| Title |
Predictors of upstage diagnosis after endoscopic resection of gastric low-grade dysplasia
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-017-5971-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dae Hwan Kang, Cheol Woong Choi, Hyung Wook Kim, Su Bum Park, Su Jin Kim, Hyeong Seok Nam, Dae Gon Ryu |
| Abstract |
The optimal management of precursor lesions such as gastric low-grade dysplasia is crucial in order to improve gastric cancer-related mortality. However, there are no universally accepted management guidelines regarding which lesions should be resected or should be monitored by follow-up visits. We retrospectively analyzed data from 1006 gastric low-grade dysplasia lesions that had been resected via endoscopic submucosal dissection. We also evaluated the endoscopic risk factors associated with upstage diagnosis from low-grade dysplasia to high-grade dysplasia or gastric cancer. The mean age of our patients was 63.7 ± 9.1 years and 70.3% of our study population included men. The predominant location and gross type of lesions was the lower third of the stomach (78.6%) and the elevated type (57.8%), respectively. The rates of pathological concordance, upstage, and downstage diagnosis were 85.3, 12.1, and 2.6%, respectively. Multivariate analysis, after adjusting for age and sex, showed that a lesion size ≥ 10 mm (Odds ratio [OR] 2.231; p = 0.003), erythema (OR 7.315; p < 0.001), nodularity (OR 5.589; p < 0.001), depression (OR 3.024; p = 0.002), and erosion (OR 7.680; p < 0.001) were all factors significantly associated with upstage diagnosis. Furthermore, an increasing number of risk factors was associated with an increasing frequency of upstage diagnosis; if there were no risk factors, then there was no upstage diagnosis. This study identified several risk factors that were significantly associated with the upstage diagnosis of gastric low-grade dysplasia: lesion size ≥ 10 mm and a variety of surface changes (erythema, nodularity, depression, and erosion). Our data indicate that if there is no evidence of these endoscopic risk factors, then regular follow-up may be considered, according to the patient's combined comorbid conditions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ecuador | 1 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Mexico | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 16 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Librarian | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 7 | 44% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 44% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 6% |
| Engineering | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 December 2017.
All research outputs
#13,059,768
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#2,644
of 6,102 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,048
of 439,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#99
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,102 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
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 439,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.