ArticleSurgical endoscopy2022
Long-term outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection for early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma.
Article 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A prospective cohort study evaluating disease-specific mortality in patients with early-stage Barrett's esophagus-related neoplasia following endoscopic therapy.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Mucosal Versus Submucosal Lymphovascular Invasion in Early Esophageal Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Ten-year follow-up of endoscopic mucosal resection versus esophagectomy for esophageal intramucosal adenocarcinoma in the setting of Barrett's esophagus: a Canadian experience.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Efficacy of self-assembling peptide in mitigating delayed bleeding after advanced endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal lesions: A meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2023Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith growing application of endoscopic therapy for early-stage esophageal cancer, we sought to review our experience of endoscopic mucosal resections (EMRs). The aim of our study was to understand the natural course of these patients, especially with positive margins.
methodsA prospectively maintained database of all patients undergoing endoscopic therapies at Georgetown University Hospital for esophageal cancer was used for the analysis between 2010 and 2020.
resultsOf 80 patients in the EMR database, 35 were performed as index cases for esophageal adenocarcinoma. Majority (74.3%) had a pre-treatment ultrasound confirming absence of regional adenopathy. There were no post-EMR bleeding or perforation events requiring re-intervention. Complete R0 resection was achieved in 22/35 (62.9%) after initial EMR. Thirteen patients had positive margins. Of these 13 patients, only 7 patients underwent repeat endoscopic resection, 2 underwent subsequent esophagectomy, 2 received definitive radiation given poor surgical candidacy, and 2 were lost to follow-up. Overall and 5-year survival of all patients undergoing EMR was 67.9 months and 85%, respectively. Subset analysis of the 13 patients with R1 resection demonstrated an overall survival of 49.2 months and 60% 5-year survival vs overall survival of 78.9 months and 93% 5-year survival for R0 resection. At a median follow-up of 60.5 months, cancer recurrence occurred in 3 patients. All of them were successfully managed with repeat EMR.
conclusionsEndoscopic resections represent a safe and effective treatment for early-stage esophageal cancer. Patients with high-risk features should be counseled to undergo an esophagectomy if they are operable candidates.
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.