| Title |
Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection in elderly patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-017-5421-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Byeong Geun Song, Yang Won Min, Jun Haeng Lee, Hyuk Lee, Byung-Hoon Min, Poong-Lyul Rhee, Jae J. Kim |
| Abstract |
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been widely applied in superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SESCC) as a minimally invasive treatment, which has advantages over surgery, especially in the elderly who have high risk of surgery. This study elucidated the efficacy and safety of ESD for SESCC in the elderly. Between April 2007 and June 2016, a total of 176 patients with SESCC treated with ESD were analyzed. Clinical outcomes including En bloc, complete, and curative resection rates, procedure-related complication rates, and cumulative recurrence rates were compared between the elderly (n = 46, ≥70 years of age) and the non-elderly groups (n = 130, <70 years of age). Between the two groups, sex, past medical history (hypertension and diabetes), body mass index, tumor characteristics (number, location, shape, maximal and circumferential size of the tumor and the resected specimen, and depth), and use of stricture prevention except for age (elderly vs non-elderly; 74.1 ± 2.78 vs. 61.1 ± 6.06 years, p < 0.001) did not differ. En bloc resection (elderly vs. non-elderly; 93.5 vs. 93.8%, p = 1.000), complete resection (elderly vs. non-elderly; 69.6 vs. 76.2%, p = 0.433), and curative resection rates (elderly vs. non-elderly; 54.3 vs. 60.0%, p = 0.602) did not differ significantly between the two groups. Procedure time and hospital stay were also similar between the two groups. Complications of ESD such as stricture (17.4 vs. 10.8%, p = 0.299) and perforation (13.0 vs. 6.2%, p = 0.083) occurred at a similar rate in the elderly and non-elderly groups. After curative ESD, cumulative recurrence rate of the elderly group (0%) did not differ significantly to that of the non-elderly group (5.1%) by the log-rank test (p = 0.307). ESD for SESCC is effective and safe in elderly patients as in non-elderly patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 18% |
| Researcher | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 7 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 45% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 9% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 October 2017.
All research outputs
#18,573,839
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#4,793
of 6,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,407
of 309,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#114
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,101 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,252 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.