Surgery versus radical endotherapies for early cancer and high grade dysplasia in Barrett's oesophagus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Barrett's oesophagus is one of the most common premalignant lesions in the world. Currently the mainstay of therapy is surgical management of advanced cancer but this has improved the five-year survival very little in the last 30 years. As a consequence, improved survival relies on early detection through endoscopic surveillance programmes. Success of this strategy relies on the fact that late stage premalignant lesions or very early cancers can be cured by intervention. Currently there is considerable controversy over which method is best: i.e. conventional open surgery or endotherapy (techniques involving endoscopy). OBJECTIVES: We used data from randomised controlled trials to examine the effectiveness of endotherapies compared with surgery, in people with Barrett's Oesophagus; those with early neoplasias (defined as high grade dysplasia (HGD), and those with early cancer (defined as carcinoma in-situ, superficially invasive, early cancer or superficial cancer T-1m (T1-a) and T-1sm (T1-b)). SEARCH STRATEGY: We used the Cochrane highly sensitive search strategy to identify randomised trials in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ISI Web of Science, EBMR, Controlled Trials mRCT and ISRCTN and LILACS, in July and August 2008. SELECTION CRITERIA: Types of studies: randomised controlled trials comparing endotherapies with surgery in the treatment of high grade dysplasia (HGD), or early cancer. All cellular types of cancer were included (i.e. adenocarcinomas, squamous cell carcinomas and more unusual types) but will be discussed separately. TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS: patients of any age and either gender with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of early neoplasia (HGD and early cancer) in Barrett's or squamous lined oesophagus.Types of interventions; endotherapies (the intervention) compared with surgery (the control), all with curative intent. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Reports of studies which meet the inclusion criteria for this review would have been analysed using the methods detailed in Appendix 9. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any studies which met the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane review has indicated that there are no randomised control trials to compare management options in this vital area, therefore trials should be undertaken as a matter of urgency. The problems with such randomised methods are standardising surgery and endotherapies in all sites; standardising histopathology in all centres; assessing which patients are fit or unfit for surgery; and making sure there are relevant outcomes for the study i.e. long term survival (over five or more years) and no progression of high grade dysplasia.
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".