ArticlePloS one2014
Comparison of endoscopic submucosal implantation vs. surgical intramuscular implantation of VX2 fragments for establishing a rabbit esophageal tumor model for mimicking human esophageal squamous carcinoma.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- A Review of Self-Expanding Esophageal Stents for the Palliation Therapy of Inoperable Esophageal Malignancies.BioMed research international · 2019Review
- Spatiotemporal Optoacoustic Mapping of Tumor Hemodynamics in a Clinically Relevant Orthotopic Rabbit Model of Head and Neck Cancer.Translational oncology · 2017Article
- Real-time computed tomography fluoroscopy-guided solitary lung tumor model in a rabbit.PloS one · 2017Article
- The effect of paclitaxel-eluting covered metal stents versus covered metal stents in a rabbit esophageal squamous carcinoma model.PloS one · 2017Article
- Effect of a paclitaxel-eluting metallic stent on rabbit esophagus.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2016Article
- Laboratory animal models for esophageal cancer.Veterinary world · 2016Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study was undertaken to establish a rabbit esophageal tumor model for mimicking human esophageal squamous carcinoma (ESC) by endoscopic and surgical implantation of VX2 tumors.
methodsFragments of a VX2 tumour were endoscopically implanted in the submucosal layer of the thoracic esophagus of 32 New Zealand white rabbits, while 34 animals received surgical implantation into the muscular layer. Then, the animals were studied endoscopically and pathologically. The safety and efficiency of the two methods and the pathological features of the animal models were analyzed.
resultsBoth the endoscopic and the surgical method had a relatively high success rate of tumor implantation [93.7% (30/32) vs. 97.1% (33/34)] and tumor growth [86.7% (26/30) vs. 81.8% (27/33)], and the variation in the results was not statistically significant (P>0.05). Compared with those produced by the surgical method, the models produced by the endoscopic method had a higher rate of severe esophageal stricture [61.5% (16/26) vs. 29.6% (8/27)] and of intra-luminal tumor growth [73.1% (19/26) vs. 37.0% (10/27)], and had a lower rate of tumor invasion of adjacent organs [53.8% (14/26) vs. 81.5% (22/27)]; all of these results were statistically significant (P<0.05). However, the difference in the survival time and the rates of tumor regional/distant metastasis [38.5% (10/26) vs. 51.8% (14/27)] between the two methods were not statistically significant (P>0.05).
conclusionThe endoscopic and surgical methods are both safe and effective for establishment of VX2 tumors in the rabbit esophagus. The models produced by the two methods have different pathologic features mimicking that of human ESC. We recommend the models for studies on surgical procedures and minimally invasive treatments.
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.