Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37989565›Full record

ArticleGut2024

Understanding the malignant potential of gastric metaplasia of the oesophagus and its relevance to Barrett's oesophagus surveillance: individual-level data analysis.

Emily L Black, Emma Ococks, Ginny Devonshire, Alvin Wei Tian Ng, Maria O'Donovan, Shalini Malhotra, Monika Tripathi, Ahmad Miremadi, Adam Freeman, Hannah Coles and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gut, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Pathogenesis of Barrett's Esophagus: Evolving and Emerging Mechanisms.Gastrointestinal endoscopy clinics of North America · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Emily L BlackEarly Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9929-8043
Emma OcocksEarly Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Ginny DevonshireCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Alvin Wei Tian NgEarly Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Maria O'DonovanDepartment of Histopathology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Shalini MalhotraDepartment of Histopathology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Monika TripathiDepartment of Histopathology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Ahmad MiremadiDepartment of Histopathology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Adam FreemanEarly Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Hannah ColesEarly Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Oesophageal Cancer Clinical and Molecular Stratification (OCCAMS) Consortium
Rebecca C FitzgeraldEarly Cancer Institute, Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK rcf29@cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-3434-3568
University of Cambridge · GBCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 15874Cancer Research UK 22720Cancer Research UK 23924Cancer Research UK RG66287Cancer Research UK RG81771/84119Medical Research Council G111260Medical Research Council MR/W014122/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWhether gastric metaplasia (GM) of the oesophagus should be considered as Barrett's oesophagus (BO) is controversial. Given concern intestinal metaplasia (IM) may be missed due to sampling, the UK guidelines include GM as a type of BO. Here, we investigated whether the risk of misdiagnosis and the malignant potential of GM warrant its place in the UK surveillance.

designWe performed a thorough pathology and endoscopy review to follow clinical outcomes in a novel UK cohort of 244 patients, covering 1854 person years of follow-up. We complemented this with a comparative genomic analysis of 160 GM and IM specimens, focused on early molecular hallmarks of BO and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC).

resultsWe found that 58 of 77 short-segment (

conclusionSS-GM is a distinct entity from SS-IM and the malignant potential of GM is lower than IM. It is questionable whether SS-GM warrants inclusion in BO surveillance.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaBarrett EsophagusEsophageal NeoplasmsEndoscopy, GastrointestinalHumansMetaplasiaBARRETT'S METAPLASIABARRETT'S OESOPHAGUSGASTRIC METAPLASIAOESOPHAGEAL CANCERSURVEILLANCE

Identifiers

PMID37989565
PMCPMC11041591
OpenAlexW4388858660

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.