Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30729100›Full record

ArticleCanadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology2019

Investigation of the Local Recurrence Rate after Colorectal Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: Is Incomplete Polyp Resection Really a Clinically Important Problem? Analysis of the Rationale for the "Resect and Discard" Strategy.

Jun Arimoto, Takuma Higurashi, Hideyuki Chiba, Noboru Misawa, Tsutomu Yoshihara, Takayuki Kato, Kenji Kanoshima, Akiko Fuyuki, Hidenori Ohkubo, Takashi Nonaka and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

15 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jun ArimotoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Omori Red Cross Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Takuma HigurashiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Yokohama City University School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan.
Hideyuki ChibaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Omori Red Cross Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Noboru MisawaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Yokohama City University School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan.
Tsutomu YoshiharaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Yokohama City University School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan.
Takayuki KatoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Yokohama City University School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan.
Kenji KanoshimaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Yokohama City University School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan.
Akiko FuyukiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Yokohama City University School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan.
Hidenori OhkuboDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Yokohama City University School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan.
Takashi NonakaDepartment of Gastroenterology, National Yokohama Medical Center, Yokohama, Japan.
Takamitsu SatoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Yokohama City University School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan.
Eiji SakaiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kanto Medical Center NTT EC, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroshi IidaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Yokohama City University School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan.
Tohru GotoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Omori Red Cross Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Atsushi NakajimaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Yokohama City University School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan.ORCID 0000-0003-3811-9704
Yokohama City University · JPNTT Medical Center · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background/Aims: The "Resect and Discard" strategy is a potentially useful strategy. At present, only the lesion size and accuracy of diagnosis are cited as considerations for clinical adoption of this strategy. On the other hand, histopathology of the resected specimens after Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) reveals often an unclear or positive-margin status, implying Incomplete Polyp Resection (IPR). If IPR indeed increased the risk of local recurrence, histopathological evaluation of the margin would be indispensable and clinical adoption of this strategy is difficult. The aim of this study is to verify the association between IPR and the risk of local recurrence. Methods: The 1872 polyps and 603 EMR cases in 597 patients who had EMR between May 2013 and May 2014 were enrolled. The local recurrence rate until 3 years after the EMR in cases with the target lesions of the "Resect and Discard" strategy was determined in the negative-margin and IPR groups. Results: The final analysis was performed using the data of 1092 polyps, and 222 were categorized into the IPR group. There were no cases of recurrence in either of the groups. Conclusion: This is the world's first report conducted to examine the correlation of IPR and the local recurrence rate for clinical practice of "Resect and Discard" strategy. There is the possibility that pathological evaluation of the margins after EMR in patients with small polyps can be skipped.

Indexed as

Margins of ExcisionAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesColonic PolypsColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEndoscopic Mucosal ResectionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalRecurrenceRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID30729100
PMCPMC6341238
OpenAlexW2909706047

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.