P1.066. Prognostic Equivalence of ypN and pN Staging in Esophageal Cancer After Neoadjuvant Therapy: A Multicenter Cohort Study of 2,545 Patients

Clicks: 2
ID: 325697
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #5 of 453 articles by views in diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the international society for diseases of the esophagus

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 453 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Topic Esophageal Cancer: Surgical Treatment of Esophageal Cancer Background Current staging systems apply ypN and pN categories interchangeably after neoadjuvant therapy plus esophagectomy; however, their prognostic equivalence has not been rigorously established. We investigated whether ypN0–3 confers equivalent disease-free survival (DFS) to pN0–3. Methods We analyzed 2,545 consecutive esophagectomy patients from three high-volume centers with complete DFS data. Patients were stratified by treatment type—neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery (ypN group, n = 1,060) vs. upfront surgery (pN group, n = 1,485)—and by N category (N0–N3). Analyses included Kaplan–Meier estimation, multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression with interaction testing (N_stage × treatment type), propensity score matching (PSM), and restricted mean survival time (RMST) equivalence testing at 60 months (pre-specified margin: ±6 months). Results The N_stage × treatment-type interaction was statistically significant (p < 0.01), indicating N-category–dependent equivalence. ypN1 vs. pN1: HR 1.06 (95% CI, 0.89–1.27; p = 0.49), ΔRMST = −1.1 months (equivalent). ypN3 vs. pN3: HR 1.29 (95% CI, 0.87–1.93; p = 0.20), ΔRMST = −2.3 months (equivalent). In contrast, ypN0 conferred significantly inferior DFS vs. pN0 (HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.06–1.42; p = 0.005), and ypN2 diverged most markedly from pN2 (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.19–2.05; p = 0.001; ΔRMST = −6.7 months, exceeding the equivalence margin). PSM-adjusted analyses confirmed all findings. Conclusion ypN and pN staging are not universally prognostically equivalent. ypN1 and ypN3 appear equivalent to their pN counterparts, whereas ypN0 and particularly ypN2 carry worse prognoses than corresponding pN stages. These findings challenge the unconditional interchangeability of ypN and pN in current staging systems and have direct implications for adjuvant treatment decision-making after neoadjuvant esophageal cancer therapy.
Reference Key
openalex_W7203902598 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Simiao Lu, Xuefeng Leng
Journal diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the international society for diseases of the esophagus
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/dote/doag077.214
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doag077.214
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.