Self-expanding metallic stent placement with an exaggerated 5-cm proximal tumor covering for palliation of esophageal cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The study aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes with a technique of self-expanding metallic stent insertion in palliative esophageal cancer patients. We hypothesized that a systematic attempt at exaggerated (5 cm) proximal tumor covering could prevent both stent migration and tumor overgrowth/undergrowth. METHODS: We reviewed retrospectively all patients who underwent esophageal stenting for palliation of malignant dysphagia over a 24-month period. Consecutive patients were identified from a prospective thoracic surgery interventional endoscopy database. This technique consisted of endoscopic stent insertion with the aim of landing the proximal portion of the stent 5 cm cephalad to the proximal extent of the tumor. All patients were followed at one month post-procedure and every three months thereafter, until death. Short- and long-term complications associated with the procedure and mortality were evaluated. RESULTS: Forty seven patients underwent endoscopic insertion of an esophageal stent in the context of an inoperable esophageal cancer using this technique over a 24-month period. The mean age was 70.4±9.6 years. Four (8.5%) patients underwent re-stenting due to proximal tumor overgrowth. No stent migration, perforation, tumor ingrowth or stent occlusion was reported. The mean patient survival was 146±26.5 days. CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal stent insertion under endoscopic guidance with proximal tumor covering of 5 cm is effective and safe. No cases of stent migration and a low incidence of tumor overgrowth/undergrowth were observed with this technique.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".