Evidence Hub

Abstract 2314: The epidemiology and impact of aspiration pneumonia in patients admitted with esophageal cancer: a nationwide data analysis

Abdu Mohammed, A. Gebremedhen, Yifang Song, Mamdouh Souleymane, Ibrahim Shanti, Malik Samardali, Toni O. Pacioles

Cancer Research, 2025

Abstract

Esophageal cancer (EC) is frequently associated with dysphagia, arising from tumor invasion or treatment-related adverse effects, such as surgical resection or chemoradiation. Dysphagia substantially increases the risk of aspiration pneumonia (AP), a frequent complication in this population. Despite the established link between AP and head and neck cancers, its epidemiology and clinical impact in patients with EC remain underexplored. This study aims to delineate the burden of AP in EC hospitalizations and its effect on inpatient outcomes, addressing a critical gap in oncological and infectious disease literature.

Hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of EC were extracted from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2019 to 2021, using ICD-10 codes. The cohort was split by the presence or absence of AP. Sociodemographic variables, comorbidities and the presence of concurrent COVID-19 infection were assessed. The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality, with secondary outcomes including rates of complications, resource utilization, length of stay (LOS), and hospitalization costs. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.

Among 42,059 EC hospitalizations, 3,550 (8.4%) were complicated by AP. The AP cohort was older (mean age 67.9 vs. 66.6 years; p < 0.05), predominantly from the southern United States (36.6%; p < 0.05), and exhibited a higher prevalence of severe comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free