MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323350911 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwac036.131

A131 ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION OF COLORECTAL ADENOMAS AND EARLY ADENOCARCINOMAS: OUTCOMES FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA

2023· article· en· W4323350911 on OpenAlexaffabout
B Zhao, H J Kim, Roberto Trasolini, Daljeet Chahal, Eric Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEndoscopic submucosal dissectionEndoscopic mucosal resectionSurgeryColorectal cancerColorectal PolypLesionDissection (medical)Retrospective cohort studyEndoscopyGeneral surgeryCancerColonoscopyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Endoscopic resection is the standard of care for the management of colorectal polyps. Larger and more complex polyps require endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). While complications have been low, EMR is often piecemeal, resulting in indeterminant margins and often a higher recurrence rate. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an advanced endoscopic resection technique with a higher rate of en bloc resection. While more data exist for the resection of gastric lesions with ESD, ESD is becoming more widely used in western countries for the resection of colorectal lesions. Purpose The purpose of this study is to report on the outcomes and rates of complications for colorectal ESD completed in a tertiary centre in British Columbia. Method All colorectal ESD was completed by a senior therapeutic endoscopist who has previously received training in Japan. Retrospective data were collected on all colorectal ESD procedures done in St. Paul’s Hospital from July 11th, 2016, when the procedure first became available, to Aug 30th, 2022. Inclusion criteria were all adults who have undergone ESD for resection of a colorectal lesion. Exclusion criteria were patients younger than 18. Data collected included demographic variables, polyp characteristics, procedural outcomes, and complications. Result(s) A total of 39 ESD procedures were completed. The mean size of the resected lesion was 30.4 mm (range: 5 – 60 mm). Technical success, defined as successful resection of all polypoid tissue, was achieved in 35/39 procedures (89.7%). En-bloc resection was achieved in 27/35 (77.1%) of the completed ESD. The rate of R0 resection was 22/35 (62.9%). Curative resection, defined as technically successful ESD with R0 margin and no lymphovascular invasion, was achieved in 23/39 (59.0%) of the cases and the majority of the patients with non-curative resection that underwent endoscopic surveillance had no recurrence on follow-up. In our cohort, 3/39 (7.7%) patients had adenocarcinoma. None of the ESD resulted in any intra-procedural or delayed perforation. 3/39 (7.7%) patients had clinically significant post-endoscopic resection bleeding. Out of 24 patients that completed follow-up, 4 (16.7%) had recurrence at the resection site that was managed endoscopically. 4/39 (10.3%) of patients required surgery post-ESD. Conclusion(s) In our cohort, ESD is an effective endoscopic resection modality for the management of colorectal adenomas and early adenocarcinoma with a high rate of technical success and low rates of complications. Although the rate of curative resection was low, most were the result of R1 or Rx resection and a majority of the follow-ups in this subgroup demonstrated no further recurrence. The rate of en bloc resection is high, especially given the average size of adenomas in this cohort. Although ESD requires high technical proficiency, its favorable outcomes and low complication rates make ESD highly feasible for the resection of colorectal lesions. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below None Disclosure of Interest None Declared

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207