Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38981974›Full record

ArticleEsophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society2024

Multicenter retrospective analysis of complications and risk factors in endoscopic resection for esophageal cancer across Japan.

Ryu Ishihara, Tsuneo Oyama, Manabu Takeuchi, Dai Hirasawa, Kengo Kanetaka, Masaya Uesato, Yosuke Tsuji, Noriko Matsuura, Seiichiro Abe, Tomohiro Kadota and 5 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Ryu IshiharaDepartment of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Osaka International Cancer Institute, 3-1-69 Otemae, Chuo-ku, Osaka, 541-8567, Japan. ryu1486@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-8796-718X
Tsuneo OyamaDepartment of Endoscopy, Saku Central Hospital Advanced Care Center, Nagano, Japan.
Manabu TakeuchiDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Nagaoka Red Cross Hospital, Nagaoka, Japan.
Dai HirasawaMatsuzono Daini Hospital, Morioka, Japan.
Kengo KanetakaTissue Engineering and Regenerative Therapeutics in Gastrointestinal Surgery, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki, Japan.
Masaya UesatoDepartment of Frontier Surgery, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba, Japan.
Yosuke TsujiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Noriko MatsuuraDivision of Research and Development for Minimally Invasive Treatment, Cancer Center, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Seiichiro AbeEndoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Tomohiro KadotaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Chiba, Japan.
Toshiyuki YoshioDepartment of Gastroenterology, Cancer Institute Hospital, Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research, Tokyo, Japan.
Tsutomu TanakaDepartment of Endoscopy, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Nagoya, Japan.
Yuji UrabeDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hiroshima University Hospital, Hiroshima, Japan.
Yugo SuzukiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Toranomon Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Manabu MutoDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Kyoto University Hospital, Kyoto, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoscopic resection (ER) is a minimally invasive treatment for esophageal cancer that sometimes causes complications. To understand the real-world incidence and risk factors for these complications, a nationwide survey was conducted across Japan.

methodsThis retrospective multicenter study included patients who underwent ER for esophageal cancer from April 2017 to March 2018 (2017 complication analysis) and April 2021 to March 2022 (2021 complication analysis). The study assessed the complication rates and conducted risk factor analyses for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) using data for these patients, with exclusions based on specific criteria to ensure data accuracy.

resultsIn the 2021 complication analysis, there were two mortalities highly likely attributable (0.03%) to ER and one mortality possibly attributable (0.01%) to ER. Intraoperative perforation, delayed bleeding, and pneumonia occurred in 137 cases (1.8%), 44 cases (0.6%), and 130 cases (1.7%), respectively. In the multivariate analysis for complications after ESD, low ER volume of the facility was an independent risk factor for perforation, while lesion location in the cervical or upper thoracic esophagus was an independent factor for reduced risk of perforation. Age ≥ 80 years was a risk factor for pneumonia, while use of traction techniques was a factor for reduced risk of pneumonia. Lesions located in the middle thoracic esophagus had a lower risk of stricture, and the risk of stricture increased as the circumferential extent of the lesion increased.

conclusionsThis large-scale study provided detailed insights into the complications associated with esophageal ER and identified significant risk factors.

Indexed as

Endoscopic Mucosal ResectionEsophageal NeoplasmsPostoperative ComplicationsAgedAged, 80 and overEsophageal PerforationEsophagoscopyFemaleHumansIncidenceJapanMaleMiddle AgedPneumoniaRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsComplicationsEndoscopic resection (ER)Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)Esophageal cancerMulticenter retrospective analysisRisk factors

Identifiers

PMID38981974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.