ArticleClinical endoscopy2020
Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Treatment for Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors in the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effectiveness and Safety of Endoscopic Intermuscular Dissection for the Treatment of Rectal Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Pilot Feasibility Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Natural History of Asymptomatic Esophageal Subepithelial Tumors of 30 mm or Less in Size.Journal of Korean medical science · 2022Article
- The necessarity of treatment for small gastric subepithelial tumors (1-2 cm) originating from muscularis propria: an analysis of 972 tumors.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Massive Digestive Hemorrhagia Revealing a Gastro-Intestinal Stromal Tumor of the Jejunum.Cureus · 2021Article
- Recent advances in the management of gastrointestinal stromal tumor.World journal of clinical cases · 2020Review
- Endoscopic Treatment for Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors in the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract.Clinical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Retrospective analysis of the outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for the diagnosis and treatment of subepithelial lesions in a center with high expertise.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsEndoscopic treatment (ET) has been applied for decades to treat subepithelial tumors, including gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). However, the efficacy of ET remains debatable. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of ET for GISTs in the upper gastrointestinal tract.
methodsThis retrospective single-center study included 97 patients who underwent ET. All patients were enrolled from July 2014 to July 2018. Parameters such as demographics, size, resection margin, complications, pathological features, procedure time, total cost, and follow-up were investigated and analyzed.
resultsOur study achieved 100% en bloc resection and 77.4% (72/93) R0 resection. The most common location was the fundus with a mean tumor size of 2.1±1.43 cm. The mean age, procedure time, hospital stay, and cost were 59.7±11.29 years, 64.7±35.23 minutes, 6.8 days, and 5,337 dollars, respectively. According to National Institutes of Health classification, 63 (64.9%), 26 (26.8%), 5 (5.2%), and 3 (3.1%) patients belonged to the very low, low, intermediate, and high risk classification, respectively. Immunohistochemistry results showed a 100% positive rate of CD34, DOG-1, CD117, and Ki67. A mean follow-up of 21.3±13.0 months showed no recurrence or metastasis.
conclusionET is effective and safe for curative removal of GISTs in the upper gastrointestinal tract, and it can be a treatment of choice for patients with no metastasis.
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.