Malignant Esophageal Neoplasm by Anatomic Region

Malignant Esophageal Neoplasm by Anatomic Region — Rankings · CancerIndex

Rankings

Why this rank?

3 current ranking rows (latest year per scope). Each row lists the scope, the formula version, the value and the exact inputs that produced it.

Metric	Scope	Rank / eligible	Δ	Value	Percentile	Confidence	Formula	Generated	Inputs
Active clinical trials	World · both sexes · all ages · latest · all malignant entities	#975 / 1,654	=	2 count	41.1	Medium confidence	ci-active-trials-v1	Sep 29, 2026	show formula: COUNT(DISTINCT trial) FROM trial_conditions JOIN clinical_trials WHERE cancer_id IN descendants(cancer) AND study_type = INTERVENTIONAL AND overall_status IN (RECRUITING, NOT_YET_RECRUITING, ENROLLING_BY_INVITATION, ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING) counter activeTrialCount computedAt 2026-09-29T06:00:20.557Z inputs hash f2f5ed2084d93bba6dcb810e Trace lineage (admin)
Active Phase III trials	World · both sexes · all ages · latest · all malignant entities	#536 / 810	=	1 count	33.9	Medium confidence	ci-phase3-trials-v1	Sep 29, 2026	show formula: COUNT(DISTINCT trial) … active statuses AND PHASE3 = ANY(phases) counter phase3TrialCount computedAt 2026-09-29T06:00:20.557Z inputs hash 56fba75197c8c0044b9e345f Trace lineage (admin)
Recruiting clinical trials	World · both sexes · all ages · latest · all malignant entities	#887 / 1,277	=	1 count	30.6	Medium confidence	ci-recruiting-trials-v1	Sep 29, 2026	show formula: COUNT(DISTINCT trial) … overall_status = RECRUITING AND study_type = INTERVENTIONAL counter recruitingTrialCount computedAt 2026-09-29T06:00:20.557Z inputs hash 4352f89d0670b61272a585b3 Trace lineage (admin)

Computed Ranks are competition ranks (ties share a rank). Percentile = share of eligible entities ranked at or below this one in the ranking direction.

"Deadliest" is ambiguous: annual deaths, age-standardized mortality rate, mortality-to-incidence ratio and 5-year survival rank cancers differently. CancerIndex publishes each as a separate metric.

Why this rank?

Research gap