ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018
Clinical efficacy of endoscopic ultrasonography for decision of treatment strategy of gastric cancer.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 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
35 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic evaluation of endoscopic ultrasonography with submucosal saline injection for differentiating between T1a and T1b early gastric cancer.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Trial
- All-fiber photoacoustic endomicroscopy reveals layer-specific angiogenesis-oxygenation uncoupling in experimental colitis.Science advances · 2026Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) in Gastric Cancer: Current Applications and Future Perspectives.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Nomogram for pre-procedural prediction of lymph node metastasis in patients with submucosal early gastric cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Enhanced diagnostic accuracy of SINE-EUS compared to standard EUS in early colorectal cancer: a self-controlled study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2025Article
- Evaluating stiffness of gastric wall using laser resonance frequency analysis for gastric cancer.Cancer science · 2025Article
- Endoscopic ultrasound classification for prediction of endoscopic submucosal dissection resectability: PREDICT classification.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- A novel artificial intelligence-based endoscopic ultrasonography diagnostic system for diagnosing the invasion depth of early gastric cancer.Journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Artificial Intelligence Model for a Distinction between Early-Stage Gastric Cancer Invasive Depth T1a and T1b.Journal of Cancer · 2024Article
- Risk of lymph node metastasis and feasibility of endoscopic submucosal dissection in undifferentiated-type early gastric cancer.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Preoperative diagnosis of tumor depth in gastric cancer using transabdominal ultrasonography compared to using endoscopy and computed tomography.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasonography for the depth of gastric cancer suspected of submucosal invasion: a multicenter prospective study.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Research trends in endoscopic applications in early gastric cancer: A bibliometric analysis of studies published from 2012 to 2022.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Review
- Risk factors for the failure of endoscopic resection of gastric submucosal tumors: a long-term retrospective case-control study.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2022Article
- Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasonography for Determining the Depth of Invasion in Early Gastric Cancer.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2022Article
- A potential decision-making algorithm based on endoscopic ultrasound for staging early gastric cancer: a retrospective study.BMC cancer · 2022Article
- Photoacoustic imaging of fresh human surgically and endoscopically resected gastrointestinal specimens.DEN open · 2022Article
- Construction of a nomogram for preoperative prediction of the risk of lymph node metastasis in early gastric cancer.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- [Clinical Value of White Light Image, Endoscopic Ultrasonography and Magnifying Endoscopy with Narrow Band Imaging in Evaluation of Indications for Endoscopic Treatment of Early Gastric Cancer].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2022Article
- Endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of gastric dysplasia and early cancer: Current evidence and what the future may hold.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate preoperative tumor staging of gastric cancer is indispensable with expansion of indications for laparoscopic surgery and endoscopic resection. It is important to distinguish mucosal cancer (T1a) in smaller lesion and differentiate early gastric cancer (EGC) in larger lesion considering endoscopic resection indication and laparoscopic surgery indication. We evaluated the clinical outcomes of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for the decision of treatment strategy of gastric cancer compared with pathological staging.
methodsThe patients who underwent EUS and surgical or endoscopic resection for gastric cancer were retrospectively reviewed between September 2005 and February 2016. The depth of tumor invasion (T staging) by EUS was compared with the pathological staging after endoscopic or surgical resection.
resultsA total of 6084 patients were finally analyzed. The accuracy rates for T1a and EGC were 75.0 and 89.4%, respectively. The overall accuracy of T staging by EUS was 66.3% when divided by T1a, T1b, and over T2. The accuracy of EUS prior to endoscopic resection was 75.1% in absolute indication and 73.1% in expanded criteria, respectively. The accuracy rates for T1a with lesion ≤ 2 cm in miniprobe EUS and EGC with lesion > 2 cm in conventional EUS were 84.6 and 83.2%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, presence of ulcer, large tumor size, and radial EUS were associated with overestimation, and small tumor size and miniprobe were associated with underestimation in T staging.
conclusionsEUS showed the high accuracy of 84.6% for T1a in lesion ≤ 2 cm in miniprobe EUS and 83.2% for EGC in lesion > 2 cm in conventional EUS, respectively. EUS can be a complementary diagnostic method to determine endoscopic or surgical treatment modality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29435750What 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.