ArticleGastroenterology research and practice2019
Endoscopic Removal of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors in the Stomach: A Single-Center Experience.
Article in Gastroenterology research and practice, 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.
- Endoscopic resection of esophageal and gastric submucosal tumors from the muscularis propria layer: submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection versus endoscopic submucosal excavation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Pooled it
- Greater efficiency of the double-bending method compared with conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of submucosal tumors of the gastric fundus.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- A novel technique for endoscope progression in gastroscopy resection: forward-return way for dissection of stromal tumor in the muscularis propria of the gastric fundus.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Clinical outcomes of endoscopic resection for the treatment of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors originating from the muscularis propria: a 7-year experience from a large tertiary center in China.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Safety and Efficacy of Endoscopic Treatment of Solitary Gastric Neurofibroma.International journal of general medicine · 2022Article
- Effects of Endoscopic Submucosal Excavation With Non-Submucosal Injection on Stromal Tumors in Stomach.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- The therapeutic effect of the digestive endoscopy tunneling technique on upper gastrointestinal muscularis propria tumors.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
- Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Cancer management and research · 2020Article
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
BACKGROUND AND
aimsEndoscopic removal of GISTs (gastrointestinal stromal tumors) is recently recognized, but less is known about its efficacy and safety. This study is aimed at assessing the feasibility, clinical efficacy, and safety of the endoscopic removal of gastric GISTs. PATIENTS AND
methodsEndoscopic removal (ER) of GISTs was performed in 134 patients at our hospital between January 2015 and January 2019. The clinical features, surgical outcomes, complications, pathological diagnosis, and risk classification were evaluated retrospectively.
resultsER was successful in 131 cases (98%), including 58 by ESD (endoscopic submucosal dissection), 43 by ESE (endoscopic submucosal excavation), 25 by EFTR (endoscopic full-thickness resection), and 5 by STER (submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection). In addition, GISTs of two cases were resected using LECS (laparoscopic and luminal endoscopic cooperative surgery) for the extraluminal and intraluminal growth pattern. The average tumor size was 1.89 ± 1.25 cm (range: 0.5-6.0 cm). Of these patients, 26 cases had a large tumor size (range: 2.0-6.0 cm), and endoscopic removal was successful in all of them. During the procedure, endoclips were used to close the perforation in all cases, without conversion to open surgery. The average length of hospital stay was 5.50 ± 2.15 days (range: 3-10 days). In the risk classification, 106 (79.7%) were of a very low risk, 25 (18.8%) of a low risk, and 2 (1.5%) of a moderate risk. The moderate-risk cases were treated with imatinib mesylate after ER. No recurrence or metastasis was observed during the follow-up period of 23 ± 8 months (range: 3-48 months).
conclusionsThe endoscopic treatment is feasible, effective, and safe for gastric GISTs, and individualized choice of approaches is recommended for GISTs.
Identifiers
What 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.