ArticleSurgical endoscopy2019
Exploring the possibility of endoscopic submucosal dissection for clinical submucosal invasive early gastric cancers.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- [Clinical Practice Guideline for Endoscopic Resection of Early Gastrointestinal Cancer].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2020Guideline
- Applicability of endoscopic submucosal dissection for patients with early gastric cancer beyond the expanded indication for endoscopic submucosal dissection.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- The risk factors for prolonged hemostatic clip retention after endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric neoplasm.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Clinical practice guideline for endoscopic resection of early gastrointestinal cancer.Intestinal research · 2021Article
- Clinical Practice Guideline for Endoscopic Resection of Early Gastrointestinal Cancer.Clinical endoscopy · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe current standard treatment modality for clinical submucosal invasive (cT1b) early gastric cancer (EGC) is surgery. However, there are discrepancies in T staging between pre- and post-operative findings, and in cases of overestimation, patients may lose the opportunity to preserve the stomach. The aim of this study was to analyze surgical outcomes of cT1b EGC and determine the pre-treatment factors favoring ESD.
methodsPatients who underwent gastrectomy for cT1b EGC with a tumor size of 30 mm or less in diameter and differentiated-type histology were retrospectively reviewed from January 2010 to December 2014. According to the final surgical pathologic results, two groups were classified: patients whose pathologic results qualified for current ESD indication (ESD-qualified group, n = 203) and patients whose pathologic results made them ineligible for ESD (ESD-disqualified group, n = 261). The preoperative clinical characteristics were compared.
resultsForty-three percent of the patients (203/464) who underwent gastrectomy for cT1b EGC qualified for ESD; their endoscopic lesion tended to be smaller than 20 mm in size and located in the distal part of stomach. In addition, the ESD-qualified group showed a significantly higher proportion of well-differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma on endoscopic biopsy and of the flat/depressed type in the endoscopic evaluation.
conclusionForty-three percent of the patients with cT1b EGC who underwent gastrectomy had a chance to preserve their stomach by ESD. Therefore, pre-treatment factors such as endoscopic lesion size, location, histology, and gross type should be considered for treatment modality selection for cT1b EGC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30725253What 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.