer Database. In sensitivity analyses, staging uncertainty of endoscopic ultrasound was introduced by varying the probability of pathologic upstaging. The baseline model showed comparable median survival for both strategies: 48.3 months for upfront esophagectomy versus 45.9 months for induction chemoradiation and surgery. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated induction chemoradiation was beneficial, with probability of upstaging > 48.1%, which is within the published range of 32% to 65% probability of pathologic upstaging after cT2N0 diagnosis. The presence of any of 3 key variables (size larger than 3 cm, high grade, or lymphovascular invasion) was associated with > 48.1% risk of upstaging, thus conferring a survival advantage to induction chemoradiation. The optimal treatment strategy for cT2N0 esophageal cancer depends on the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound staging. High-risk features that confer increased probability of upstaging can inform clinical decision making to recommend induction chemoradiation for select cT2N0 patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 25%
Student > Master 5 21%
Other 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 13%
Researcher 3 13%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 1 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Decision Sciences 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 5 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 26 September 2019.
All research outputs
#4,708,457
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
#952
of 7,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,431
of 450,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
#35
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,011 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 450,934 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.