The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Rationale for Esophagectomy as the Optimal Therapy for Barrett's Esophagus with High-Grade Dysplasia
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: The authors determined the incidence of invasive adenocarcinoma after esophagectomy in patients endoscopically diagnosed as having Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Barrett's esophagus is a well-recognized premalignant condition. There is controversy with regard to the optimal treatment of high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus. Recognizing the morbidity and mortality associated with esophagectomy, some recommend a selective approach, reserving esophagectomy only for evidence of invasive cancer identified through endoscopic surveillance. Other advocate esophagectomy for all suitable operative candidates. METHODS: The authors reviewed their experience between 1985 and 1995 with 11 patients with high-grade dysplasia arising in Barrett's esophagus diagnosed by endoscopic biopsy and treated by esophagectomy. RESULTS: All patients were white men ranging in age from 47 to 70 years. Ten patients underwent esophagectomy by the Ivor Lewis technique; one had a transhiatal resection. Eight patients (73%) had invasive adenocarcinoma identified after esophagectomy; two (18%) had positive lymph nodes; one required a prolonged hospital stay for an anastomotic leak; two (18%) temporarily suffered delayed gastric emptying. The authors' review identified 85 additional patients previously reported during the same period. Including the current series, 39 patients (41%) had invasive adenocarcinoma identified in the resected specimen. A preponderance of early, potentially curable carcinomas are characteristically found in these patients. CONCLUSION: A high incidence of endoscopically undetected invasive carcinoma strongly supports esophagectomy as the preferred approach for suitable operative candidates with high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus.
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
Practice guidelines on the diagnosis, surveillance, and therapy of Barrett's esophagus
Sampliner, R. (1998) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9270(98)00243-3 · Cited by 817
Updated guidelines for the diagnosis, surveillance, and therapy of Barrett's esophagus
Sampliner, R. (2002) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9270(02)04267-3 · Cited by 657
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Early Cancers of the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract
Soetikno, R., Kaltenbach, T., Yeh, R., & Gotoda, T. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2005.19.935 · Cited by 517
Esophageal Resection for Cancer of the Esophagus: Long-Term Function and Quality of Life
McLarty, A. J., Deschamps, C., Trastek, V. F., Allen, M. S., Pairolero, P. C., & Harmsen, W. S. (1997) · The Annals of Thoracic Surgery · doi:10.1016/s0003-4975(97)00125-2 · Cited by 272
The potential role for photodynamic therapy in the management of upper gastrointestinal disease
Barr, H., Dix, A. J., Kendall, C., & Stone, N. (2001) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2036.2001.00936.x · Cited by 40
Metadata
- Authors
- Edwards, M. J., Gable, D. R., Lentsch, A. B., & Richardson, J. D.
- Venue
- Annals of Surgery
- Published
- 1996-05
- Volume
- 223
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 585-591
- ISSN
- 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1972336603
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: The Rationale for Esophagectomy as the Optimal Therapy for Barrett's Esophagus with High-Grade Dysplasia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00000658-199605000-00014
- The paper
- Edwards, M. J., Gable, D. R., Lentsch, A. B., & Richardson, J. D. (1996). The Rationale for Esophagectomy as the Optimal Therapy for Barrett's Esophagus with High-Grade Dysplasia. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199605000-00014
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.