↓ Skip to main content

Preoperative predictors of beyond endoscopic submucosal dissection indication or lymphovascular invasion in endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
8 Mendeley
Title
Preoperative predictors of beyond endoscopic submucosal dissection indication or lymphovascular invasion in endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00464-017-6009-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Su Jin Kim, Cheol Woong Choi, Dae Hwan Kang, Hyung Wook Kim, Su Bum Park, Hyeong Seok Nam, Dae Gon Ryu

Abstract

To successfully resect early gastric cancer (EGC), prediction of lymph node metastasis is essential. Beyond endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) indication or lymphovascular invasion (LVI) are known risk factors associated with lymph node metastasis. However, accurate prediction of tumor invasion depth or LVI is impossible before endoscopic resection even when endoscopic ultrasound is used. The aim of this study was to identify the predictive factors associated with beyond ESD indication or LVI after ESD for EGC. Between Jan 2011 and Feb 2015, 532 lesions from 506 patients who received ESD for EGCs were included. We reviewed the data of patients diagnosed as EGCs without ulceration or those smaller than 3 cm with ulceration. The incidence of EGCs found to be beyond expanded ESD indications or present of LVI after ESD was 11.1% (59/532). On multivariable analysis, endoscopic features of SM invasion, surface color changes, and elevated lesions were associated with beyond ESD indication or LVI. In particular, submucosal (SM) invasive features such as SM tumor-like marginal elevation [odds ratio (OR) 17.2; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0-146.7], fusion of convergent folds (OR 12.9; 95% CI 3.9-42.1), irregular surface (OR 17.8; 95% CI 5.6-56.8), and discoloration of the tumor surface (OR 16.1; 95% CI 2.4-105.9) were significant risk factors for beyond ESD indication or LVI. The decision to proceed with endoscopic resection for EGCs with endoscopic features of SM invasion, surface color changes, or elevated forms must be made cautiously.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 8 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 2 25%
Researcher 2 25%
Other 1 13%
Librarian 1 13%
Student > Postgraduate 1 13%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 75%
Engineering 1 13%
Unknown 1 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 27 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,442,205
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#1,660
of 6,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,858
of 441,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#72
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,103 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 72% 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 441,813 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.