ArticleGastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association2021
Discrepancy between endoscopic and pathological ulcerative findings in clinical intramucosal early gastric cancer.
Article in Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Biomaterial-driven remove-remodel-repair (3R) strategy for full-cycle gastric cancer management: bibliometric mapping, preclinical evidence, and a translational roadmap.Nanoscale advances · 2026Review
- Development and temporal validation of preoperative and combined preoperative-pathological models for lymph node metastasis in early gastric cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Can the Japanese guidelines for endoscopic submucosal dissection be safely applied to Korean gastric cancer patients? A multicenter retrospective study based on the Korean Gastric Cancer Association nationwide survey.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2025Article
- Review
- Diagnostic performance of pre-procedure endoscopic biopsies in predicting the histology of gastric lesions undergoing ESD.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Risk factors for pathological upgrading and noncurative resection in patients with gastric mucosal lesions after endoscopic submucosal dissection.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- A Prediction Model Based on the Risk Factors Associated with Pathological Upgrading in Patients with Early-Stage Gastric Neoplasms Diagnosed by Endoscopic Forceps Biopsy.Gut and liver · 2023Article
- A Standardized Pathology Report for Gastric Cancer: 2nd Edition.Journal of gastric cancer · 2023Review
- A standardized pathology report for gastric cancer: 2nd edition.Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2023Review
- Applicability of endoscopic submucosal dissection for patients with early gastric cancer beyond the expanded indication for endoscopic submucosal dissection.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUlcerative finding (UL) is one of the factors that define the indication and curability of endoscopic resection (ER) in early gastric cancer (EGC). Discrepancies between endoscopic UL (cUL) and pathological UL (pUL) sometimes occur in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to investigate the discrepancy rate in UL diagnosis and the risk factors associated with such discrepancies.
methodsPatients with clinical intramucosal (cT1a) EGC who underwent ER or surgery between September 2002 and December 2017 were analyzed. The proportion of cUL-negative (cUL0) lesions that were identified as pUL-positive (pUL1) and that of cUL-positive (cUL1) lesions that were identified as pUL-negative (pUL0) were calculated. Logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate the associations between discrepancy in UL diagnosis and clinical variables of the lesion, such as the size, histology, location, and macroscopic type.
resultsIn total, 5382 lesions were evaluated; 5.5% of cUL0 lesions (256/4619) were identified as pUL1, while 38.7% of cUL1 lesions (295/763) were pUL0. Multivariate analysis indicated that in cUL1 lesions, tumor location in the lower third of the stomach (odds ratio 3.11, 95% confidence interval 1.90-5.08) was identified as an independent risk factor for overestimation.
conclusionsEndoscopic diagnosis of UL in cT1a EGC was overestimated in 38.7% of lesions, especially for lesions located in the lower third of the stomach. This discrepancy should be considered in the management of cT1a EGC with UL.
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.