ArticleOncology letters2022
Long-term outcome of the endoscopic submucosal dissection of early gastric cancer: A comparison between patients with and without liver cirrhosis.
Article in Oncology letters, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of gastric mucosal lesions in liver cirrhosis patients.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Review
- Outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection in cirrhotic patients: First American cohort.World journal of hepatology · 2024Article
- Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Treatment of Early-Stage Cancer or Precancerous Lesion in the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gastric cancer (GC) and liver cirrhosis (LC) have high incidence rates, particularly in Eastern Asia; however, the long-term clinical outcomes or recurrence of GC following endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in patients with comorbid LC remain unclear. The present study aimed to compare the long-term efficacy and safety of ESD in patients with GC, with and without LC. Patients with early GC (EGC) who had underlying LC and underwent endoscopic treatment (LC-EGC group) were enrolled in the present study. In addition, patients with EGC without LC (non-LC-EGC group) were matched at a ratio of 1:3 via propensity score matching. The clinical outcomes and histopathological data of both groups were analyzed. No significant differences were observed in procedure type, complications [intraprocedural bleeding (11.8%) and perforation (0.0%)], en bloc resection rate (94.1%) and complete resection rate (100%) between the two groups. Multivariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that procedure time was significantly associated with procedure-associated bleeding [adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 1.017; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.001-1.032; P=0.033]. Furthermore, LC was significantly associated with cancer recurrence (adjusted HR, 5.482; 95% CI, 1.102-27.279; P=0.038). Taken together, the results of the present study suggest that endoscopic resection of EGC in patients with LC is an effective and safe treatment method. However, further studies are required to assess recurrence.
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.