ArticleSurgical endoscopy2017
Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection in elderly patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative effectiveness of the Clutch Cutter versus Dual knife for esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection by non-expert endoscopists: a single-center retrospective cohort study.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Long-term prognosis after endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal cancer in older adult patients.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: long-term results from a Western cohort.Endoscopy · 2024Article
- Clinicopathological characteristics of synchronous multiple primary early esophageal cancer and risk factors for multiple lesions.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Management of elderly patients with esophageal squamous cell cancer.Japanese journal of clinical oncology · 2022Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Resection for Small Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors in Elderly Patients.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2022Article
- Safety and usefulness of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early esophageal cancers in elderly patients aged 80 years or older.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2021Article
- Novel Endoscopic Criteria for Predicting Tumor Invasion Depth in Superficial Esophageal Squamous Carcinoma.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- Endoscopic resection for early esophageal carcinoma.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Review
- Endoscopic Resection for Early-Stage Esophageal Cancer, Are We There for Squamous As Well?Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been widely applied in superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SESCC) as a minimally invasive treatment, which has advantages over surgery, especially in the elderly who have high risk of surgery. This study elucidated the efficacy and safety of ESD for SESCC in the elderly.
methodsBetween April 2007 and June 2016, a total of 176 patients with SESCC treated with ESD were analyzed. Clinical outcomes including En bloc, complete, and curative resection rates, procedure-related complication rates, and cumulative recurrence rates were compared between the elderly (n = 46, ≥70 years of age) and the non-elderly groups (n = 130, <70 years of age).
resultsBetween the two groups, sex, past medical history (hypertension and diabetes), body mass index, tumor characteristics (number, location, shape, maximal and circumferential size of the tumor and the resected specimen, and depth), and use of stricture prevention except for age (elderly vs non-elderly; 74.1 ± 2.78 vs. 61.1 ± 6.06 years, p < 0.001) did not differ. En bloc resection (elderly vs. non-elderly; 93.5 vs. 93.8%, p = 1.000), complete resection (elderly vs. non-elderly; 69.6 vs. 76.2%, p = 0.433), and curative resection rates (elderly vs. non-elderly; 54.3 vs. 60.0%, p = 0.602) did not differ significantly between the two groups. Procedure time and hospital stay were also similar between the two groups. Complications of ESD such as stricture (17.4 vs. 10.8%, p = 0.299) and perforation (13.0 vs. 6.2%, p = 0.083) occurred at a similar rate in the elderly and non-elderly groups. After curative ESD, cumulative recurrence rate of the elderly group (0%) did not differ significantly to that of the non-elderly group (5.1%) by the log-rank test (p = 0.307).
conclusionESD for SESCC is effective and safe in elderly patients as in non-elderly patients.
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.