ArticleTurk patoloji dergisi2020
Pathologic Evaluation of Endoscopically Resected Non-Ampullary Duodenal Lesions: A Single Center Experience.
Article in Turk patoloji dergisi, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEndoscopic resections are increasingly being used for superficial gastrointestinal lesions. However, application of these techniques in the duodenum remains challenging, due to the technical difficulties and high complication rates. This study projects a western tertiary center's experience in the endoscopic treatment and diagnostic workup of 19 cases of non-ampullary duodenal lesions. MATERIAL AND
methodSpecimens (12 endoscopic mucosal resections, 6 endoscopic submucosal dissections, and one endoscopic full-thickness resection) were processed following a strict protocol (photographed, mapped digitally and submitted totally) for histopathologic examination. Clinicopathologic characteristics, margin status and follow-up information were analyzed.
resultsThe mean age of the 16 patients was 52 years (range: 22-81). Mean lesion size was 1.4 cm (range: 0.3-3.6 cm) for all cases, 2 cm for endoscopic submucosal dissections and 1.1 cm for endoscopic mucosal resections. Mean number of blocks submitted was 4/case. Seven neuroendocrine tumors, 3 tubulovillous adenomas were diagnosed along with nine benign lesions. For endoscopic submucosal dissections, en-bloc and R0 resection rates were 100% (n=6/6) and 83% (n=5/6); for endoscopic mucosal resections, they were 92% (n=11/12) and 83% (n=10/12), respectively. Only one patient had procedure-related late perforation that was managed endoscopically. No mortality was encountered.
conclusionDuodenal endoscopic resections proved successful, safe and feasible methods in a tertiary center. The pathologist's role is to designate the accurate diagnosis, related histopathologic parameters and margin status. The gross protocol was found to be essential in evaluating specimen margins and orientation, as well as in size measurement. We recommend following a standardized approach including gross photography and digital mapping when handling these specimens, for both diagnostic and data collection purposes.
Indexed as
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.