ArticleBJS open2026
Interhospital variations in practice and technical outcomes for endoscopic resection of early oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma: multicentre CONGRESS data set analysis.
Article in BJS open, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic resection (ER) offers organ-preserving, potentially curative treatment for early (T1 N0) oesophagogastric (OG) adenocarcinoma, yet the extent of interhospital variation in practice is unclear. This study assessed variations in clinical practice and outcomes of ER for OG cancer across centres using a large multicentre data set.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted using the CONGRESS database, a UK-based international multicentre registry of patients with T1 N0 OG cancer between 2015 and 2022. Demographics, pathology, and outcomes for patients treated with ER were analysed. Centres were ranked according to ER volume, and patients were stratified into tertiles (low-, medium- and high-volume) with comparable numbers of patients in each group. Outcomes between low- and high-volume centres were compared using non-parametric tests and multivariable regression. The primary outcomes of interest were rates of R1 resection, procedural complications, and progression to surgery.
resultsIn all, 1215 patients from 28 centres were included. The median ER volume per centre for OG cancer was 72 (interquartile range 43-150) over the 8-year period. R1 resection rates ranged from 0 to 67% (mean 28.1%, median 26.5%), and complication rates ranged from 0 to 50% (mean 7.8%, median 4.0%). Patients in the high-volume tertile had lower rates of R1 resection (17.3% versus 26.4%; P = 0.001), complications (3.8% versus 8.2%; P = 0.007), and progression to surgery (9.8% versus 20.7%; P < 0.001) than patients in the low-volume tertile. These differences remained after adjustment for patient and tumour variables, with odds ratios of 0.63 (95% confidence interval (c.i.) 0.42 to 0.94; P = 0.023), 0.42 (95% c.i. 0.22 to 0.79; P = 0.007), and 0.40 (95% c.i. 0.26 to 0.63; P < 0.001) for R1 resection, procedural complications, and subsequent surgery, respectively.
conclusionThis study highlights significant interhospital variation in clinical outcomes for ER in OG cancer. A greater understanding of underlying factors is needed to optimize patient outcomes.
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.