Retrospective Cohort Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Methodol. Dec 20, 2025; 15(4): 106591
Published online Dec 20, 2025. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v15.i4.106591
Table 1 Baseline characteristics of study participants, n (%)/mean ± SD
Characteristic
Study population n = 10
Age, years68 ± 6.9
Sex
Male8 (80)
Female2 (20)
ASA
ASA score: 23 (30)
ASA score: 3 7 (70)
cT110 (0)
cT23 (30)
cT35 (50)
cT42 (20)
cN015 (50)
cN13 (30)
cN22 (20)
Surgical procedure: Hybrid esophagectomy8 (80)
Surgical procedure: Open esophagectomy2 (20)
Table 2 Histopathology and operation details, n (%)/mean ± SD
Characteristic
Study population n = 10
Tumor type: Adenocarcinoma8 (80)
Tumor type: Mixed neuroendocrine non-neuroendocrine neoplasm1 (10)
Tumor type: Mucoepidermoid carcinoma1 (10)
pT114 (40)
pT21 (10)
pT35 (50)
pN015 (50)
pN13 (30)
pN22 (20)
Tumor regression scoring according to Mandard, 23 (30)
Tumor regression scoring according to Mandard, 34 (40)
Tumor regression scoring according to Mandard, 41 (10)
Tumor regression scoring according to Mandard, 51 (10)
No neoadjuvant treatment1 (10)
Tumor size in millimeters32.7 ± 23.8
Palpable tumor, yes7 (70)
Palpable tumor, no3 (30)
Microscopic distance to proximal tumor resection line, mm37.3 ± 17.9
Macroscopic distance to proximal tumor resection line, mm45.3 ± 17.3
R0 resection10 (100)
R1 resection0 (0)
Barrett’s dysplasia in resected tissue2 (20)
No Barrett’s dysplasia in resected tissue8 (80)
Table 3 Implantation details, n (%)/mean ± SD
Characteristic
Study population n = 10
Distance from incisors to proximal tumor border, cm39.3 ± 5.8
Distance from surgeon’s proposed proximal resection line to BioXmark®, cm13.8 (± 1.1)
Number of implantations per patient4
Amount of BioXmark® per implantation, μL82 ± 17.5
BioXmark® visible on intraoperative ultrasound in vivo6 (60)
BioXmark® not visible or missing data on intraoperative ultrasound in vivo4 (40)
BioXmark® visible on intraoperative ultrasound ex vivo3 (30)
BioXmark® not visible or missing data on intraoperative ultrasound ex vivo7 (70)