ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Optimizing endoscopic detection of early gastric cancer: stratification and preventive strategies for Peri-ESD diagnostic oversights.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Peri-endoscopic submucosal dissection missed early gastric cancers (peri-ESD MEGCs), defined as ESD-indicated lesions overlooked during pre-ESD diagnostic workup or post-ESD surveillance, may arise from deficiencies at any procedural phase (preparation, observation, diagnosis, or sampling). To address this, we developed a temporal-procedural bidirectional assessment protocol specifically targeting peri-ESD MEGCs, aiming to optimize endoscopic quality and prevent diagnostic omissions. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, 1,011 EGC lesions treated with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) between 2017 and 2024 were analyzed. The primary analysis defined the MEGC time window as 24 months. Peri-ESD MEGCs were stratified into two temporal phases, pre-ESD examination vs. post-ESD surveillance, and four etiological categories, inadequate preparation, inadequate observation, diagnosis error, and sampling error, for each endoscopic cause of MEGC. To assess the robustness of our findings, a sensitivity analysis was performed by redefining the MEGC time window as 12 months. Results: Among 94 peri-ESD MEGCs, pre-ESD MEGCs (n=52) predominantly demonstrated inadequate observation (51.9%), which was associated with greater curvature location (OR: 5.45; 95% CI: 1.76-16.91), nonuse of near-focus narrow-band imaging (NF-NBI, OR: 16.78; 95% CI: 5.50-51.26), and severe intestinal metaplasia (OR: 3.84; 95% CI: 1.09-13.52). Post-ESD MEGCs (n=42) predominantly demonstrated a diagnosis error (52.4%), correlated with trainees (OR: 3.53; 95% CI: 1.06-11.68), small lesions (<15 mm, OR: 3.83; 95% CI: 1.10-13.36), nonuse of NF-NBI (OR: 17.44; 95% CI: 4.81-63.17), and severe atrophic gastritis (OR: 7.78; 95% CI: 1.91-31.20). The sensitivity analysis using a 12-month MEGC time window yielded results consistent with the primary analysis, demonstrating the robustness of the identified risk factors for peri-ESD missed lesions. Conclusions: Optimizing peri-ESD gastroscopic observation (via NF-NBI) and post-ESD diagnostic accuracy (through operator training) could significantly reduce peri-ESD MEGCs, particularly those reflecting characteristics of ESD-eligible lesions.
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.