ArticleJournal of gastric cancer2016
Discrepancy between Clinical and Final Pathological Evaluation Findings in Early Gastric Cancer Patients Treated with Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.
Article in Journal of gastric cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Discrepancies between preoperative assessment and final pathological criteria in early gastric cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- Prediction model for curative endoscopic submucosal dissection of undifferentiated-type early gastric cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Prediction of Submucosal Invasion for Gastric Neoplasms in Endoscopic Images Using Deep-Learning.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Korean Practice Guideline for Gastric Cancer 2018: an Evidence-based, Multi-disciplinary Approach.Journal of gastric cancer · 2019Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEarly gastric cancer cases that are estimated to meet indications for treatment before endoscopic submucosal resection are often revealed to be out-of-indication after the treatment. We investigated the short-term treatment outcomes in patients with early gastric cancer according to the pretreatment clinical endoscopic submucosal resection indications. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with early gastric cancer that met the pretreatment endoscopic submucosal resection indications, from 2004 to 2011. Curative resection rate and proportion of out-of-indication cases were compared according to the pre-endoscopic submucosal resection indications. Pre-endoscopic submucosal resection factors associated with out-of-indication in the final pathological examination were analyzed.
resultsOf 756 cases, 660 had absolute and 96 had expanded pre-endoscopic submucosal resection indications. The curative resection rate was significantly lower in the patients with expanded indications (64.6%) than in those with absolute indications (81.7%; P<0.001). The cases with expanded indications (30.2%) were revealed to be out-of-indication more frequently than the cases with absolute indications (13.8%; P<0.001). Age of >65 years, tumor size of >2 cm, tumor location in the upper-third segment of the stomach, and undifferentiated histological type in pre-endoscopic submucosal resection evaluations were significant risk factors for out-of-indication after endoscopic submucosal resection.
conclusionsNon-curative resection due to out-of-indication occurred in approximately one-third of the early gastric cancer cases that clinically met the expanded indications before endoscopic submucosal resection. The possibility of additional surgery should be emphasized for patients with early gastric cancers that clinically meet the expanded indications.
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.