ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
Value of EUS in determining infiltration depth of early carcinoma and associated precancerous lesions in the upper gastrointestinal tract.
Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. 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.
- A novel esophagus-preserving strategy for T1b esophageal cancer combining endoscopic submucosal dissection and thoracoscopic lymph nodes sampling: the first case series.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- A randomized trial of combined indocyanine green and endoscopic ultrasound for lymph node evaluation in gastric cancer surgery.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Ex vivo study of Porcine esophagus magnetic resonance imaging with a compact endoluminal coil.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Value of Computed Tomography Scan for Detecting Lymph Node Metastasis in Early Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- From macroautophagy to mitophagy: Unveiling the hidden role of mitophagy in gastrointestinal disorders.World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Value of quantitative microsurface structure analysis for evaluating the invasion depth of type 0-II early gastric cancer.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2024Article
- Gut microbiota and female health.World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Construction and validation of a risk-scoring model to predict lymph node metastasis in T1b-T2 esophageal cancer.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Comprehensive review of materials, applications, and future innovations in biodegradable esophageal stents.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Review
- Occult synchronous multiple primary esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with mediastinal metastasis (with video).Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
- Recent research progress of photoacoustic endoscopy in the digestive system.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The objective is to evaluate the value of EUS in the determination of infiltration depth of early carcinoma and precancerous lesions in the upper gastrointestinal tract and to analyze the various factors affecting the accuracy of EUS. Methods: One hundred and sixty-three patients diagnosed with early gastric cancer or early esophageal cancer, and associated precancerous lesions, who were seen in our hospital in the recent 10 years were selected. These patients received EUS before endoscopic submucosal dissection or surgery. With a pathological diagnosis as the gold standard, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and misjudgment rate of EUS in determining the invasion depth were evaluated using the pathological stratification (mucosa, M1/2; muscularis mucosa, M3; submucosa, [SM]; and muscularis propria) or TN stratification (mucosa, T1a; SM, T1b), and the possible causes of miscalculation were analyzed. Results: Based on the pathological stratification, the overall accuracy of EUS was 78.5%, and the overestimation and underestimation rates were 17.8% and 3.7%, respectively. Based on the TN stratification, the overall accuracy of EUS was 81%, and the overestimation and underestimation rates were 16.6% and 2.5%, respectively. There was a significant difference between the groups in terms of overestimation and underestimation rates (P < 0.05), indicating that EUS was more likely to overestimate the depth. Univariate analysis showed that the factors affecting accuracy included lesion size, macroscopic features, sunken mucosa, mucosa with granular and nodular changes, and ulceration. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that larger lesions, mucosa with granular and nodular changes, and ulceration were independent risk factors for the overestimation of infiltration depth by EUS. Conclusion: EUS is highly accurate in determining the infiltration depth of early cancer and precancerous lesions in the upper gastrointestinal tract. It also has a good reference value for treatment selection and prognostication. However, attention should be paid to its overestimation, especially accompanied by the aforementioned factors.
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.