ArticleDEN open2024
Endoscopic landmarks corresponding to anatomical landmarks for esophageal subsite classification.
Article in DEN open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial cancer of the remnant esophagus after esophagectomy.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2025Article
- Advancing precision medicine in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma using patient-derived organoids.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Individual treatment strategies for esophageal cancer have been investigated based on the anatomical subsite classification. Accurate subsite classification based on these anatomical landmarks is thus important. We investigated the suitability of the existing endoscopic classification and explored alternative landmarks for esophageal subsite classification. Methods: Patients who received endoscopic ultrasonography (and computed tomography scans for surveillance of esophageal cancer treatment or esophageal submucosal tumors were included. Distances between anatomical landmarks, including the inferior cricoid cartilage border, superior border of the sternum, and tracheal bifurcation, were measured using a combination of endoscopic ultrasonography, computed tomography, and other information. Results: The mean (standard deviation) distances from the superior incisor dentition to the pharynx-esophagus, cervical-upper thoracic esophagus, and upper-middle thoracic esophagus boundaries were 16.9 (1.7), 21.7 (1.9), and 29.0 (1.9) cm, respectively. However, variances in the differences between the mean and individual distances were large (2.8, 3.4, and 3.7, respectively), mainly because of differences in body height. However, variances in the differences between individual distances and novel endoscopic landmarks, including the lower end of the pyriform sinus and lower end of compression of the left main bronchus, were lower (1.7, 1.2, and 0.6, respectively). Conclusions: Existing indicators of esophageal subsite boundaries were not consistent with anatomical boundaries. Modification of the distance from the superior incisor dentition based on average distances from anatomical landmarks or the use of alternative endoscopic landmarks is recommended to provide more suitable anatomical boundaries.
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.