ArticlePloS one2017
Safety of endoscopy in cancer patients on antiangiogenic agents: A retrospective multicenter outcomes study.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety of endoscopy in patients undergoing treatments with antiangiogenic agents: A 5-year retrospective review.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsThe use of antiangiogenic agents (AAs) in cancer treatment has increased because they offer survival benefit in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Given their potential to cause gastrointestinal (GI) perforation and bleeding, it is currently recommended that AAs be held for 28 days before and after surgery. However, there are no specific guidelines which address their use around endoscopic procedures because data regarding the safety of endoscopy in cancer patients while on AAs is scarce despite the fact that these patients often require endoscopy. This study investigated the safety of endoscopy in cancer patients receiving AAs.
methodsThis is a retrospective multicenter study of a consecutive case series of 445 cancer patients undergoing endoscopy within 31 days of administration of AAs at 5 specialized cancer centers between April 2008 and August 2014. Endoscopies were classified into two different categories based on the risk of GI bleeding and perforation: low and high. The primary outcome measures were procedure-related adverse events (AEs) and death within 30 days of endoscopy. The severity of AEs was classified according to the common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) version 4.0. The incidence of AEs and mortality was calculated using the total number of patients as the denominator.
results445 cancer patients with a mean age of 54 years underwent a total of 545 endoscopies. Median time duration from AAs to endoscopy was 11 days. Of 545 endoscopic procedures, 398 (73%) were low-risk and 147 (27%) were high-risk. There were 3 procedure-related AEs: esophageal perforation (grade 3) two days after an EGD, pancreatitis (grade 5) a day after failed ERCP, and bleeding from the gastrostomy site (grade 1) two days after an EGD. Of 445 patients, 29 (6.5%) died within 30 days of the procedure with no deaths deemed procedure-related. The most common causes of death were terminal cancer (n = 10), hepatic decompensation (n = 5) and sepsis (n = 4).
conclusionIn this retrospective study, the rate of endoscopy-related AEs in patients on AAs appears to be low when performed in specialized cancer centers. However, future prospective studies are needed to confirm this finding.
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.