Evidence Hub

Sex differences in survival following surgery for esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Liatsou E, Bellos I, Katsaros I, Michailidou S, Karela NR, Mantziari S, Rouvelas I, Schizas D

Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus, 2024

200 participants

Abstract

The impact of sex on the prognosis of patients with esophageal cancer remains unclear. Evidence supports that sex- based disparities in esophageal cancer survival could be attributed to sex- specific risk exposures, such as age at diagnosis, race, socioeconomic status, smoking, drinking, and histological type. The aim of our study is to investigate the role of sex disparities in survival of patients who underwent surgery for esophageal cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature in PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL from December 1966 to February 2023, was held. Studies that reported sex-related differences in survival outcomes of patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer were identified. A total of 314 studies were included in the quantitative analysis. Statistically significant results derived from 1-year and 2-year overall survival pooled analysis with Relative Risk (RR) 0.93 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.90-0.97, I2 = 52.00) and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.85-0.95, I2 = 0.00), respectively (RR 200 patients, histology types, study continent and publication year. Overall, sex tends to be an independent prognostic factor for esophageal carcinoma. However, unanimous results seem rather obscure when multivariable analysis and subgroup analysis occurred. More prospective studies and gender-specific protocols should be conducted to better understand the modifying role of sex in esophageal cancer prognosis.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 200 participants or records.

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