ArticleJournal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract2011
Endoscopic management of early esophageal neoplasia: an emerging standard.
Article in Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiofrequency Ablation as an Alternative and Novel Procedure in the Intraepithelial Neoplasia Management: A Systematic Scoping Review.Health science reports · 2025Review
- Endoscopic Ultrasound Stagingof Esophageal Cancer.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2020Article
- Article
- Esophageal cancer: staging system and guidelines for staging and treatment.Journal of thoracic disease · 2014Review
- Treatment modalities for T1N0 esophageal cancers: a comparative analysis of local therapy versus surgical resection.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEndoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and ablation technologies have markedly changed the treatment of early esophageal neoplasia. We analyzed treatment and outcomes of patients undergoing multimodal endoscopic treatment of early esophageal neoplasia at our institution.
methodsRecords of patients undergoing endoscopic treatment for esophageal low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN, n = 11), high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIN, n = 24), or T1N0M0 neoplasia (n = 10), presenting between 2007 and 2009, were reviewed. Outcomes included eradication of neoplasia/intestinal metaplasia, development of metachronous neoplasia, and progression to surgical resection.
resultsThere were 45 patients, 96% male, with a mean age 67 years. The degree of neoplasia prior to intervention was intramucosal (8) or submucosal (2) carcinoma in 10, HGIN in 24, and LGIN in 11. Patients underwent a total of 166 procedures (median 3/patient, range 1-9). These included 120 radiofrequency ablation sessions, 38 EMRs, and 8 cryoablations. Mean follow-up was 21.3 months. Neoplasia and intestinal metaplasia were eradicated in 87.2% and 56.4% of patients, respectively, while 15.4% developed metachronous neoplasia. Three patients underwent esophagectomy. No patient developed unresectable disease or died.
conclusionEndoscopic treatment of early esophageal neoplasia is safe and effective in the short term. A minority of treated patients developed recurrent neoplasia, which is usually amenable to further endoscopic therapy. Complications are relatively minor and uncommon. Endoscopic therapy as the initial treatment for early esophageal neoplasia is an emerging standard of care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.