ArticleDEN open2026
Evaluating the Additional Value of Endoscopic Ultrasonography for Depth Assessment of Esophagogastric Junction Adenocarcinoma.
Article in DEN open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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: Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is sometimes used to assess the depth of invasion in esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma (EGJA); however, its diagnostic performance in EGJA remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the additional value of EUS to conventional endoscopy (CE) in assessing invasion depth. Methods: In this single-institution retrospective study, we compared the diagnostic performance of CE alone with that of CE + EUS for preoperative depth assessment of early-stage EGJA. In addition, we examined the clinicopathologic features associated with incorrect depth assessment. Results: The study included 93 cases of early-stage EGJA. Comparing the diagnostic performance for diagnosing submucosal cancer (CE vs. CE + EUS), CE + EUS had a significantly lower specificity than CE alone (78.4% vs. 62.2%). However, no significant differences were observed in sensitivity (73.2% vs. 71.4%) and accuracy (75.3% vs. 67.7%) between the two modalities. The addition of EUS was associated with significantly higher misdiagnosis rates in the following types of lesions: lesions located on the esophageal side (42.6% vs. 25.5%), elevated lesions (29.2% vs. 15.4%), complex lesions (32.7% vs. 16.3%), and lesions with hiatal hernia (31.1% vs. 19.7%). No clinicopathological factors were significantly associated with overdiagnosis or underdiagnosis. Conclusions: The addition of EUS to CE reduced the ability to accurately identify mucosal cancers in early-stage EGJA, suggesting a risk of overdiagnosis and unnecessary therapeutic escalation.
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.