Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 4 complete abstracts (1,182 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
The area covering the terminal portion of esophagus and the beginning of stomach at the cardiac orifice.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Junction, Esophagogastric; Gastroesophageal Junction; Gastroesophageal Junctions; Junction, Gastroesophageal; Junctions, Gastroesophageal.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
Related concepts
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 11,489 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Esophagogastric Junction” (counts retrieved 2026-10-31). 2,599 of them (22.6%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is through 1999 with 3,796 records.
Reviews account for 1,595 records (13.9%) and meta-analyses for 194. Randomized controlled trials number 515 (4.5%) as a share of all records on the topic.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 3,796 |
| 2000-2009 | 1,907 |
| 2010-2019 | 3,187 |
| 2020 onward | 2,599 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 1,595 | 13.9% |
| Meta-analyses | 194 | 1.7% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 515 | 4.5% |
Method: PubMed query "Esophagogastric Junction"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-31.
Reading the evidence in anatomy and physiology
Anatomy describes how body structures are built and physiology describes how they normally work, so most findings here are descriptive or mechanistic rather than evidence about treatment. Much of what is known comes from dissection, imaging, tissue studies and experiments in animals, and measurements in healthy volunteers can differ from those in people with disease or at different ages. Normal ranges vary between individuals and populations. Check whether a result was measured in people or in another species, the age and health of the participants, and the method used.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
Global prevalence of claudin 18 isoform 2 in tumors of patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundLimited data exist for global prevalence of claudin 18 isoform 2 (CLDN18.
- Closing excerpt
- 2 should be considered in standard clinical practice in these patients.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (244 words)
BackgroundLimited data exist for global prevalence of claudin 18 isoform 2 (CLDN18.2) positivity and association of CLDN18.2 status with clinical and tumor characteristics in patients with locally advanced (LA) unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction (mG/GEJ) adenocarcinoma. We report prevalence of CLDN18.2 positivity (phase 3; SPOTLIGHT, NCT03504397; GLOW, NCT03653507) and concordance of CLDN18.2 status between a subset of pair-matched tumor samples (phase 2, ILUSTRO, NCT03505320; phase 1, NCT03528629) from clinical studies of zolbetuximab.MethodsTumor samples from patients with LA unresectable or mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma were tested for CLDN18.2 status by immunohistochemistry. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression was tested per central or local assessment.ResultsAcross SPOTLIGHT and GLOW, the prevalence of CLDN18.2 positivity (≥ 75% of tumor cells demonstrating moderate-to-strong membranous CLDN18 staining) was 38.4%. Prevalence was similar in gastric versus GEJ adenocarcinoma samples and regardless of collection method (biopsy versus resection) or collection site (primary versus metastatic). CLDN18.2 positivity was most prevalent in patients with diffuse-type tumors. In ILUSTRO and the phase 1 study, concordance of CLDN18.2 positivity was 61.1% between archival (i.e., any time before treatment) and baseline (i.e., ≤ 3 months before first treatment) samples, and concordance of any CLDN18 staining (≥ 1% of tumor cells demonstrating moderate-to-strong membranous CLDN18 staining) was 88.9%.ConclusionsCLDN18.2 was a highly prevalent biomarker in patients with HER2-negative, LA unresectable or mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma. CLDN18.2 positivity remained relatively stable over time in many patients. Biomarker testing for CLDN18.2 should be considered in standard clinical practice in these patients.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 38954176 · DOI · PMC11335819
Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma, a randomized controlled trial (ROBOT-2 trial) [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundFor patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma or cancer of the gastroesophageal junction, radical esophagectomy with 2-field lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of the multimodality treatment with curative intent.
- Closing excerpt
- 2021; Authors ET, PCvdS, PPG.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (310 words)
BackgroundFor patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma or cancer of the gastroesophageal junction, radical esophagectomy with 2-field lymphadenectomy is the cornerstone of the multimodality treatment with curative intent. Both conventional minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and robot assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) were shown to be superior compared to open transthoracic esophagectomy considering postoperative complications. However, no randomized comparison exists between MIE and RAMIE in the Western World for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma.MethodsThis is an investigator-initiated and investigator-driven multicenter randomized controlled parallel-group superiority trial. All adult patients (age ≥ 18 and ≤ 90 years) with histologically proven, surgically resectable (cT1-4a, N0-3, M0) esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction and with European Clinical Oncology Group performance status 0, 1 or 2 will be assessed for eligibility and included after obtaining informed consent. Patients (n = 218) with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma of the intrathoracic esophagus or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction are randomized to either RAMIE (n = 109) or MIE (n = 109). The primary outcome of this study is the total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes specified per lymph node station.ConclusionThis is the first randomized controlled trial designed to compare RAMIE to MIE as surgical treatment for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction in the Western World. The hypothesis of the proposed study is that RAMIE will result in a higher abdominal and mediastinal lymph node yield specified per station compared to conventional MIE. Short-term results and the primary endpoint (total number of resected abdominal and mediastinal lymph nodes per lymph node station) will be analyzed and published after discharge of the last randomized patient within this trial.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04306458 . Registered 13th March 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04306458; Date of first enrolment 18.01.2021; Target sample size 218; Recruitment status: Recruiting; Protocol version 2; Issue date 10.03.2020; Rev. 02.02.2021; Authors ET, PCvdS, PPG.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 34565343 · DOI · PMC8474742
Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation and Postoperative Dysphagia: Characterization, Clinical Risk Factors, and Management [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- IntroductionMagnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) results in less severe side effects compared with Nissen fundoplication, but dysphagia remains the most common side effect reported by patients after MSA.
- Closing excerpt
- Patients with normal hiatal anatomy, significant preoperative dysphagia, and less than 80% peristaltic contractions of the smooth muscle portion of the esophagus should be counseled that they have an increased risk for persistent postoperative dysphagia.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (369 words)
IntroductionMagnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) results in less severe side effects compared with Nissen fundoplication, but dysphagia remains the most common side effect reported by patients after MSA. This study aimed to characterize and review the management of postoperative dysphagia and identify the preoperative factors that predict persistent dysphagia after MSA.Material and methodsThis is a retrospective review of prospectively collected data of patients who underwent MSA between 2013 and 2018. Preoperative objective evaluation included upper endoscopy, esophagram, high-resolution impedance manometry (HRIM), and esophageal pH testing. Postoperative persistent dysphagia was defined as a postoperative score of > 3 for the dysphagia-specific item within the GERD-HRQL at a minimum of 3 months following MSA. A timeline of dysphagia and dilation rates was constructed and correlated with the evolution of our patient management practices and modifications in surgical technique.ResultsA total of 380 patients underwent MSA, at a mean (SD) follow up of 11.5 (8.7) months, 59 (15.5%) patients were experiencing persistent dysphagia. Thirty-one percent of patients required at least one dilation for dysphagia or chest pain and the overall response rate to this procedure was 67%, 7 (1.8%) patients required device removal specifically for dysphagia. Independent predictors of persistent dysphagia based on logistic regression model included (1) absence of a large hernia (OR 2.86 (95% CI 1.08-7.57, p = 0.035)); (2) the presence of preoperative dysphagia (OR 2.19 (95% CI 1.05-4.58, p = 0.037)); and (3) having less than 80% peristaltic contractions on HRIM (OR 2.50 (95% CI 1.09-5.73, p = 0.031)). Graded cutoffs of distal contractile integral (DCI), mean wave amplitude, DeMeester score, sex, and body mass index were evaluated within the model and did not predict postoperative dysphagia. Frequent eating after surgery, avoidance of early dilation, and increase in the size of the LINX device selected decreased the need for dilation.ConclusionIn a large cohort of patients who underwent MSA, we report 15.5% rate of persistent postoperative dysphagia. The overall response rate to dilation therapy is 67%, and the efficacy of dilation with each subsequent procedure reduces. Patients with normal hiatal anatomy, significant preoperative dysphagia, and less than 80% peristaltic contractions of the smooth muscle portion of the esophagus should be counseled that they have an increased risk for persistent postoperative dysphagia.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 31388888 · DOI · PMC6987054
First-line zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 and nivolumab in unresectable CLDN18.2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: a phase 2 trial [4]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- There is an unmet need for effective and safe treatments for patients with metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction (mG/GEJ) adenocarcinoma.
- Closing excerpt
- gov: NCT03505320 .
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (259 words)
There is an unmet need for effective and safe treatments for patients with metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction (mG/GEJ) adenocarcinoma. Targeting claudin 18 isoform 2 (CLDN18.2) and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), represents a promising strategy. Zolbetuximab, a CLDN18.2-targeting antibody, plus chemotherapy improved survival outcomes in patients with CLDN18.2-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Cohort 4 of the global, open-label, phase 2 ILUSTRO study examined first-line zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 and nivolumab (a PD-L1 inhibitor). Here we report results from cohorts 4A (safety lead-in phase) and 4B (expansion phase). The primary endpoint of ILUSTRO was specific to cohort 1 and was previously published; the main efficacy endpoint of interest for cohort 4 was progression-free survival (PFS), as assessed by the investigators per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. At data cutoff (2 September 2025) for this final analysis, 77 patients were enrolled in 4A + 4B (85.5% with CLDN18.2-high tumors). Cohort 4B median follow-up was 11.5 months, and median PFS (95% confidence interval (CI)) was 14.8 months (8.3-not estimable) overall (n = 71) and 18.0 months (11.1-not estimable) in patients with CLDN18.2-high tumors (n = 59). Objective response rate (measurable disease; 95% CI) was 62.1% (48.4-74.5) in 4B overall (n = 58) and 68.1% (52.9-80.9) in CLDN18.2-high (n = 47). In 4A + 4B, the most common treatment-emergent adverse events were nausea (80.5%) and decreased appetite (72.7%). Efficacy and safety data support randomized evaluation of zolbetuximab plus chemoimmunotherapy in patients with CLDN18.2-positive and PD-L1-positive mG/GEJ adenocarcinoma in the ongoing phase 3 LUCERNA study. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03505320 .
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41840238 · DOI · PMC13278966
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Current treatment and recent progress in gastric cancer [5]
- Research article HER2 Testing and Clinical Decision Making in Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: Guideline From the College of American Pathologists, American Society for Clinical Pathology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology [6]
- Research article Esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancers, version 1.2015 [7]
- Research article ACG Clinical Guidelines: Diagnosis and Management of Achalasia [8]
- Research article Achalasia: a systematic review [9]
- Research article Pathophysiology of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease [10]
References
- Shitara K, Xu RH, Ajani JA, Moran D, Guerrero A, Li R, et al.. Global prevalence of claudin 18 isoform 2 in tumors of patients with locally advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. . 2024. PMID 38954176 · DOI · PMC11335819
- Tagkalos E, van der Sluis PC, Berlth F, Poplawski A, Hadzijusufovic E, Lang H, et al.. Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma, a randomized controlled trial (ROBOT-2 trial). . 2021. PMID 34565343 · DOI · PMC8474742
- Ayazi S, Zheng P, Zaidi AH, Chovanec K, Chowdhury N, Salvitti M, et al.. Magnetic Sphincter Augmentation and Postoperative Dysphagia: Characterization, Clinical Risk Factors, and Management. . 2020. PMID 31388888 · DOI · PMC6987054
- Shitara K, Shoji H, Fazio N, Lonardi S, Lee KW, Bai LY, et al.. First-line zolbetuximab plus mFOLFOX6 and nivolumab in unresectable CLDN18.2-positive gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: a phase 2 trial. . 2026. PMID 41840238 · DOI · PMC13278966
- Joshi SS, Badgwell BD. Current treatment and recent progress in gastric cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021. PMID 33592120 · DOI · PMC9927927
- Bartley AN, Washington MK, Colasacco C, Ventura CB, Ismaila N, Benson AB, et al.. HER2 Testing and Clinical Decision Making in Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: Guideline From the College of American Pathologists, American Society for Clinical Pathology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2017. PMID 28129524 · DOI
- Ajani JA, D'Amico TA, Almhanna K, Bentrem DJ, Besh S, Chao J, et al.. Esophageal and esophagogastric junction cancers, version 1.2015. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2015. PMID 25691612 · DOI
- Vaezi MF, Pandolfino JE, Yadlapati RH, Greer KB, Kavitt RT. ACG Clinical Guidelines: Diagnosis and Management of Achalasia. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020. PMID 32773454 · DOI · PMC9896940
- Pandolfino JE, Gawron AJ. Achalasia: a systematic review. JAMA. 2015. PMID 25965233 · DOI
- Tack J, Pandolfino JE. Pathophysiology of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Gastroenterology. 2018. PMID 29037470 · DOI
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-10-31.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.