ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2020
Preoperative Diagnosis and Indications for Endoscopic Resection of Superficial Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Post-endoscopy esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with invasion of the muscularis mucosa or deeper detected in surveillance endoscopy after esophageal endoscopic resection.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparative efficacy and safety between endoscopic submucosal dissection, surgery and definitive chemoradiotherapy in patients with cT1N0M0 esophageal cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Article
- Management of esophageal neoplasms by endoscopic submucosal dissection: experience over 100 consecutive procedures.Clinical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Analysis of white-light imaging-based features predictive for determination of lesion depths of superficial flat esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a retrospective multicenter study from China.European journal of medical research · 2023Article
- Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Esophageal Cancer: Current and Future.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Hsa_circ_0021727 (circ-CD44) promotes ESCC progression by targeting miR-23b-5p to activate the TAB1/NFκB pathway.Cell death & disease · 2023Article
- Construction of the Six-lncRNA Prognosis Signature as a Novel Biomarker in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Impact of endoscopic submucosal dissection and epithelial cell sheet engraftment on systemic cytokine dynamics in patients with oesophageal cancer.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- MicroRNA Expression Profiles in Superficial Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma before Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Pilot Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopic resection (ER) is the mainstay of treatment for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SESCC) instead of esophagectomy because of its minimal invasiveness and favorable clinical outcomes. Developments in endoscopic submucosal dissection have enabled en bloc resection of SESCCs regardless of size, thus reducing the risk of local recurrence. Although ER for SESCC is effective, metastasis may subsequently occur. Additionally, extensive esophageal ER confers a risk of postoperative esophageal stricture. Therefore, accurate assessment of the invasion depth and circumferential extent of SESCCs is important in determining the indications for ER. Diagnostic accuracies for SESCC invasion differ between epithelial (EP)/lamina propria (LPM), muscularis mucosa (MM)/submucosal (SM1), and SM2 cancers. ER is strongly indicated for clinically diagnosed (c)EP/LPM cancers because 90% of these are as pathologically diagnosed (p)EP/LPM, which has a very low risk of metastasis. Remarkably, the diagnostic accuracy for cMM/SM1 differs significantly with lateral spread of cancer. Eighty percent of cMM/SM1 cancers with ≤3/4 circumferential spread prove to be pEP/LPM or pMM/SM1, which have very low or low risk of metastasis. Thus, these are adequate candidates for ER. However, given the relatively low proportion of pEP/LPM or pMM/SM1 and high risk of subsequent stricture, ER is not recommended for whole circumferential cMM/SM1 cancers. For cMM/SM1 cancers that involve >3/4 but not the whole circumference, ER should be considered on a lesion-by-lesion basis because the risk of post-ER stricture is not very high, but the proportion of pEP/LPM or pMM/SM1 is relatively low. ER is contraindicated for cSM2 cancers because 75% of them are pSM2, which has high risk of 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.