Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25331983›Full record

ArticleGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association2015

Estimation of subepithelial lateral extent in submucosal early gastric cancer: retrospective histological analysis.

Osamu Goto, Ai Fujimoto, Masayuki Shimoda, Yasutoshi Ochiai, Tatsuo Matsuda, Hiroya Takeuchi, Hirofumi Kawakubo, Tadateru Maehata, Toshio Uraoka, Kaori Kameyama and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Subepithelial spread of early gastric cancer is common and extends more than expected.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Osamu GotoDivision of Research and Development for Minimally Invasive Treatment, Cancer Center, School of Medicine, Keio University, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Ai FujimotoDivision of Research and Development for Minimally Invasive Treatment, Cancer Center, School of Medicine, Keio University, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Masayuki ShimodaDepartment of Pathology, School of Medicine, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan.
Yasutoshi OchiaiDivision of Research and Development for Minimally Invasive Treatment, Cancer Center, School of Medicine, Keio University, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Tatsuo MatsudaDepartment of Surgery, School of Medicine, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroya TakeuchiDepartment of Surgery, School of Medicine, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan.
Hirofumi KawakuboDepartment of Surgery, School of Medicine, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan.
Tadateru MaehataDivision of Research and Development for Minimally Invasive Treatment, Cancer Center, School of Medicine, Keio University, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Toshio UraokaDivision of Research and Development for Minimally Invasive Treatment, Cancer Center, School of Medicine, Keio University, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan.
Kaori KameyamaDivision of Diagnostic Pathology, School of Medicine, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan.
Yuko KitagawaDepartment of Surgery, School of Medicine, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan.
Naohisa YahagiDivision of Research and Development for Minimally Invasive Treatment, Cancer Center, School of Medicine, Keio University, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-8582, Japan. yahagi.keio@gmail.com.
Keio University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is expected to make possible minimally invasive local resection of early gastric cancer (EGC). However, no consensus exists regarding how far an optimal safety margin should be set in determining the resection area by endoscopy. We aimed to investigate the optimal lateral margin of EGC which could be a candidate for EFTR by measuring the subepithelial extent (SE) of tumors.

methodsIn 60 surgically resected submucosal EGCs 4 cm or smaller, 595 prepared slides which showed lateral tumor borders both on the epithelial surface and on the subepithelial layer were assessed. The distance between the epithelial and the subepithelial tumor edge was measured under microscopic observation, followed by analyses of the relationship between the measured SE and the histological characteristics.

resultsThe average and the median SE were 1.1 mm (standard deviation 1.8 mm) and 0.3 mm (range 0-12.3 mm), respectively. The 99th percentile was 8.8 mm. With regard to the histological type, the median SE was significantly greater in diffuse-type tumor than in intestinal-type tumor (0.9 mm vs 0 mm, p < 0.0001). With regard to the location of the subepithelilal tumor edge, the median SE was significantly greater in the submucosal layer than in the mucosal layer (2.6 mm vs 0.3 mm, p < 0.0001).

conclusionsIn most lesions, the SE was less than 1 cm. A safety margin may be set at 1 cm in EFTR of submucosal EGC.

Indexed as

AgedFemaleGastric MucosaGastroscopyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPathology, SurgicalRetrospective StudiesStomach NeoplasmsEarly gastric cancerEndoscopic full-thickness resectionSubepithelial extent

Identifiers

PMID25331983
OpenAlexW1983997406

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.