Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33220523›Full record

ArticleClinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association2022

Comparative Outcomes of Cap Assisted Endoscopic Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Dysplastic Barrett's Esophagus.

D Chamil Codipilly, Lovekirat Dhaliwal, Meher Oberoi, Parth Gandhi, Michele L Johnson, Ramona M Lansing, W Scott Harmsen, Kenneth K Wang, Prasad G Iyer

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Endoscopic Management of Barrett's Esophagus.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022
    Review
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

D Chamil CodipillyBarrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Rochester, Minnesota.
Lovekirat DhaliwalBarrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Rochester, Minnesota.
Meher OberoiBarrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Rochester, Minnesota.
Parth GandhiBarrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Rochester, Minnesota.
Michele L JohnsonBarrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Rochester, Minnesota.
Ramona M LansingBarrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Rochester, Minnesota.
W Scott HarmsenDivision of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
Kenneth K WangBarrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Rochester, Minnesota.
Prasad G IyerBarrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Rochester, Minnesota. Electronic address: iyer.prasad@mayo.edu.
Mayo Clinic · USMayo Clinic in Florida · US

Funding

Minimally Invasive Molecular Approaches for the Detection of Barrett’s Esophagus and Esophageal AdenocarcinomaR01CA241164 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Jagpreet Chhatwal, Prasad G. Iyer · 2019 to 2026
$3.9M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA241164
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND &

aimsEndoscopic resection is an important component of the endoscopic treatment of Barrett's esophagus (BE) with dysplasia and intramucosal adenocarcinoma. Endoscopic resection can be performed by cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (cEMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We compared the histologic outcomes of ESD vs cEMR, followed by ablation.

methodsWe queried a prospectively maintained database of all patients undergoing cEMR and ESD followed by ablation at our institution from January 2006 to March 2020 and abstracted relevant demographic and clinical data. Our primary outcomes included the rate of complete remission of dysplasia (CRD): absence of dysplasia on surveillance histology, and complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM): absence of intestinal metaplasia. Our secondary outcome included complication rates.

resultsWe included 537 patients in the study: 456 underwent cEMR and 81 underwent ESD. The cumulative probabilities of CRD at 2 years were 75.8% and 85.6% in the cEMR and ESD groups, respectively (P < .01). Independent predictors of CRD were as follows: ESD (hazard ratio [HR], 2.38; P < .01) and shorter BE segment length (HR, 1.11; P < .01). The cumulative probabilities of CRIM at 2 years were 59.3% and 50.6% in the cEMR and ESD groups, respectively (P > .05). The only independent predictor of CRIM was a shorter BE segment (HR, 1.16; P < .01).

conclusionsBE patients with dysplasia or intramucosal adenocarcinoma undergoing ESD reach CRD at higher rates than those treated with cEMR, although CRIM rates at 2 years and complication rates were similar between the 2 groups.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaBarrett EsophagusEndoscopic Mucosal ResectionEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagoscopyHumansBarrett’s EsophagusEndoscopic Eradication TherapyEndoscopic Mucosal ResectionEndoscopic Submucosal DissectionEsophageal Adenocarcinoma

Identifiers

PMID33220523
PMCPMC8128933
OpenAlexW3105194750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.