A133 GASTRIC ESD: PRELIMINARY EXPERIENCE IN A TERTIARY CENTER IN QUEBEC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an endoscopic procedure developed in Asian countries to treat early gastric cancer (EGC). Western countries have less experience with this challenging technique. Aims The goal of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of ESD as a preliminary experience. Methods This is an unicentric retrospective study of all consecutive gastric ESD for adenomas or EGC from 07/2017 to 08/2020. The primary endpoints were en bloc and R0 resection rates. Results Nineteen patients (mean age 74.2 (54–88), sex ratio 3F/16M) and 23 lesions were included. Mean diameter was 25 mm (10–90). Treatment was previously performed in 7 cases (30.4%), by ESD (5) or EMR (2). The procedure, performed under general anaesthesia, lasted on average 148 minutes (45–412). En bloc resections were performed in 16 cases (69.6%); 5 cases (21.7%) were converted to P-EMR and there was a failure to resect the lesion because of deep invasion or perforation in 2 cases (8.7%). Pathologic examination demonstrated 2 low-grade dysplasia, 4 high-grade dysplasia and 15 adenocarcinomas: intramucosal (8), sm1 (2), sm2 (2), sm3 (1) or sm deep (2). R0 and curative resection rates were 43.5% and 39.1% respectively. The complication rate related to the procedure was 30.4% including 5 perforations and 2 delayed bleeding: all were managed endoscopically. Five patients (21.7%) underwent subsequent gastrectomy for non-curative resection (4) or failed resection (1); 3 had no residual disease on final pathology, 1 had high grade dysplasia and 1 had intramucosal adenocarcinoma. One patient went to palliative care because he was unfit for surgery. Follow-up endoscopy was completed in all 17 patients who underwent endoscopic resection (mean 10 months (2–24)). Recurrence occurred in 23.5% (4/17); all were successfully treated by another ESD. Conclusions In our preliminary experience, the rate of en bloc and R0 resection were 70% and 44%. Compared to other studies, these low en bloc and curative resection rates may be explained by technically difficult lesions during the learning curve and might improve with experience. Nevertheless, surgery has been avoided in 13/19 patients (68%) with endoscopic intervention. Funding Agencies None
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".