Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30854060›Full record

ArticleOncology letters2019

Endoscopic ultrasonography for pretreatment T-staging of gastric cancer: An

Yan Yan, Qi Wu, Zi-Yu Li, Zhao-De Bu, Jia-Fu Ji

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncology letters, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Clinical significance of endoscopic ultrasonography in diagnosing invasion depth of early gastric cancer prior to endoscopic submucosal dissection.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2021
    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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yan YanEndoscopy Center, Beijing Cancer Hospital, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing 100142, P.R. China.
Qi WuEndoscopy Center, Beijing Cancer Hospital, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing 100142, P.R. China.
Zi-Yu LiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Beijing Cancer Hospital, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing 100142, P.R. China.
Zhao-De BuDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Beijing Cancer Hospital, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing 100142, P.R. China.
Jia-Fu JiDepartment of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Beijing Cancer Hospital, Key Laboratory of Carcinogenesis and Translational Research (Ministry of Education), Peking University Cancer Hospital and Institute, Beijing 100142, P.R. China.
Peking University · CNPeking University Cancer Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the current era of multi-disciplinary treatment, precise and detailed diagnosis prior to treatment is crucial for clinical practice. For different lesions that fit different indications, the optimum approach for treatment differs significantly. Thus, the recent 8th American Joint Committee on Cancer classification system has introduced 'clinical stage' as a criterion. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has been the first-line choice for pretreatment staging; however, there is no standardization of the depth classification nor a standard EUS method. Additionally, the accuracy for this diagnostic test has ranged between <40 and 90% in previous studies. The aim of the present study was to determine the accuracy of EUS, identify the discrepancies between EUS and histological results, and analyze the underlying causes. Between June 2014 and February 2016, EUS was performed on gastric carcinoma specimens from 60 consecutive patients. EUS was performed on the resected specimens following surgery, but prior to fixation in formalin, invasion of the gastric wall was determined and the deepest location was marked with sutures. The ultrasound images were independently interpreted, and the quality of the images was scored by two endoscopists. Subsequently, the ultrasound images were compared with the pathological results of the same section. The overall accuracy of EUS was 75%. For locally advanced gastric cancers, EUS had a relatively high accuracy (33/43, 86%). The EUS results corresponded well with the pathological hematoxylin and eosin staining results, and the deepest points determined by EUS were confirmed by pathology in the majority of cases (85%). In total, 50 and 10 cases were scored as having high/moderate and low quality, associated with accuracies of 86% (43/50) and 20% (2/10), respectively. EUS is valuable for pretreatment T-staging, particularly for advanced cases. Proximal stomach cancer exhibited a tendency for improved accuracy. Overall, the results of the present study suggest that standardized scanning processes, particularly including all-encompassing scanning, proper probe-placement and high image quality, lead to improved accuracy of EUS.

Indexed as

endoscopic ultrasoundgastric cancerpathologystaging

Identifiers

PMID30854060
PMCPMC6365933
OpenAlexW2909106221

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.