ArticleGastroenterology research and practice2020
Clinicopathological Features of Advanced Gastric Cancers which Were Misjudged and Subjected to Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.
Article in Gastroenterology research and practice, 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.
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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely performed for early gastric cancer (EGC). We have sometimes encountered gastric cancer lesions for which ESD was performed and at which pathologically advanced cancer was found. In this study, we performed clinicopathological examination of lesions whose endoscopic diagnosis and pathology differed substantially.
methodsESD was performed for 2,194 gastric cancer lesions (1,753 cases) in our institute from April 2005 through March 2015. The vertical margin was positive or status unknown in 51 lesions (2.3%); among these, muscularis propria (MP) or deeper infiltration was identified in 6 lesions from specimens obtained during subsequent surgery. In 1 lesion with MP invasion, the vertical margin was negative. We evaluated the clinicopathological features of these 7 lesions and retrospectively reviewed endoscopic indicators of submucosal invasion for EGC on white light imaging (WLI), narrow-band imaging magnifying endoscopy (NBI-ME), and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) performed previously.
resultsAverage age was 73.2 ± 7.2 years, and all cases were men. The 7 lesions diagnosed as advanced cancer were 0.32% of 2,194 lesions and were all located in the U region (fundus). On retrospective review of endoscopic findings, 2 of 7 lesions on WBI, 3 of 6 lesions on NBI-ME, and 2 of 5 lesions on EUS met the criteria for indicating submucosal invasion of EGC. No lesions had findings on all 3 modalities.
conclusionIn rare cases, advanced gastric cancer could not be accurately diagnosed by endoscopy using various modalities. Each case had special characteristics making identification of deep infiltration difficult.
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.