Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33569725›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2022

Optimal surveillance interval after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection for large colorectal neoplasia: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Takeshi Nakajima, Taku Sakamoto, Shinichiro Hori, Shinya Yamada, Hiroaki Ikematsu, Keita Harada, Han-Mo Chiu, Shinsuke Kiriyama, Tomoki Michida, Kinichi Hotta and 10 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Unlocking quality in endoscopic mucosal resection.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 16 institutions in 3 countries.

Takeshi NakajimaEndoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan.
Taku SakamotoEndoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan.
Shinichiro HoriDepartment of Endoscopy, NHO Shikoku Cancer Center, Matsuyama, Ehime, Japan.
Shinya YamadaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Ishikawa Prefectural Central Hospital, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, Japan.
Hiroaki IkematsuDepartment of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Chiba, Japan.
Keita HaradaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Okayama University Hospital, Okayama, Japan.
Han-Mo ChiuDepartment of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Shinsuke KiriyamaDepartment of Surgery, Gunma Chuo Hospital, Maebashi, Gunma, Japan.
Tomoki MichidaDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Osaka International Cancer Institute, Osaka, Japan.
Kinichi HottaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Saku Central Hospital, Nagano, Japan.
Naoto SakamotoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Juntendo University Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Takashi AbeGastroenterology Center, Hanwa Sumiyoshi General Hospital, Osaka, Japan.
Akiko ChinoGastroenterological Medicine, Cancer Institute Hospital, Ariake, Tokyo, Japan.
Masakatsu FukuzawaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Nozomu KobayashiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Tochigi Cancer Center, Utsunomiya, Tochigi, Japan.
Kazutoshi FukaseYamagata Prefectural Central Hospital, Yamagata, Japan.
Takahisa MatsudaEndoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan.
Yoshitaka MurakamiDepartment of Medical Statistics, Toho University, Tokyo, Japan.
Hideki IshikawaDepartment of Molecular-Targeting Cancer Prevention, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Yutaka SaitoEndoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0045, Japan. ytsaito@ncc.go.jp.ORCID 0000-0002-9574-7451
Gunma Chuo Hospital · JPIshikawa Prefectural Central Hospital · JPJuntendo University Hospital · JPKyoto Prefectural University of Medicine · JPNational Cancer Center · USNational Cancer Center Hospital East · JPNational Taiwan University Hospital · TWOkayama University Hospital · JPOsaka International Cancer Institute · JPSaku Central Hospital · JPShikoku Cancer Center · JPThe Cancer Institute Hospital · JPTochigi Cancer Center · JPToho University · JPTokyo Medical University · JPYamagata Prefectural Central Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsColorectal neoplastic lesions (≥ 20 mm) are commonly treated via piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (p-EMR) but have a high rate of local recurrence. We aimed to clarify the optimal surveillance interval after p-EMR for these neoplasias.

methodsIn this multicenter (15 participating institutions) prospective, randomized trial, 180 patients recruited over a 4-year period and were classified based on tumor location, tumor diameter, histological diagnosis, institution, and number of resected specimens. The patients underwent curative p-EMR followed by scheduled surveillance colonoscopy at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after p-EMR (group A; n = 90) or at 6, 12, and 24 months after p-EMR (group B; n = 90). The primary endpoint was cumulative local recurrence at 6 months after p-EMR. Secondary endpoints included local recurrence and the cumulative surgical resection rate of recurrent tumors during the 24-month follow-up period.

resultsThe median tumor diameter was 25 mm (IQR 20-30). Six months after p-EMR, 12 and 6 local recurrences were noted in groups A and B, which corresponded to 13 and 8 recurrences, respectively, during the 24-month surveillance period. The primary and secondary endpoints of recurrence were not significantly different between the groups on either intention-to-treat or per-protocol analysis; no surgery case was observed in group B when a strict surveillance protocol of 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up post-EMR was followed.

conclusionsFor patients who underwent p-EMR for neoplastic lesions, additional postprocedural 3-month surveillance did not show superior results in detecting recurrence compared with a 6-month surveillance interval. CLINICAL

trial registrationUMIN000015740.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEndoscopic Mucosal ResectionColonoscopyHumansIntestinal MucosaNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeColorectal neoplasiaLocal recurrencePiecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (p-EMR)Surveillance colonoscopySurveillance interval

Identifiers

PMID33569725
OpenAlexW3128390753

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.