OA06-LBA01.1. Radical 3-Field Versus Standard 2-Field Lymphadenectomy for Operable Esophageal Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Clicks: 18
ID: 326014
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
Steady

Ranked #298 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 – long term outcomes Background The therapeutic value of extended lymphadenectomy in esophageal cancer remains unresolved. While 2-field lymph node dissection (2FLND) is standard, prophylactic 3-field lymphadenectomy (3FLND) is practiced selectively despite limited high-level evidence. We conducted a large randomized trial to determine whether radical 3FLND confers a survival advantage over standard 2FLND. Methods In this randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00193817), patients aged 18–75 years with operable esophageal cancer and no clinicoradiological supracarinal nodal disease were randomized intraoperatively to 2FLND or 3FLND with allocation concealment. Stratification factors included histology, tumor stage, location, and neoadjuvant therapy. The 2FLND arm included infracarinal mediastinal and D2 abdominal dissection; the 3FLND arm additionally included bilateral supracarinal mediastinal and lower cervical lymphadenectomy. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and major postoperative complications. Patients were followed up for clinical, radiological or cyto/pathological evidence of recurrence. Analyses were by intention-to-treat; we used Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test to compare OS and DFS, and chi-square test for postoperative complications. Results A total of 700 patients were randomized (2FLND: n=359; 3FLND: n=341) with well-balanced baseline characteristics (Table). 3FLND yielded significantly higher nodal counts (median 38 vs 23) and required longer median operative time (6 vs 5.15 hours) and hospital stay (14.5 vs 12 days). Median intraoperative blood loss (500 ml vs 500 ml) and ICU stay (1 vs 1 day) were similar in the two arms. At a median follow-up of 124 months, 3FLND did not improve survival outcomes. Five-year OS was 57% for 3FLND versus 53% for 2FLND (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.79–1.20; p=0.78), with median OS of 113 vs 90 months, respectively. Five-year DFS was similarly comparable (54% vs 50%; HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.76–1.15; p=0.51) with median DFS of 109 vs 60 months, respectively. Major postoperative complications were similar with 3FLND and 2FLND (19.4% vs 14.8%, OR 1.38; 95% CI 0.93–2.0; p=0.13). Conclusion In the largest randomized trial addressing this question, prophylactic radical 3-field lymphadenectomy did not improve overall or disease-free survival compared with standard 2-field dissection, despite substantially higher nodal yield. These findings do not support routine use of 3FLND in operable esophageal cancer and reinforce 2FLND as the standard of care.
Reference Key
openalex_W7203991866 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors C S Pramesh, Sabita Jiwnani, Priya Ranganathan, George Karimundackal, D. Niyogi, Virendra Tiwari, Karthik Venkataramani, Madhavi Shetmahajan, Swapnil Parab, Apurva Ashok, Pallavi Purwar, Parveen Yadav, Srinivas Gopinath, Rajesh Mistry
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the international society for diseases of the esophagus
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/dote/doag077.042
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doag077.042
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.