Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 640

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a large-scale feasibility study

Isomoto, H, Shikuwa, S, Yamaguchi, N, Fukuda, E, Ikeda, K, Nishiyama, H, Ohnita, K, Mizuta, Y, Shiozawa, J, Kohno, S·2009·Gut

Abstract

Objective: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has the advantage over conventional endoscopic mucosa resection, permitting removal of early gastric cancer (EGC) en bloc, but long-term clinical outcomes remain unknown. A follow-up study on tumour recurrence and survival after ESD was conducted. Method: ESD was performed for patients with EGC that fulfilled the expanded criteria: mucosal cancer without ulcer findings irrespective of tumour size; mucosal cancer with ulcer findings ⩽3 cm in diameter; and minute submucosal invasive cancer ⩽3 cm in size. 551 patients with 589 EGC lesions were enrolled. The patients underwent ESD and then received periodic endoscopic follow-up and metastatic surveys for 6–89 months (median, 30 months). The main outcome measures were resectability (en bloc or piecemeal resection), and curability (curative or non-curative). Complications were assessed, and factors related to each were analysed statistically. The overall and disease-free survival rates were estimated. Results: En bloc resection was achieved in 94.9% (559/589), and larger lesions were at higher risk of piecemeal resection. 550 of 581 lesions (94.7%) were deemed to have undergone curative resection. En bloc resection was the only significant contributor to curative ESD. Patients with non-curative resection developed local recurrence more frequently. The 5-year overall and disease-specific survival rates were 97.1% and 100%, respectively. Conclusion: Precise assessment of curability with successful one-piece resection may reduce tumour recurrence after ESD. The prognosis of EGC patients treated by ESD is likely to be excellent, though further longer follow-up studies are warranted.

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.2008.165381

Cites

8 of 8 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 8 references

Cited by

See all 640

Metadata

Authors
Isomoto, H., Shikuwa, S., Yamaguchi, N., Fukuda, E., Ikeda, K., Nishiyama, H., Ohnita, K., Mizuta, Y., Shiozawa, J., & Kohno, S.
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2008-11-10
Volume
58
Issue
3
Pages
331-336
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W2120196880
Cited by
640
References
8
FWCI
21.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
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: Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a large-scale feasibility study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.2008.165381
The paper
Isomoto, H., Shikuwa, S., Yamaguchi, N., Fukuda, E., Ikeda, K., Nishiyama, H., Ohnita, K., Mizuta, Y., Shiozawa, J., & Kohno, S. (2009). Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a large-scale feasibility study. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2008.165381

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.