The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Update on the Paris Classification of Superficial Neoplastic Lesions in the Digestive Tract
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Neoplastic lesions in the digestive-tract mucosa are termed "superficial" when the depth of invasion is limited to the mucosa and submucosa. The endoscopic appearance has a predictive value for invasion into the submucosa, which is critical for the risk of nodal metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The endoscopic morphology of superficial lesions can be assessed with a standard video endoscope after spraying of a dye--an iodine-potassium iodide solution for the stratified squamous epithelium, or an indigo carmine solution for the columnar epithelium. In 2002, a workshop was held in Paris to explore the relevance of the Japanese classification. The conclusions were revised in 2003 in Osaka in relation to the definition of the subtypes used in endoscopy and the evaluation of the depth of invasion into the submucosa. In Japan, the description of advanced cancer in the digestive-tract mucosa using types 1 - 4 is supplemented by a type 0 when the endoscopic appearance is that of a superficial lesion. Type 0 is divided into three categories: protruding (0 - I), nonprotruding and nonexcavated (0 - II), and excavated (0 - III). Type 0 - II lesions are then subdivided into slightly elevated (IIa), flat (IIb), or depressed (IIc). Nonprotruding depressed lesions are associated with a higher risk of submucosal invasion. After endoscopic resection, invasion into the submucosa is an important criterion for the necessity of additional surgical resection. Micrometer analysis of the depth of invasion in the specimen is more precise, and distinct cut-off limits have been established in the esophagus, stomach, and large bowel. CONCLUSIONS: The morphology of superficial and nonprotruding neoplastic lesions is relevant to the prognosis. Following endoscopic detection, the lesions are analyzed using chromoendoscopy and assigned a subtype of the type 0 classification. The choice between endoscopic or surgical treatment is based on this description.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Banks, M., Graham, D., Jansen, M., Gotoda, T., Coda, S., di Pietro, M., Uedo, N., Bhandari, P., Pritchard, D. M., Kuipers, E. J., et al. (2019) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2018-318126 · Cited by 647
Wang, P., Liu, X., Berzin, T. M., Glissen Brown, J. R., Liu, P., Zhou, C., Lei, L., Li, L., Guo, Z., Lei, S., et al. (2020) · The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1016/s2468-1253(19)30411-x · Cited by 415
Bisschops, R., Areia, M., Coron, E., Dobru, D., Kaskas, B., Kuvaev, R., Pech, O., Ragunath, K., Weusten, B., Familiari, P., et al. (2016) · Endoscopy · doi:10.1055/s-0042-113128 · Cited by 365
Kaminski, M. F., Thomas‐Gibson, S., Bugajski, M., Bretthauer, M., Rees, C. J., Dekker, E., Hoff, G., Jover, R., Suchanek, S., Ferlitsch, M., et al. (2017) · United European Gastroenterology Journal · doi:10.1177/2050640617700014 · Cited by 346
Chiu, H.-M., Chang, C.-Y., Chen, C.-C., Lee, Y.-C., Wu, M.-S., Lin, J.-T., Shun, C.-T., & Wang, H.-P. (2007) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2006.099614 · Cited by 324
Metadata
- Authors
- Endoscopic Classification Review Group
- Venue
- Endoscopy
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 2005-06
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 570-578
- ISSN
- 0013-726X (ISSN-L)
- 1438-8812
- OpenAlex
- W2256100814
- Cited by
- 963
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- de
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Update on the Paris Classification of Superficial Neoplastic Lesions in the Digestive Tract. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1055/s-2005-861352
- The paper
- Endoscopic Classification Review Group. (2005). Update on the Paris Classification of Superficial Neoplastic Lesions in the Digestive Tract. Endoscopy. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2005-861352
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.