ArticleDEN open2027
Evaluation of Additional Treatment for Residual Cases After Endoscopic Papillectomy of Duodenal Ampullary Tumors.
Article in DEN open, 2027. 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
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: This study aimed to assess the prognosis and outcomes of additional treatment for residual adenocarcinoma and adenoma following endoscopic papillectomy (EP) for ampullary tumors. Methods: Of 191 patients who underwent EP, 43 with adenocarcinoma or adenoma and either positive or unknown pathological margins were included. Cases with positive or unknown pathological margins and residuals on endoscopic observation after EP were defined as endoscopic residuals, and cases without endoscopic residuals were defined as pathological residuals. The outcomes between these groups were compared to evaluate additional treatment. Results: A total of 12 cases of adenocarcinoma were identified, with pathological residuals in 10 cases and endoscopic residuals in two cases. Of the two cases with endoscopic residuals, one underwent additional surgical resection, while the other was observed and subsequently showed disease progression. Among the 10 cases with pathological residual adenocarcinoma, four underwent additional surgery, but no cancer was detected in the resected specimens. The remaining six cases showed no disease progression during the observation period, suggesting that pathological residual adenocarcinoma may have been completely eradicated by EP. Residual adenoma was detected in 31 cases, with pathological residuals in 20 cases and endoscopic residuals in 11 cases. Adenoma recurrence occurred in three cases, all of which were successfully managed with endoscopic treatment. Conclusions: If the pathological margin is positive or unknown, additional treatment is necessary for cases with endoscopic residuals after EP. However, in the absence of endoscopic residuals, follow-up observation may be carefully considered in selected cases with caution. Trial Registration: N/A.
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.