ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Comparison between cap-aspiration lumpectomy versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of small gastric submucosal tumors: a prospective randomized controlled trial.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSmall (≤ 10 mm) gastric submucosal tumors (SMTs) are common clinical findings. Endoscopic resection has emerged as a promising alternative which enables early resection, but data comparing various methods remain limited. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of cap-aspiration lumpectomy (CASL) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of small gastric SMTs.
methodsWe conducted a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled, non-inferiority clinical trial. A total of 102 patients who were referred for treatment of small gastric SMTs were prospectively enrolled. They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo CASL or ESD.
resultsAll 102 SMTs, with average tumor size 8.70 ± 0.15 mm, were successfully resected. Most of the SMTs were gastrointestinal stromal tumor (54.9%) and leiomyomas (36.3%). Both CASL and ESD achieved comparable rates of R0 resection (96.1%) and full-thickness resection (EFTR) (CASL 51.0% vs. ESD 45.1%). However, CASL demonstrated significant advantages, including shorter mean resection time (CASL: 12.43 ± 0.82 min vs. ESD: 22.20 ± 1.45 min), fewer endoclips used, reduced estimated blood loss, and lower procedural costs. No significant difference was observed in the perioperative complications, antibiotic usage, postoperative stay, and time to first liquid diet. Endoscopic follow-up after 3 months revealed no recurrence in both groups.
conclusionsThis study suggests that both CASL and ESD are safe and effective as primary treatment of small gastric SMTs. Comparing the two methods, CASL has the advantage of shorter operation time and lower operation cost. Further larger-scale studies are warranted to validate these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40775469What 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.