ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019
Effectiveness and safety of endoscopic aspiration mucosectomy and endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with superficial esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for treating early oesophageal carcinoma: a meta-analysis.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2020Pooled it
- Treatment strategies and prognosis of superficial laryngo-pharyngeal cancer: a literature review.International journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
- RETRACTED: Effect of endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection on postoperative wound bleeding-related complications in patients with superficial esophageal cancer: A meta-analysis.International wound journal · 2024Article
- Management of esophageal neoplasms by endoscopic submucosal dissection: experience over 100 consecutive procedures.Clinical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Complications of endoscopic resection in the upper gastrointestinal tract.Clinical endoscopy · 2023Review
- Transoral surgery for superficial head and neck cancer: National Multi-Center Survey in Japan.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- Novel Endoscopic Criteria for Predicting Tumor Invasion Depth in Superficial Esophageal Squamous Carcinoma.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- Long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection and comparison to surgery for superficial esophageal squamous cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been performed in a high proportion of patients with superficial esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma. Endoscopic aspiration mucosectomy (EAM) is a more straightforward technique that is easier to perform. We retrospectively evaluated the safety and efficacy of EAM and ESD to clarify the advantages and disadvantages of each procedure.
methodsA total of 374 patients (423 lesions) who underwent endoscopic resection were retrospectively studied. The following variables were evaluated (1) procedure time and adverse events as safety, and (2) en bloc complete resection rate, local recurrence rate, lymph node recurrence rate, overall survival rate, and cause-specific survival rate as efficacy.
resultsEAM was performed in 134 patients (149 lesions), and ESD was performed in 240 patients (274 lesions). The procedure times of EAM and ESD were 31.0 ± 22.4 and 85.7 ± 46.5 min (p < 0.001), respectively. The perforation rates were 0 and 6.2% (p = 0.002), respectively. The en bloc complete resection rates were 48.3 and 91.6% (p < 0.001), respectively. The local recurrence rates were 5.5 and 0% (p < 0.001), respectively. For lesions measuring less than 15 mm in diameter, EAM had a relatively good en bloc complete resection rate (EAM, 76.1% vs. ESD, 100%) and a significantly short procedure time (EAM, 25.2 ± 15.2 min vs. ESD, 62.7 ± 35.2 min; p < 0.001).
conclusionsESD has a higher en bloc complete resection rate and a better local control rate than EAM. For lesions measuring less than 15 mm in diameter, EAM may be a treatment option.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30187201What 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.