Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28761366›Full record

ReviewClinical and experimental gastroenterology2017

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: patient selection and special considerations.

Andrew Emmanuel, Shraddha Gulati, Margaret Burt, Bu'Hussain Hayee, Amyn Haji

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical and experimental gastroenterology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04593407 (Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Laterally Spreading Lesions Non Granular-Flat Elevated Type), which is not on this map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT04593407 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Laterally Spreading Lesions Non Granular-Flat Elevated Type (LSL-NG-FE) ≥ 20 mm and LSLs-Granular Mixed Type ≥ 30 mm. A Randomized, Non-inferiority Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorJosé Carlos Marín GabrielRan2020 to 2026Enrolled376ConditionsNeoplasms, ColorectalArmsEndoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Andrew EmmanuelKing's Institute of Therapeutic Endoscopy, King's College Hospital, London, UK.
Shraddha GulatiKing's Institute of Therapeutic Endoscopy, King's College Hospital, London, UK.
Margaret BurtKing's Institute of Therapeutic Endoscopy, King's College Hospital, London, UK.
Bu'Hussain HayeeKing's Institute of Therapeutic Endoscopy, King's College Hospital, London, UK.
Amyn HajiKing's Institute of Therapeutic Endoscopy, King's College Hospital, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables en bloc resection of large complex colorectal superficial neoplastic lesions, resulting in very low rates of local recurrence, high-quality pathologic specimens for accurate histopathologic diagnosis and potentially curative treatment of early adenocarcinoma without resorting to major surgical resection. The safety and efficacy of the technique, which was pioneered in the upper gastrointestinal tract, has been established by the consistently impressive outcomes from expert centers in Japan and some other eastern countries. However, ESD is challenging to perform in the colorectum and there is a significant risk of complications, particularly in the early stages of the learning curve. Early studies from western centers raised concerns about the high complication rates, and the impressive results from Japanese centers were not replicated. As a result, many western endoscopists are skeptical about the role of ESD and few centers have incorporated the technique into their practice. Nevertheless, although the distribution of expertise, referral centers and modes of practice may differ in Japan and western countries, ESD has an important role and can be safely and effectively incorporated into western practice. Key to achieving this is meticulous lesion assessment and selection, appropriate referral to centers with the necessary expertise and experience and application of the appropriate technique individualized to the patient. This review discusses the advantages, risks and benefits of ESD to treat colorectal lesions and the importance of preprocedure lesion assessment and in vivo diagnosis and outlines a pragmatic rationale for appropriate lesion selection as well as the patient, technical and institutional factors that should be considered.

Indexed as

colorectal ESDendoscopic resectionendoscopic submucosal dissection

Identifiers

PMID28761366
PMCPMC5516776

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.