ArticleFamilial cancer2018
Feasibility of endoscopic resection using bipolar snare for nonampullary duodenal tumours in familial adenomatous polyposis patients.
Article in Familial cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Japanese society for cancer of the colon and rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2024 for the clinical practice of hereditary colorectal cancer.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Guideline
- Updated European guidelines for clinical management of familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP), gastric adenocarcinoma, proximal polyposis of the stomach (GAPPS) and other rare adenomatous polyposis syndromes: a joint EHTG-ESCP revision.The British journal of surgery · 2024Guideline
- Article
- Gel Immersion Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) for Superficial Nonampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors May Reduce Procedure Time Compared with Underwater EMR (with Video).Gastroenterology research and practice · 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
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The management of duodenal and colorectal tumours is important in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Endoscopic resection (ER) should be carefully performed because the risk of complications during or after (ER) of nonampullary duodenal tumours is higher than that of stomach or colorectal lesions in general. Thus, we evaluated the feasibility of endoscopic resection using bipolar snare (ERB) for nonampullary duodenal tumours in FAP patients. Eleven FAP patients who underwent ERB for nonampullary duodenal tumours at our hospital between October 2013 and December 2016 were retrospectively analysed based on clinicopathological features. ER was generally indicated for endoscopically diagnosed tumours > 20 mm, biopsy-confirmed high-grade dysplasia or carcinomas > 10 mm, and multiple tumours. Nineteen endoscopic treatments were performed and 134 nonampullary duodenal tumours were resected. The median patient age at initial treatment was 40 years (range 20-64), and median size of the largest tumour in each procedure was 16 mm (range 9-40). Of the 101 pathologically evaluated lesions, 10 tumours were high-grade tubular adenomas, 87 were low-grade tubular adenomas, 1 was an adenocarcinoma, and 3 were non-neoplastic mucosal polyps. No intraoperative or delayed perforations were observed. Melena was encountered in one patient and managed without emergent endoscopic intervention. ERB for nonampullary duodenal tumours of FAP patients is feasible and effective, even for large lesions with high-grade dysplasia. Long-term outcomes of ERB, including local recurrence and prognosis, should be monitored.
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.