Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35217020›Full record

ArticleGastrointestinal endoscopy2022

Outcomes for endoscopic submucosal dissection of pathologically staged T1b esophageal cancer: a multicenter study.

Abel Joseph, Peter V Draganov, Fauze Maluf-Filho, Hiroyuki Aihara, Norio Fukami, Neil R Sharma, Amitabh Chak, Dennis Yang, Salmaan Jawaid, John Dumot and 11 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Endoscopic submucosal dissectionTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Abel JosephDepartment of Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Peter V DraganovDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Fauze Maluf-FilhoDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Hiroyuki AiharaDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Norio FukamiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.
Neil R SharmaDivision of Interventional Oncology & Surgical Endoscopy (IOSE), Parkview Cancer Institute, Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA.
Amitabh ChakDigestive Health Institute, University Hospitals, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Dennis YangDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Salmaan JawaidDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
John DumotDigestive Health Institute, University Hospitals, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Omar AlaberDigestive Health Institute, University Hospitals, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Tiffany ChuaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.
Rituraj SinghDivision of Interventional Oncology & Surgical Endoscopy (IOSE), Parkview Cancer Institute, Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA.
Lady Katherine Mejia-PerezDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Ruishen LyuDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Xuefeng ZhangDepartment of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Suneel KamathTaussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Sunguk JangDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Sudish MurthyDepartment of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart, Vascular and Thoracic Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
John VargoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Amit BhattDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Cleveland Clinic · USUniversity Hospitals of Cleveland · USMayo Clinic in Arizona · USParkview Health · USUniversity of Florida · USBaylor College of Medicine · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USUniversidade de São Paulo · BR

Funding

Targeting 15-PGDH in Colon Cancer Prognosis, Prediction, Treatment and PreventionP50CA150964 · NCI · CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY · PI MARKOWITZ, SANFORD D. · 2011 to 2022
$24.6M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA150964
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsThe outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for T1b esophageal cancer (EC) and its recurrence rates remain unclear in the West. Using a multicenter cohort, we evaluated technical outcomes and recurrence rates of ESD in the treatment of pathologically staged T1b EC.

methodsWe included patients who underwent ESD of T1b EC at 7 academic tertiary referral centers in the United States (n = 6) and Brazil (n = 1). We analyzed demographic, procedural, and histopathologic characteristics and follow-up data. Time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence rates.

resultsSixty-six patients with pathologically staged T1b EC after ESD were included in the study. A preprocedure staging EUS was available in 54 patients and was Tis/T1a in 27 patients (50%) and T1b in 27 patients (50%). En-bloc resection rate was 92.4% (61/66) and R0 resection rate was 54.5% (36/66). Forty-nine of 66 patients (74.2%) did not undergo surgery immediately after resection and went on to surveillance. Ten patients had ESD resection within the curative criteria, and no recurrences were seen in a 13-month (range, 3-18.5) follow-up period in these patients. Ten of 39 patients (25.6%) with noncurative resections had residual/recurrent disease. Of the 10 patients with noncurative resection, local recurrence alone was seen in 5 patients (12.8%) and metastatic recurrence in 5 patients (12.8%). On univariate analysis, R1 resection had a higher risk of recurrent disease (hazard ratio, 6.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-30.36; P = .023).

conclusionsEUS staging of T1b EC has poor accuracy, and a staging ESD should be considered in these patients. ESD R0 resection rates were low in T1b EC, and R1 resection was associated with recurrent disease. Patients with noncurative ESD resection of T1b EC who cannot undergo surgery should be surveyed closely, because recurrent disease was seen in 25% of these patients.

Indexed as

Endoscopic Mucosal ResectionEsophageal NeoplasmsBrazilHumansNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm, ResidualRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID35217020
PMCPMC9488538
OpenAlexW4213233639

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.