The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Colonoscopic resection of lateral spreading tumours: a prospective analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection
Open accessAbstract
Background: Lateral spreading tumours are superficial spreading neoplasms now increasingly diagnosed using chromoscopic colonoscopy. The clinicopathological features and safety of endoscopic mucosal resection for lateral spreading tumours (G-type “aggregate” and F-type “flat”) has yet to be clarified in Western cohorts. Methods: Eighty two patients underwent magnification chromoscopic colonoscopy using the Olympus CF240Z by a single endoscopist. All patients had received a previous colonoscopy where an endoscopic diagnosis of lateral spreading tumour was made. All lesions were examined initially using indigo carmine chromoscopy to delineate contour followed by crystal violet for magnification crypt pattern analysis. A 20 MHz “mini probe” ultrasound was used if T2 disease was suspected. Following endoscopic mucosal resection, patients were followed up at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months using total colonoscopy. Results: Eighty two lateral spreading tumours were diagnosed in 80 patients (32% (26/82) F-type and 68% (56/82) G-type). G-type lesions were larger than F-type (G-type mean 42 (SD 14) mm v F-type 24 (6.4) mm; p<0.01). F-type lesions were more common in the right colon (F-type 77% (20/26) compared with G-type 39% (22/56); p<0.01) and more often associated with invasive disease (stage T2) (66% (10/15) v 33% (5/15); p<0.001). Fifty eight lesions underwent endoscopic mucosal resection (G-type 64% (37/58)/F-type 36% (21/58)). Local recurrent disease was detected in 17% of patients (10/58), all within six months of the index resection. Piecemeal resection and G-type morphology were significantly associated with recurrent disease (p<0.1). Overall “cure” rates for lateral spreading tumours using endoscopic mucosal resection at two years of follow-up was 96% (56/58). Conclusions: Endoscopic mucosal resection for lateral spreading tumours, staged as T1, is a safe and effective treatment despite their large size. Endoscopic mucosal resection may be an alternative to surgery in selected patients.
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
Quality indicators for colonoscopy
Rex, D. K., Schoenfeld, P. S., Cohen, J., Pike, I. M., Adler, D. G., Fennerty, M. B., Lieb, J. G., Park, W. G., Rizk, M. K., Sawhney, M. S., et al. (2015) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.058 · Cited by 1,764
Uraoka, T., Saito, Y., Matsuda, T., Ikehara, H., Gotoda, T., Saito, D., & Fujii, T. (2006) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2005.087452 · Cited by 429
Tanaka, S., Oka, S., & Chayama, K. (2008) · Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1007/s00535-008-2223-4 · Cited by 253
Metadata
- Authors
- Hurlstone, D. P., Sanders, D. S., Cross, S. S., Adam, I., Shorthouse, A. J., Brown, S., Drew, K., & Lobo, A. J.
- Venue
- Gut
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2004-08-11
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1334-1339
- ISSN
- 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-3288
- OpenAlex
- W2163529942
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Colonoscopic resection of lateral spreading tumours: a prospective analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.2003.036913
- The paper
- Hurlstone, D. P., Sanders, D. S., Cross, S. S., Adam, I., Shorthouse, A. J., Brown, S., Drew, K., & Lobo, A. J. (2004). Colonoscopic resection of lateral spreading tumours: a prospective analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2003.036913
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.