Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30918431›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2019

Clinical outcomes of ampullary neoplasms in resected margin positive or uncertain cases after endoscopic papillectomy.

Arata Sakai, Masahiro Tsujimae, Atsuhiro Masuda, Takao Iemoto, Shigeto Ashina, Kohei Yamakawa, Takeshi Tanaka, Shunta Tanaka, Yasutaka Yamada, Ryota Nakano and 9 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Follow-up and Management of Recurrent Nonmalignant Ampullary Neoplasms].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

19 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Arata SakaiDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe 650-0017, Japan.
Masahiro TsujimaeDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe 650-0017, Japan.
Atsuhiro MasudaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe 650-0017, Japan. atmasuda@med.kobe-u.ac.jp.
Takao IemotoDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe 650-0017, Japan.
Shigeto AshinaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe 650-0017, Japan.
Kohei YamakawaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe 650-0017, Japan.
Takeshi TanakaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe 650-0017, Japan.
Shunta TanakaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe 650-0017, Japan.
Yasutaka YamadaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe 650-0017, Japan.
Ryota NakanoDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe 650-0017, Japan.
Yu SatoDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe 650-0017, Japan.
Manabu KurosawaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe 650-0017, Japan.
Takuya IkegawaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe 650-0017, Japan.
Seiji FujigakiDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe 650-0017, Japan.
Takashi KobayashiDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe 650-0017, Japan.
Hideyuki ShiomiDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe 650-0017, Japan.
Yoshifumi ArisakaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe 650-0017, Japan.
Tomoo ItohDepartment of Diagnostic Pathology, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe 650-0017, Japan.
Yuzo KodamaDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kobe University Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe 650-0017, Japan.
Kobe University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoscopic papillectomy (EP) for benign ampullary neoplasms could be a less-invasive alternative to pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). There are some problems and limitations with EP. The post-EP resection margins of ampullary tumors are often positive or uncertain because of the burning effect of EP. The clinical outcomes of resected margin positive or uncertain cases after EP remain unknown.

aimTo investigate the clinical outcomes of resected margin positive or uncertain cases after EP.

methodsBetween January 2007 and October 2018, all patients with ampullary tumors who underwent EP at Kobe University Hospital were included in this study. The indications for EP were as follows: adenoma, as determined by preoperative endoscopic biopsy, without bile/pancreatic duct extension, according to endoscopic ultrasound or intraductal ultrasound. The clinical outcomes of resected margin positive or uncertain cases after EP were retrospectively investigated.

resultsOf the 45 patients, 29 were male, and 16 were female. The mean age of the patients was 65 years old. Forty-one patients (89.5%) underwent

conclusionResected margin positive or uncertain cases after EP could be managed by endoscopic treatment including APC, even in cases of adenocarcinoma. EP could become an effective less-invasive first-line treatment for early stage ampullary tumors.

Indexed as

Margins of ExcisionAdenocarcinomaAdenomaAgedAmpulla of VaterArgon Plasma CoagulationBiopsyCommon Bile Duct NeoplasmsDuodenoscopyFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm, ResidualAmpullary neoplasmClinical outcomeEndoscopic papillectomyResected margin

Identifiers

PMID30918431
PMCPMC6429348
OpenAlexW2924937877

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.