↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic group classifications of gastric neoplasms by endoscopic resection criteria before and after treatment: real-world experience

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 Mendeley
Title
Diagnostic group classifications of gastric neoplasms by endoscopic resection criteria before and after treatment: real-world experience
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00464-015-4710-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jun Hee Lee, Yang Won Min, Jun Haeng Lee, Eun Ran Kim, Hyuk Lee, Byung-Hoon Min, Jae J. Kim, Kee-Taek Jang, Kyoung-Mee Kim, Cheol Keun Park

Abstract

There are often discrepancies between the pretreatment evaluation of gastric neoplasms by endoscopy with biopsy and the final diagnosis of resected specimen in terms of pathology and depth of invasion. We evaluated the spectrum of discrepancies between pretreatment and posttreatment diagnosis which may deliver significant differences on clinical practice. A total of 2041 patients with gastric dysplasia or cancer who underwent curative endoscopic resections or surgeries in 2012 were enrolled. Patients were classified into five different diagnostic groups: low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD), absolute indication early gastric cancer (AI-EGC), beyond absolute indication early gastric cancer (BAI-EGC), and advanced gastric cancer (AGC). The choice of initial treatment and final pathologic diagnosis was analyzed. The study patients belonged to the following pretreatment diagnostic groups: LGDs in 162, HGDs in 164, AI-EGCs in 396, BAI-EGCs in 824, and AGCs in 495 cases. Posttreatment diagnostic groups were LGDs in 140, HGDs in 121, AI-EGCs in 322, BAI-EGCs in 947, AGCs in 505, and no residual tumor in 6 cases. In general, 6.9 % (141/2041) of cases were downgraded and 15.9 % (324/2041) were upgraded. Thirty-four percent of pretreatment HGDs (56/164) were changed to cancers after endoscopic resection. Thirty-three percent of pretreatment AI-EGCs (131/396) were regrouped as posttreatment BAI-EGCs. The additional surgery rate in each pretreatment group was 0.6 % in LGD, 4.3 % in HGD, 15.7 % in AI-EGC, 23.6 % in BAI-EGC among the patients with initial endoscopic resection (p < 0.01). Twenty-three percent of gastric neoplasms changed in their final diagnostic group after endoscopic resection or surgery. This discrepancy should be considered when the initial treatment strategy is being selected.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 18%
Other 2 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 12%
Student > Master 2 12%
Other 4 24%
Unknown 2 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 12%
Computer Science 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 4 24%
Attention Score in Context

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 22 December 2015.
All research outputs
#20,299,108
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#5,650
of 6,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#327,731
of 390,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#82
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,040 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 390,618 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.