Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 310

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Stepwise radical endoscopic resection versus radiofrequency ablation for Barrett's oesophagus with high-grade dysplasia or early cancer: a multicentre randomised trial

van Vilsteren, Frederike G I, Pouw, Roos E, Seewald, Stefan, Alvarez Herrero, Lorenza, Sondermeijer, Carine M T, Visser, Mike, ten Kate, Fiebo J W, Yu Kim Teng, Karl C, Soehendra, Nib, Rösch, Thomas, Weusten, Bas L A M, Bergman, Jacques J G H M·2011·Gut

Abstract

Objective: After focal endoscopic resection (ER) of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or early cancer (EC) in Barrett's oesophagus (BO), eradication of all remaining BO reduces the recurrence risk. The aim of this study was to compare the safety of stepwise radical ER (SRER) versus focal ER followed by radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for complete eradication of BO containing HGD/EC. Methods: A multicentre randomised clinical trial was carried out in three tertiary centres. Patients with BO ≤5 cm containing HGD/EC were randomised to SRER or ER/RFA. Patients in the SRER group underwent piecemeal ER of 50% of BO followed by serial ER. Patients in the ER/RFA group underwent focal ER for visible lesions followed by serial RFA. Follow-up endoscopy with biopsies (four-quadrant/2 cm BO) was performed at 6 and 12 months and then annually. The main outcome measures were: stenosis rate; complications; complete histological response for neoplasia (CR-neoplasia); and complete histological response for intestinal metaplasia (CR-IM). Results: CR-neoplasia was achieved in 25/25 (100%) SRER and in 21/22 (96%) ER/RFA patients. CR-IM was achieved in 23 (92%) SRER and 21 (96%) ER/RFA patients. The stenosis rate was significantly higher in SRER (88%) versus ER/RFA (14%; p<0.001), resulting in more therapeutic sessions in SRER (6 vs 3; p<0.001) due to dilations. After median 24 months follow-up, one SRER patient had recurrence of EC, requiring ER. Conclusions: In patients with BO ≤5 cm containing HGD/EC, SRER and ER/RFA achieved comparably high rates of CR-IM and CR-neoplasia. However, SRER was associated with a higher number of complications and therapeutic sessions. For these patients, a combined endoscopic approach of focal ER followed by RFA may thus be preferred over SRER. Clinical trial number: NTR1337.

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.2010.229310

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 310

Metadata

Authors
van Vilsteren, F. G. I., Pouw, R. E., Seewald, S., Alvarez Herrero, L., Sondermeijer, C. M. T., Visser, M., ten Kate, F. J. W., Yu Kim Teng, K. C., Soehendra, N., Rösch, T., Weusten, B. L. A. M., & Bergman, J. J. G. H. M.
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2011-01-05
Volume
60
Issue
6
Pages
765-773
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W2102632921
Cited by
310
References
1
FWCI
33.15
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: Stepwise radical endoscopic resection versus radiofrequency ablation for Barrett's oesophagus with high-grade dysplasia or early cancer: a multicentre randomised trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.2010.229310
The paper
van Vilsteren, F. G. I., Pouw, R. E., Seewald, S., Alvarez Herrero, L., Sondermeijer, C. M. T., Visser, M., ten Kate, F. J. W., Yu Kim Teng, K. C., Soehendra, N., Rösch, T., Weusten, B. L. A. M., & Bergman, J. J. G. H. M. (2011). Stepwise radical endoscopic resection versus radiofrequency ablation for Barrett's oesophagus with high-grade dysplasia or early cancer: a multicentre randomised trial. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2010.229310

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.