ReviewClinical endoscopy2016
How to Interpret the Pathological Report before and after Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Early Gastric Cancer.
Review in Clinical endoscopy, 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.
- Artificial Intelligence Assisted Topographic Mapping System for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Specimens.Frontiers in medicine · 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
- Comparative analysis of differences between preoperative endoscopic biopsy and postoperative pathological examination for diagnosis of gastric intraepithelial neoplasia.The Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
- Optimal processing of ESD specimens to avoid pathological artifacts.Techniques in coloproctology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Possible lymph node metastasis (LNM) and residual cancer are major concerns in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer. To reduce the risk of LNM and cancer recurrence, the proper indications for ESD should be considered. Histology, size, depth of invasion, and presence of ulceration should be thoroughly evaluated before proceeding with ESD. However, with incomplete information, discrepancies often arise between the pathological diagnosis based on the forceps biopsy and that based on the totally resected specimen. In addition, the presence of lymphovascular involvement and histological homogeneity can be clarified only after ESD. If the pathological diagnosis changes after ESD, we should reevaluate the curativeness and reformulate the goal of treatment. Additional surgery is a reasonable strategy for non-curative ESD, but a patient's other health conditions should also be considered. It is simple to read pathological reports before and after ESD, but it can be a complicated art to interpret the report and formulate an optimal approach. In this review, various considerations regarding the pathological diagnosis will be discussed.
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.