ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Prognostic comparison of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus surgery for undifferentiated early gastric cancer: a Taiwan multicenter study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely accepted for early gastric cancer (EGC), its role in managing undifferentiated-type EGC (UD-EGC) is still debated. This multicenter study aimed to compare the short- and long-term outcomes of ESD and surgery in patients with UD-EGC.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients with UD-EGC who underwent ESD or surgery at 11 tertiary centers in Taiwan between 2007 and 2025. Inclusion criteria included intramucosal tumors ≤ 20 mm without ulceration or lymphovascular invasion. Demographic, endoscopic, and pathological data were collected, and long-term outcomes were compared.
resultsA total of 37 ESD and 42 surgery patients were analyzed. En bloc resection was achieved in all cases. R0 resection rates were 86% for ESD and 98% for surgery in unadjusted analysis (P = 0.06), while propensity score-weighted analysis showed significantly higher R0 resection in the surgery group (85.8% vs. 98.7%, P = 0.017). The ESD group demonstrated significantly shorter procedure times (84.6 vs. 285.7 min, P < 0.001) and hospital stays (6.8 vs. 17.6 days, P < 0.001). Complication rates were comparable between groups (11% for ESD vs. 14% for surgery, P = 0.74). In unadjusted analyses, the cumulative incidence of recurrence was higher in the ESD group than in the surgery group (P = 0.03), whereas overall survival (OS) was similar between groups (5-year OS: 93% for ESD vs. 90% for surgery; log-rank P = 0.12). After propensity score overlap weighting, the difference in recurrence between groups was attenuated and no longer statistically significant (P = 0.22).
conclusionsAlthough ESD is less invasive with shorter procedure time and hospital stay, its lower R0 resection rate and higher recurrence risk require careful patient selection and close surveillance. Similar OS supports the potential role of ESD in selected UD-EGC patients, although further validation is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42168610What 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.