JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, N.I.H., EXTRAMURAL
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Utilization of surgical treatment for local and locoregional esophageal cancer: Analysis of the National Cancer Data Base.

Cancer 2017 Februrary 2
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that esophagectomy is severely underused for patients with resectable esophageal cancer. The recent expansion of endoscopic local therapies, advances in surgical techniques, and improved postoperative outcomes have changed the therapeutic landscape. The impact of these developments and evolving treatment guidelines on national practice patterns is unknown.

METHODS: Patients diagnosed with clinical stage 0 to III esophageal cancer were identified from the National Cancer Database (2004-2013). The receipt of potentially curative surgical treatment over time was analyzed, and multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with surgical treatment.

RESULTS: The analysis included 52,122 patients. From 2004 to 2013, the overall rate of potentially curative surgical treatment increased from 36.4% to 47.4% (P < .001). For stage 0 disease, the receipt of esophagectomy decreased from 23.8% to 17.9% (P < .001), whereas the use of local therapies increased from 34.3% to 58.8% (P < .001). The use of surgical treatment increased from 43.4% to 61.8% (P < .001), from 36.1% to 45.0% (P < .001), and from 30.8% to 38.6% (P < .001) for patients with stage I, II, and III disease, respectively. In the multivariate analysis, divergent practice patterns and adherence to national guidelines were noted between academic and community facilities.

CONCLUSIONS: The use of potentially curative surgical treatment has increased for patients with stage 0 to III esophageal cancer. The expansion of local therapies has driven increased rates of surgical treatment for early-stage disease. Although the increased use of esophagectomy for more advanced disease is encouraging, significant variation persists at the patient and facility levels. Cancer 2017;123:410-419. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app