ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal surgery2025
Endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal precancerous lesions and early esophageal carcinoma: Analysis of efficacy and serum tumor markers.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTumor progression in patients with esophageal precancerous lesions (EPLs) or early esophageal carcinoma (EEC) is typically confined in both extent and location. Prompt and effective intervention significantly improves treatment outcomes and prognosis for these individuals.
aimTo determine the effect of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) on efficacy, serum tumor markers (STMs), and 6-month postoperative recurrence rate in patients with either EPL or EEC.
methodsThis study initially enrolled 120 patients with EPL or EEC, who were admitted from April 2021 to April 2024. Participants were divided into the control group (60 cases), which underwent thoracotomy, and the research group (60 cases) which received ESD treatment. The comparative analysis involved information regarding the efficacy (dissection area and resection rate per unit time), complications (delayed bleeding, wound infection, esophageal reflux, and postoperative esophageal stenosis), surgery-related parameters (bleeding volume, operation duration, and hospital length of stay), STMs [carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 724 (CA724), and tumor-specific growth factor (TSGF)], and the 6-month postoperative recurrence rate of the two groups.
resultsData indicated statistically higher dissection area and resection rate per unit of time in the research group than in the control group. Meanwhile, the research group demonstrated a notably lower overall incidence rate of complications, bleeding volume, operation duration, and hospital length of stay. Further, the CEA, CA724, and TSGF were markedly reduced in the research group after treatment, which were statistically lower compared to the baseline and those of the control group. Finally, during the follow-up, a comparable 6-month postoperative recurrence rate was determined in the two groups.
conclusionESD is clinically effective and safe for EPL and EEC and can significantly restore abnormally increased levels of STMs.
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.