ArticleSurgical endoscopy2016
Diagnostic group classifications of gastric neoplasms by endoscopic resection criteria before and after treatment: real-world experience.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and validation of a predictive model for the pathological upgrading of gastric low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Risk factors of missed early gastric cancer in endoscopic resected population: a retrospective, case-control study.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Applicability of endoscopic submucosal dissection for patients with early gastric cancer beyond the expanded indication for endoscopic submucosal dissection.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Clinical Outcomes of Endoscopic Resection for Low-Grade Dysplasia and High-Grade Dysplasia on Gastric Pretreatment Biopsy: Korea ESD Study Group.Gut and liver · 2021Article
- Prediction of Submucosal Invasion for Gastric Neoplasms in Endoscopic Images Using Deep-Learning.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Pitfalls in the Interpretation of Publications about Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Early Gastric Cancer with Undifferentiated-Type Histology.Clinical endoscopy · 2019Article
- Clinical Implication and Risk Factors for Malignancy of Atypical Gastric Gland during Forceps Biopsy.Gut and liver · 2018Article
- Endoscopic Resection of Gastric Cancer Caused by Adenoma.Gut and liver · 2018Article
- Atrophic and Metaplastic Progression in the Background Mucosa of Patients with Gastric Adenoma.PloS one · 2017Article
- How to Interpret the Pathological Report before and after Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Early Gastric Cancer.Clinical endoscopy · 2016Review
- Analysis of Surgical Pathology Data in the HIRA Database: Emphasis on Current Status and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Specimens.Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
aimsThere are often discrepancies between the pretreatment evaluation of gastric neoplasms by endoscopy with biopsy and the final diagnosis of resected specimen in terms of pathology and depth of invasion. We evaluated the spectrum of discrepancies between pretreatment and posttreatment diagnosis which may deliver significant differences on clinical practice. PATIENTS AND
methodsA total of 2041 patients with gastric dysplasia or cancer who underwent curative endoscopic resections or surgeries in 2012 were enrolled. Patients were classified into five different diagnostic groups: low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD), absolute indication early gastric cancer (AI-EGC), beyond absolute indication early gastric cancer (BAI-EGC), and advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The choice of initial treatment and final pathologic diagnosis was analyzed.
resultsThe study patients belonged to the following pretreatment diagnostic groups: LGDs in 162, HGDs in 164, AI-EGCs in 396, BAI-EGCs in 824, and AGCs in 495 cases. Posttreatment diagnostic groups were LGDs in 140, HGDs in 121, AI-EGCs in 322, BAI-EGCs in 947, AGCs in 505, and no residual tumor in 6 cases. In general, 6.9 % (141/2041) of cases were downgraded and 15.9 % (324/2041) were upgraded. Thirty-four percent of pretreatment HGDs (56/164) were changed to cancers after endoscopic resection. Thirty-three percent of pretreatment AI-EGCs (131/396) were regrouped as posttreatment BAI-EGCs. The additional surgery rate in each pretreatment group was 0.6 % in LGD, 4.3 % in HGD, 15.7 % in AI-EGC, 23.6 % in BAI-EGC among the patients with initial endoscopic resection (p < 0.01).
conclusionsTwenty-three percent of gastric neoplasms changed in their final diagnostic group after endoscopic resection or surgery. This discrepancy should be considered when the initial treatment strategy is being selected.
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.