Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26782817›Full record

Observational studyThe American journal of gastroenterology2016

Long-Term Outcome of Endoscopic Resection vs. Surgery for Early Gastric Cancer: A Non-inferiority-Matched Cohort Study.

Jeung Hui Pyo, Hyuk Lee, Byung-Hoon Min, Jun Haeng Lee, Min Gew Choi, Jun Ho Lee, Tae Sung Sohn, Jae Moon Bae, Kyung-Mee Kim, Joong Hyun Ahn and 3 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 118 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
118citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

118 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. [Clinical Practice Guideline for Endoscopic Resection of Early Gastrointestinal Cancer].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2020
    Guideline
  6. Guideline
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

58 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Jeung Hui PyoDepartment of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Hyuk LeeDepartment of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Byung-Hoon MinDepartment of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jun Haeng LeeDepartment of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Min Gew ChoiDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jun Ho LeeDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Tae Sung SohnDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jae Moon BaeDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Kyung-Mee KimDepartment of Pathology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID Kim, Kyoung Mee [corrected to Kim, Kyoung-Mee]
Joong Hyun AhnBiostatistics and Clinical Epidemiology Center, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Keumhee C CarriereDepartment of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Jae J KimDepartment of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Sung KimDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesFew studies have compared the long-term outcomes of endoscopic resection and surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of endoscopic resection with those of surgery for early gastric cancer (EGC).

methodsWe reviewed prospectively collected data of patients who had undergone endoscopic resection (1,290 patients) or surgery (1,273 patients) for EGC. To reduce the effect of selection bias, we performed a propensity score-matching analysis between the two groups. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). The secondary outcomes were disease-specific survival, disease-free survival (DFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), occurrence of metachronous gastric cancer, treatment-related complications, length of hospital stay, and 30-day outcomes. The study was designed as a non-inferiority study and tested in an intention-to-treat analysis.

resultsIn a propensity-matched analysis of 611 pairs, the 10-year OS proportion was 96.7% in the endoscopic resection group and 94.9% in the surgery group (P=0.120) (risk difference -1.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.04-0.44, Pnon-inferiority=0.014), which met the non-inferiority criterion. In contrast, the 10-year RFS proportion was 93.5% in the endoscopic resection group and 98.2% in the surgery group (P<0.001) (risk difference 4.7%, 95% CI 2.50-6.97, Pnon-inferiority=0.820), which did not meet the non-inferiority criterion, mainly because of metachronous recurrence in the endoscopic resection group. The rate of early complications was higher in the endoscopic resection group than in the surgery group (9.0 vs. 6.6%, P=0.024), whereas the rate of late complications was higher in the surgery group than in the endoscopic resection group (0.5 vs. 2.9%, P<0.001). In the multiple Cox regression analysis, patient's age, the comorbidity index, the performance index, sex, tumor morphology, and depth of invasion were predictors of OS in patients with EGC.

conclusionsEndoscopic resection might not be inferior to surgery with respect to OS in patients with EGC lesions that meet the absolute or expanded criteria. However, DFS, RFS, and metachronous RFS might be lower after endoscopic resection than after surgery.

Indexed as

AgedCohort StudiesDisease-Free SurvivalEndoscopy, Digestive SystemFemaleGastrectomyGastric MucosaGastroscopyHumansLength of StayLymph Node ExcisionLymph NodesMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingPostoperative Complications

Identifiers

PMID26782817

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.