ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2014
Conventional endoscopic features are not sufficient to differentiate small, early colorectal cancer.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Narrow Band Imaging, Magnifying Chromoendoscopy, and Gross Morphological Features for the Optical Diagnosis of T1 Colorectal Cancer and Deep Submucosal Invasion: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2017Pooled it
- Characteristics of small early colorectal cancer in the non-pedunculated lesions and its relationship with the depth of invasion.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Beveled Fiber Probe for Improving Spectroscopic Signal Sensing from Bowel Mucosa Tissue.Chemical & biomedical imaging · 2026Article
- Endoscopic prediction model for detecting advanced rectal polyps after ileorectal anastomosis in familial adenomatous polyposis: a dual-center retrospective study.Familial cancer · 2026Article
- Approaches and considerations in the endoscopic treatment of T1 colorectal cancer.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2024Review
- Surgeon assessment of significant rectal polyps using white light endoscopy alone and in comparison to fluorescence-augmented AI lesion classification.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2024Article
- Chicken skin mucosa surrounding small colorectal cancer could be an endoscopic predictive marker of submucosal invasion.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2023Article
- A Review of Colonoscopy in Intestinal Diseases.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Minimally invasive treatments for early colorectal cancer: comparison of endoscopic resection and laparoscopic surgery.Korean journal of clinical oncology · 2022Article
- Signet ring cell carcinoma hidden beneath large pedunculated colorectal polyp: A case report.World journal of clinical cases · 2021Article
- Is barium enema examination negligible for the management of colorectal cancer? Comparison with conventional colonoscopy and magnifying colonoscopy.Japanese journal of radiology · 2021Article
- Estimation of Invasion Depth: The First Key to Successful Colorectal ESD.Clinical endoscopy · 2019Article
- Current strategies for malignant pedunculated colorectal polyps.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2018Review
- Probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy for evaluating the submucosal invasion of colorectal neoplasms.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Article
- Article
- Endoscopic features of submucosal deeply invasive colorectal cancer with NBI characteristics : S Saito et al. Endoscopic images of early colorectal cancer.Clinical journal of gastroenterology · 2015Review
- Colorectal polyp classification and management of complex polyps for surgeon endoscopists.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgieReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the depth of invasion of small, early colorectal cancers (ECCs) using conventional endoscopic features.
methodsFrom January 2005 to September 2011, colonoscopy cohort showed that a total of 72 patients with small colorectal cancers with the size less than 20 mm underwent colonoscopy at the Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea. Among them, 8 patients were excluded due to incomplete medical records. Finally, a total of 64 ECCs with submucosa (SM) invasion and size less than 20 mm were included. One hundred fifty-two adenomas with size less than 20 mm were included as controls. Nine endoscopic features, including seven morphological findings (i.e., loss of lobulation, excavation, demarcated and depressed areas, stalk swelling, fullness, fold convergence, and bleeding ulcers), pit patterns, and non-lifting signs, were evaluated retrospectively. All endoscopic features were evaluated by two experienced endoscopists who have each performed over 1000 colonoscopies annually for more than five years without knowledge of the histology.
resultsAmong the morphological findings, the size of deep submucosal cancers was bigger than that of superficial lesions (16.9 mm vs 12.3 mm, P < 0.001). Also, demarcated depressed areas, stalk swelling, and fullness were more common in deep SM cancers than in superficial tumors (demarcated depressed areas: 52.0% vs 15.7%, P < 0.001; stalk swelling: 100% vs 4.2%, P < 0.001; fullness: 25.0% vs 0%, P = 0.001). Among deep SM cancers, 96% of polyps showed invasive pit patterns, whereas 19.4% of superficial tumors showed invasive pit patterns (P < 0.001). A positive non-lifting sign was more common in deep SM cancers (85.0% vs 28.6%, P < 0.001). Diagnostic accuracy of invasive morphology, invasive pit patterns, and non-lifting signs for deep SM cancers were 71%, 82%, and 75%, respectively.
conclusionConventional endoscopic findings were insufficient to discriminate small, deep SM cancers from superficial SM cancers by white light, standard colonoscopy.
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.