MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408894856 · doi:10.1055/s-0045-1805438

ESD for Oesophageal SCC: Absolute vs outside criteria resection and outcomes

2025· article· en· W4408894856 on OpenAlexaff
Sunil Gupta, Francesco Vito Mandarino, Brian Lam, Julia Gauci, Neal Shahidi, Anthony Whitfield, Tim O’Sullivan, Oliver Cronin, Caroline Kerrison, H Wang, EY T Lee, Nicholas G. Burgess, Michael J. Bourke

Bibliographic record

VenueEndoscopy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineResectionGeneral surgerySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can yield an endoscopic cure for oesophageal squamous high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and early squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Its role in the West remains unclear, as absence of screening programs lead to detection of lesions that may be considered resectable but fall outside ‘absolute criteria’ as per Japanese guidelines. Thus, we sought to determine the endoscopic curability and long-term outcomes of ESD for HGD and ESCC in a large single-centre Australian cohort. Methods A prospective observational cohort study was performed over 92 months until April 2024. The primary outcomes were enbloc, R0 and curative resection rates. Secondary outcomes included disease recurrence, adverse events and survival. Results 75 patients underwent oesophageal ESD for squamous HGD or SCC (mean age 72.9±8.2 years; 47 (62.7%) female). Median lesion size was 40 mm (IQR 20-60 mm). Technical success and enbloc resection were achieved in all 75 (100%). Overall R0 excision was achieved in 61 (81.3%), and curative resection in 35 (46.7%). The median hospital length of stay was 1 day (IQR 1-3). 39 (52%) met ‘absolute criteria (AC)’, with the remaining 36 (48%) ‘outside criteria (OC)’. AC lesions were more likely to under an R0 excision (n=36, 92.3% vs. n=25; 69.4%; P=0.011), and be endoscopically cured (n=28, 71.8% vs. 7; 19.4%, P<0.001). Of the 40 (53.3%) non-curative resections, 16 (35%) underwent additional therapy. The remainder entered endoscopic surveillance after MDT discussion due to advanced age and comorbidities. At a median follow up of 26 months (IQR 9-50 months), recurrence occurred in 9/75 patients (12%) and 10/75 (13.3%) patients died, of which 6/10 deaths (60%) were related to SCC. No deaths occurred in the AC group. 5-year OS was significantly higher in curative resections than non-curative resections (100% vs 58.5%, P=0.002). Similarly, 5-year DSS was significantly higher in curative resections (100% vs 80.1%, P=0.017). Charlson comorbidity index was the only significant independent risk factor for OS (HR, 3.66; 95% CI, 1.39-9.59; P=0.008). Conclusions In a Western setting, ESD for squamous HGD and ESCC is safe. A curative resection yields excellent long-term outcomes with 5-year OS and DSS of 100%. Furthermore, almost 20% of OC patients were cured, avoiding surgery and adjuvant therapy. In non-curative resections, primarily represented by the OC group, ESD conferred over 80% 5-year DSS. Thus, ESD also serves as a valid palliative treatment option for the frail and elderly with advanced disease, who fall outside ‘absolute criteria’, and who are otherwise unsuitable candidates for esophagectomy or adjuvant therapy. Publication History Article published online: 27 March 2025 © 2025. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.370 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEndoscopySame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207