ArticleIndian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology2020
Endoscopic mucosal resection for early esophageal carcinoma is effective and safe but necessitates continued surveillance.
Article in Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Variation in Diagnosis, Treatment, and Outcome of Esophageal Cancer in a Regionalized Care System in Ontario, Canada.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Indian Journal of Gastroenterology September-October 2020.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is used for the treatment of early esophageal cancer (EEC).
methodsThis a retrospective study aimed to study the efficacy, safety, and the recurrence rate of EEC following EMR.
resultsSeventy-nine patients who had undergone EMR for early EEC (T1a andT1b lesions) from 2006 to 2015 were included. EMR alone was considered curative in 51 patients who had T1a lesion. Complete remission was achieved in 50 (98%) patients. Mean number of sessions of EMR was 1.14. Cancer recurred locally in 6 (12%) of 50 patients at a median follow-up of 48 (18-72) months. Endoscopic treatment alone achieved complete remission at last follow up in 47 of 50 patients (94%) who had initial EMR with complete remission, or in 47 of all 51 patients (92%) in whom EMR was considered curative for EC. The Kaplan-Meier cancer-free survival following complete remission with EMR was 94.2% at 1 year and 88.4% at 5 years. Patients with complete eradication of Barrett's had lower risk of recurrence of adenocarcinoma (AC) compared with patients who had persistent Barrett's (p = 0.01). EMR alone was not considered curative in 19 patients, 16 with T1b AC and 3 with T1a squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) invading the muscularis mucosa (m3). Two major adverse events were noted: delayed bleeding requiring hospitalization, and perforation that was closed endoscopically.
conclusionEMR is effective and safe for the management of early EC. The risk of cancer recurrence, albeit small, warrants surveillance. Complete eradication of Barrett's should be attempted in all patients after EMR of AC.
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.