ArticleJournal of the anus, rectum and colon2025
Efficacy of Hybrid Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection to Ensure Adequate Submucosal Layer for T1b Colorectal Carcinomas of 20-30 mm in Diameter.
Article in Journal of the anus, rectum and colon, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Although hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has gained popularity over the years, its usefulness in ensuring an adequate submucosal [SM] layer for T1b (SM invasion depth ≥1,000 μm) colorectal carcinoma (CRC) remains unknown. We retrospectively compared conventional ESD (C-ESD) with planned hybrid ESD (PH-ESD) for cT1b CRCs measuring 20-30 mm. Methods: We analyzed 71 consecutive cases of cT1b CRC (20-30 mm). The patients were classified into C-ESD (n=38), PH-ESD (n=21), or salvage hybrid ESD (n=12) groups. We compared the clinicopathological characteristics, including resected SM and vertical margin (VM) distance, and outcomes between the C-ESD and PH-ESD groups. We also investigated the factors leading to VM positivity (VM1). Results: The PH-ESD group exhibited a significantly shorter procedure time (40.5 vs. 60.5 min) and a significantly higher rate of VM ≥500 μm (81.0% vs. 47.4%) compared to the C-ESD group. Regarding superficial tumors, the PH-ESD group exhibited significantly longer resected SM (1,243 vs. 837 μm) and VM (545 vs. 302 μm) distances and a significantly higher rate of VM ≥500 μm (72.7% vs. 14.3%) than the C-ESD group. All VM1 lesions were resected using C-ESD or salvage hybrid ESD. VM1 lesions exhibited significantly higher rates of poorly differentiated histology at the deepest invasive front (71.9% vs. 14.3%) and perioperative perforation (28.6% vs. 0%) than VM-negative lesions. Conclusions: PH-ESD for 20-30-mm T1b CRCs may be more useful than C-ESD in terms of procedure time, especially for superficial lesions, ensuring a longer resected SM distance and VM ≥500 μm.
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.