Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 429

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Endoscopic indications for endoscopic mucosal resection of laterally spreading tumours in the colorectum

Open access
Uraoka, T, Saito, Y, Matsuda, T, Ikehara, H, Gotoda, T, Saito, D, Fujii, T·2006·Gut

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Laterally spreading tumours (LSTs) in the colorectum are usually removed by endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) even when large in size. LSTs with deeper submucosal (sm) invasion, however, should not be treated by EMR because of the higher risk of lymph node metastasis. AIMS: To determine which endoscopic criteria, including high magnification pit pattern analysis, are associated with sm invasion in LSTs and clarify indications for EMR. METHODS: Eight endoscopic criteria from 511 colorectal LSTs (granular type (LST-G type); non-granular type (LST-NG type)) were evaluated retrospectively for association with sm invasion, and compared with histopathological findings. RESULTS: LST-NG type had a significantly higher frequency of sm invasion than LST-G type (14% v 7%; p<0.01). Presence of a large nodule in LST-G type was associated with higher sm invasion while pit pattern (invasive pattern), sclerous wall change, and larger tumour size were significantly associated with higher sm invasion in LST-NG type. In 19 LST-G type with sm invasion, sm penetration determined histopathologically occurred under the largest nodules (84%; 16/19) and depressed areas (16%; 3/19). Deepest sm penetration in 32 LST-NG type was either under depressed areas (72%; 23/32) or lymph follicular or multifocal sm invasion (28%; 1/32 and 8/32, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: When considering the most suitable therapeutic strategy for LST-G type, we recommend endoscopic piecemeal resection with the area including the large nodule resected first. In contrast, LST-NG type should be removed en bloc because of the higher potential for malignancy and greater difficulty in diagnosing sm depth and extent of invasion compared with LST-G type.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/gut.2005.087452

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 12 references

Cited by

See all 429

Metadata

Authors
Uraoka, T., Saito, Y., Matsuda, T., Ikehara, H., Gotoda, T., Saito, D., & Fujii, T.
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2006-11-01
Volume
55
Issue
11
Pages
1592-1597
ISSN
0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2144545582
Cited by
429
References
12
FWCI
6.51
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: Endoscopic indications for endoscopic mucosal resection of laterally spreading tumours in the colorectum. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.2005.087452
The paper
Uraoka, T., Saito, Y., Matsuda, T., Ikehara, H., Gotoda, T., Saito, D., & Fujii, T. (2006). Endoscopic indications for endoscopic mucosal resection of laterally spreading tumours in the colorectum. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2005.087452

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.