Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31907377›Full record

ReviewModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2020

Pathological assessment of endoscopic resections of the gastrointestinal tract: a comprehensive clinicopathologic review.

M Priyanthi Kumarasinghe, Michael J Bourke, Ian Brown, Peter V Draganov, Duncan McLeod, Catherine Streutker, Spiro Raftopoulos, Tetsuo Ushiku, Gregory Y Lauwers

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Development and application of deep learning-based diagnostics for pathologic diagnosis of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection specimens.Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. FecalFrontiers in oncology · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. mFrontiers in oncology · 2020
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Evolving management of colorectal polyps.Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopy
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.

M Priyanthi KumarasingheDepartment of Anatomical Pathology, PathWest, QE II Medical Centre and School of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Western Australia, Hospital Avenue, Nedlands Perth, WA, 6009, Australia. Priyanthi.Kumarasinghe@health.wa.gov.au.
Michael J BourkeDepartment of Medicine, University of Sydney, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW, 2145, Australia.
Ian BrownEnvoi Pathology,Unit 5, 38 Bishop Street, Kelvin Grove, QLD, 4059, Australia.
Peter V DraganovDepartment of Medicine, University of Florida, 1329 SW 16th Street, Room # 5251, Gainesville, FL, 32608, USA.
Duncan McLeodWestmead Hospital, Westmead, NSW, 2145, Australia.
Catherine StreutkerDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Director of Pathology, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W9, Canada.
Spiro RaftopoulosSir Charles Gairdner Hospital, QE II Medical Centre, Hospital Avenue, Nedlands Perth, WA, 6009, Australia.
Tetsuo UshikuDepartment of Pathology, University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1763-8380
Gregory Y LauwersH. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute and Departments of Pathology & Cell Biology and Oncologic Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA.
Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital · AUSir Charles Gairdner Hospital · AUSt. Michael's Hospital · CAThe University of Sydney · AUThe University of Tokyo · JPThe University of Western Australia · AUUniversity of Florida · USUniversity of South Florida · USWestmead Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endoscopic resection (ER) allows optimal staging with potential cure of early-stage luminal malignancies while maintaining organ preservation. ER and surgery are non-competing but complementary therapeutic options. In addition, histological examination of ER specimens can either confirm or refine the pre-procedure diagnosis. ER is used for the treatment of Barrett's related early carcinomas and dysplasias, early-esophageal squamous cell carcinomas and dysplasias, early gastric carcinomas and dysplasia, as well as low-risk submucosal invasive carcinomas (LR-SMIC) and, large laterally spreading adenomas of the colon. For invasive lesions, histological risk factors predict risk of lymph node metastasis and residual disease at the ER site. Important pathological risk factors predictive of lymph node metastasis are depth of tumor invasion, poor differentiation, and lymphovascular invasion. Complete resection with negative margins is critical to avoid local recurrences. For non-invasive lesions, complete resection is curative. Therefore, a systematic approach for handling and assessing ER specimens is recommended to evaluate all above key prognostic features appropriately. Correct handling starts with pinning the specimen before fixation, meticulous macroscopic assessment with orientation of appropriate margins, systematic sectioning, and microscopic assessment of the entire specimen. Microscopic examination should be thorough for accurate assessment of all pathological risk factors and margin assessment. Site-specific issues such as duplication of muscularis mucosa of the esophagus, challenges of assessing ampullectomy specimens and site-specific differences of staging of early carcinomas throughout the gastrointestinal tract (GI) tract should be given special consideration. Finally, a standard, comprehensive pathology report that allows optimal staging with potential cure of early-stage malignancies or better stratification and guidance for additional treatment should be provided.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal NeoplasmsGastrointestinal TractHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID31907377
OpenAlexW2998544433

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.