ArticlePloS one2017
The effect of paclitaxel-eluting covered metal stents versus covered metal stents in a rabbit esophageal squamous carcinoma model.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nanotechnology-based biomedical devices in the cancer diagnostics and therapy.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Review
- Current status and advances in esophageal drug delivery technology: influence of physiological, pathophysiological and pharmaceutical factors.Drug delivery · 2023Review
- Utilizing 4D Printing to Design Smart Gastroretentive, Esophageal, and Intravesical Drug Delivery Systems.Advanced healthcare materials · 2023Review
- Foundations of gastrointestinal-based drug delivery and future developments.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2022Review
- [Palliative endoscopy].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2022Article
- Futuristic Developments and Applications in Endoluminal Stenting.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2022Review
- Drug-Loaded, Polyurethane Coated Nitinol Stents for the Controlled Release of Docetaxel for the Treatment of Oesophageal Cancer.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- A Review of Self-Expanding Esophageal Stents for the Palliation Therapy of Inoperable Esophageal Malignancies.BioMed research international · 2019Review
- Vorinostat-eluting poly(DL-lactide-co-glycolide) nanofiber-coated stent for inhibition of cholangiocarcinoma cells.International journal of nanomedicine · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of self-expanding metallic stents (SEMSs) is the current treatment of choice for malignant gastrointestinal obstructions. However, these stents can promote only drainage and have no antitumor effect. Some studies have reported that drug-eluting SEMSs may have tumor inhibition potential. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency and safety of paclitaxel-eluting SEMSs (PEMSs) in rabbit esophageal cancer models. MATERIALS AND
methodsA PEMS was covered with a paclitaxel-incorporated membrane, in which the concentration of paclitaxel was 10% (wt/vol). The rabbit models were created endoscopically. Then, a PEMS or SEMS was endoscopically inserted into the rabbit esophagus. Two weeks after stent placement, the rabbits were sacrificed, and we evaluated the tumor volume, area of the wall defect, area of the tumor under endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) before and after stent placement, status of the proximal esophageal obstruction, tumor metastasis food-intake and weight loss.
resultsA total of 26 rabbits received stent insertion and survived until sacrifice, and migration occurred in 4 cases, 3 in SEMS group and 1 in PEMS group. For the remaining 22 rabbits, at the sacrificed time, the average tumor volume was 7.00±4.30 cm3 in the SEMS group and 0.94±1.51 cm3 in the PEMS group (P<0.05). The area of the esophageal wall defect was 0.70±0.63 cm2 in the SEMS group and 0.17±0.16 cm2 in the PEMS group (P<0.05). The tumor area under EUS was 4.40±1.47 cm2 in the SEMS group and 1.30±1.06 cm2 in the PEMS group (P<0.05). At the time of stent placement, tumor area under EUS was comparable in the two groups. Other indices did not significantly differ between the two groups.
conclusionsSEMS and PEMS are both safe and effective to relieve dysphagia in rabbit esophageal cancer models. A PEMS can serve as an alternative tool for advanced esophageal cancer that may inhibit tumor growth by serving as a drug sustained-release platform. Clinical trials of the stent are warranted in the future.
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.