Article Search
검색
검색 팝업 닫기

Metrics

Help

  • 1. Aims and Scope

    Gut and Liver is an international journal of gastroenterology, focusing on the gastrointestinal tract, liver, biliary tree, pancreas, motility, and neurogastroenterology. Gut atnd Liver delivers up-to-date, authoritative papers on both clinical and research-based topics in gastroenterology. The Journal publishes original articles, case reports, brief communications, letters to the editor and invited review articles in the field of gastroenterology. The Journal is operated by internationally renowned editorial boards and designed to provide a global opportunity to promote academic developments in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. +MORE

  • 2. Editorial Board

    Editor-in-Chief + MORE

    Editor-in-Chief
    Yong Chan Lee Professor of Medicine
    Director, Gastrointestinal Research Laboratory
    Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Univ. California San Francisco
    San Francisco, USA

    Deputy Editor

    Deputy Editor
    Jong Pil Im Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
    Robert S. Bresalier University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA
    Steven H. Itzkowitz Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA
  • 3. Editorial Office
  • 4. Articles
  • 5. Instructions for Authors
  • 6. File Download (PDF version)
  • 7. Ethical Standards
  • 8. Peer Review

    All papers submitted to Gut and Liver are reviewed by the editorial team before being sent out for an external peer review to rule out papers that have low priority, insufficient originality, scientific flaws, or the absence of a message of importance to the readers of the Journal. A decision about these papers will usually be made within two or three weeks.
    The remaining articles are usually sent to two reviewers. It would be very helpful if you could suggest a selection of reviewers and include their contact details. We may not always use the reviewers you recommend, but suggesting reviewers will make our reviewer database much richer; in the end, everyone will benefit. We reserve the right to return manuscripts in which no reviewers are suggested.

    The final responsibility for the decision to accept or reject lies with the editors. In many cases, papers may be rejected despite favorable reviews because of editorial policy or a lack of space. The editor retains the right to determine publication priorities, the style of the paper, and to request, if necessary, that the material submitted be shortened for publication.

Search

Search

Year

to

Article Type

Corrigendum

Split Viewer

Corrigendum to: External Validation of the eCura System for Undifferentiated-Type Early Gastric Cancer with Noncurative Endoscopic Resection

Hyo-Joon Yang1, Young-Il Kim2, Ji Yong Ahn3, Kee Don Choi3, Sang Gyun Kim4, Seong Woo Jeon5, Jie-Hyun Kim6, Sung Kwan Shin7, Hyuk Lee8, Wan Sik Lee9, Gwang Ha Kim10, Jae Myung Park11, Woon Geon Shin12, Il Ju Choi2

1Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine and Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, 2Center for Gastric Cancer, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, 3Division of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 4Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, 5Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, 6Department of Internal Medicine, Institute of Gastroenterology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 7Department of Internal Medicine, Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 8Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, 9Department of Internal Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, 10Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University College of Medicine, Busan, 11Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, and 12Department of Internal Medicine, Institute for Liver and Digestive Diseases, Hallym University College of Medicine, Chuncheon, Korea

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Gut Liver 2023;17(5):825-827. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl220333.e

Published online September 15, 2023, Published date September 15, 2023

Copyright © Gut and Liver.

https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl220333

Gut Liver 2023;17(4):537-546.

In the article entitled “External Validation of the eCura System for Undifferentiated-Type Early Gastric Cancer with Noncurative Endoscopic Resection,”1 the statement of classification of the score was incorrectly presented.

In the Methods section, 4. eCura system outcomes for validation, the corrected statement should be:

"Patients are classified into three risk tiers based on their cumulative scores: low-risk (0–1), intermediate-risk (2–4), and high-risk (5–7)."

In Tables 1, 3, and 4, The revised statements are shown in bold in the table below.

Table 1. Baseline Characteristics of Patients in the Radical Surgery and No Additional Treatment Groups According to the Risk Categories of the eCura System*

CharacteristicRadical surgery group (n=270)No additional treatment group (n=364)
Low-risk
(n=151)
Intermediate-risk (n=92)High-risk
(n=27)
p-valueLow-risk
(n=317)
Intermediate-risk (n=42)High-risk
(n=5)
p-value
Age, yr57.6 (51.1–66.7)62.8 (55.6–70.4)59.8 (52.4–71.8)0.01763.1 (53.0–72.5)69.9 (54.8–78.4)75.4 (72.2–79.6)0.005
Male sex93 (61.6)57 (62.0)22 (81.5)0.132185 (58.4)27 (64.3)1 (20.0)0.695
ASA physical status0.1650.035
I93 (61.6)48 (52.2)17 (63.0)176 (55.5)19 (45.2)3 (60.0)
II57 (37.7)38 (41.3)8 (29.6)125 (39.4)15 (35.7)1 (20.0)
III-IV1 (0.7)6 (6.5)2 (7.4)16 (5.1)8 (19.1)1 (20.0)
Tumor location0.2470.511
Upper third61 (40.4)43 (46.7)13 (48.2)119 (37.5)16 (38.1)2 (40.0)
Middle third71 (47.0)42 (45.7)11 (40.7)173 (54.6)20 (47.6)2 (40.0)
Lower third19 (12.6)7 (7.6)3 (11.1)25 (7.9)6 (14.3)1 (20.0)
Tumor size, mm26.0 (20.0–35.0)23.0 (18.0–33.0)35.0 (18.0–44.0)0.01426.0 (22.0–34.0)25.5 (17.5–36.0)24.0 (21.5–42.3)0.872
Depth of invasion<0.001<0.001
Mucosa85 (56.3)13 (14.1)0233 (73.5)8 (19.1)0
Submucosa <500 µm27 (17.9)20 (21.8)045 (14.2)5 (11.9)0
Submucosa ≥500 µm39 (25.8)59 (64.1)27 (100.0)39 (12.3)29 (69.0)5 (100.0)
Histology0.0030.019
PD112 (74.2)74 (80.4)24 (88.9)195 (61.5)30 (71.4)4 (80.0)
SRC39 (25.8)14 (15.2)1 (3.7)118 (37.2)10 (23.8)0
Mucinous04 (4.4)2 (7.4)4 (1.3)2 (4.8)1 (20.0)
Lymphovascular invasion049 (53.3)27 (100.0)<0.001018 (42.9)5 (100.0)<0.001
Ulceration15 (9.9)10 (10.9)2 (7.4)0.85632 (10.1)4 (9.5)1 (20.0)0.749
Positive vertical margin4 (2.6)33 (35.9)17 (63.0)<0.0015 (1.6)17 (40.5)4 (80.0)<0.001

Data are presented as median (interquartile range) or number (%).

ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; PD, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma; SRC, signet ring cell carcinoma.

*The low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories of the eCura system are assigned 0–1, 2–4, and 5–6 points, respectively, according to the sum of the following risk scores: 1 point for tumor size >30 mm, 1 point for submucosal invasion ≥500 µm from the muscularis mucosa, 3 points for lymphovascular invasion, and 1 point for positive vertical margin; The proportion of patients with signet ring cell carcinoma was compared against the proportion of patients with poorly differentiated or mucinous adenocarcinoma.


Table 3. Adjusted Analysis* of Hazards for Mortality and Recurrence According to Risk Categories of the eCura System in the No Additional Treatment Group†

Risk categoryOverall mortalityCancer-specific mortalityCancer recurrence
Person time at risk, moNo. of casesHR (95% CI)p-valuePerson time at risk, moNo. of casesHR (95% CI)p-valuePerson time at risk, moNo. of casesHR (95% CI)p-value
Low-risk27,16531127,165118,5633
Intermediate-risk3,342152.80 (1.45–5.40)0.0023,342349.39 (2.95–826.70)0.0072,004312.63 (1.91–83.31)0.008
High-risk34624.61 (1.01–21.08)0.0493461586.83 (6.81–50,574)0.005195157.32 (2.37–1,384)0.013
Overall p-value0.0040.0110.011
p for trend2.48 (1.46–4.21)0.00127.45 (3.27–230.26)0.0028.98 (2.16–37.32)0.003

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.

*HRs were adjusted for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, location, histology, and ulceration; The low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories of the eCura system are assigned 0–1, 2–4, and 5–6 points, respectively, according to the sum of the following risk scores: 1 point for tumor size >30 mm, 1 point for submucosal invasion ≥500 µm from the muscularis mucosa, 3 points for lymphovascular invasion, and 1 point for positive vertical margin.


Table 4. Adjusted Analysis* of Hazards for Mortality and Recurrence in the No Additional Treatment Group Compared to the Radical Surgery Group Stratified by Risk Categories of the eCura System†

Risk categoryOverall mortalityCancer-specific mortalityCancer recurrence
Person time at risk, moNo. of casesHR (95% CI)p-valuePerson time at risk, moNo. of casesHR (95% CI)p-valuePerson time at risk, moNo. of casesHR (95% CI)p-value
Low
Radical surgery13,10411113,104019,16901
No additional treatment27,165310.52 (0.24–1.13)0.09927,16514,128.26
(not estimated)
0.98318,56333.70×105
(not estimated)
0.978
Intermediate-high
Radical surgery1,0031211,003316,65141
No additional treatment3,688173.18 (1.41–7.17)0.0053,68842.60 (0.46–14.66)0.2802,19942.23 (0.41–12.18)0.354

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.

*HRs were adjusted for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, location, histology, and ulceration; The low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories of the eCura system are assigned 0–1, 2–4, and 5–6 points, respectively, according to the sum of the following risk scores: 1 point for tumor size >30 mm, 1 point for submucosal invasion ≥500 µm from the muscularis mucosa, 3 points for lymphovascular invasion, and 1 point for positive vertical margin.



This statement does not change the outcome of the original paper. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.

  1. Yang HJ, Kim YI, Ahn JY, et al. External Validation of the eCura System for Undifferentiated-Type Early Gastric Cancer with Noncurative Endoscopic Resection. Gut Liver 2023;17:537-546.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef

Article

Corrigendum

Gut and Liver 2023; 17(5): 825-827

Published online September 15, 2023 https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl220333.e

Copyright © Gut and Liver.

Corrigendum to: External Validation of the eCura System for Undifferentiated-Type Early Gastric Cancer with Noncurative Endoscopic Resection

Hyo-Joon Yang1, Young-Il Kim2, Ji Yong Ahn3, Kee Don Choi3, Sang Gyun Kim4, Seong Woo Jeon5, Jie-Hyun Kim6, Sung Kwan Shin7, Hyuk Lee8, Wan Sik Lee9, Gwang Ha Kim10, Jae Myung Park11, Woon Geon Shin12, Il Ju Choi2

1Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine and Gastrointestinal Cancer Center, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, 2Center for Gastric Cancer, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center, Goyang, 3Division of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 4Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, 5Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, 6Department of Internal Medicine, Institute of Gastroenterology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 7Department of Internal Medicine, Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 8Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, 9Department of Internal Medicine, Chonnam National University Medical School, Gwangju, 10Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University College of Medicine, Busan, 11Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, and 12Department of Internal Medicine, Institute for Liver and Digestive Diseases, Hallym University College of Medicine, Chuncheon, Korea

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Body

https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl220333

Gut Liver 2023;17(4):537-546.

In the article entitled “External Validation of the eCura System for Undifferentiated-Type Early Gastric Cancer with Noncurative Endoscopic Resection,”1 the statement of classification of the score was incorrectly presented.

In the Methods section, 4. eCura system outcomes for validation, the corrected statement should be:

"Patients are classified into three risk tiers based on their cumulative scores: low-risk (0–1), intermediate-risk (2–4), and high-risk (5–7)."

In Tables 1, 3, and 4, The revised statements are shown in bold in the table below.

Table 1 . Baseline Characteristics of Patients in the Radical Surgery and No Additional Treatment Groups According to the Risk Categories of the eCura System*.

CharacteristicRadical surgery group (n=270)No additional treatment group (n=364)
Low-risk
(n=151)
Intermediate-risk (n=92)High-risk
(n=27)
p-valueLow-risk
(n=317)
Intermediate-risk (n=42)High-risk
(n=5)
p-value
Age, yr57.6 (51.1–66.7)62.8 (55.6–70.4)59.8 (52.4–71.8)0.01763.1 (53.0–72.5)69.9 (54.8–78.4)75.4 (72.2–79.6)0.005
Male sex93 (61.6)57 (62.0)22 (81.5)0.132185 (58.4)27 (64.3)1 (20.0)0.695
ASA physical status0.1650.035
I93 (61.6)48 (52.2)17 (63.0)176 (55.5)19 (45.2)3 (60.0)
II57 (37.7)38 (41.3)8 (29.6)125 (39.4)15 (35.7)1 (20.0)
III-IV1 (0.7)6 (6.5)2 (7.4)16 (5.1)8 (19.1)1 (20.0)
Tumor location0.2470.511
Upper third61 (40.4)43 (46.7)13 (48.2)119 (37.5)16 (38.1)2 (40.0)
Middle third71 (47.0)42 (45.7)11 (40.7)173 (54.6)20 (47.6)2 (40.0)
Lower third19 (12.6)7 (7.6)3 (11.1)25 (7.9)6 (14.3)1 (20.0)
Tumor size, mm26.0 (20.0–35.0)23.0 (18.0–33.0)35.0 (18.0–44.0)0.01426.0 (22.0–34.0)25.5 (17.5–36.0)24.0 (21.5–42.3)0.872
Depth of invasion<0.001<0.001
Mucosa85 (56.3)13 (14.1)0233 (73.5)8 (19.1)0
Submucosa <500 µm27 (17.9)20 (21.8)045 (14.2)5 (11.9)0
Submucosa ≥500 µm39 (25.8)59 (64.1)27 (100.0)39 (12.3)29 (69.0)5 (100.0)
Histology0.0030.019
PD112 (74.2)74 (80.4)24 (88.9)195 (61.5)30 (71.4)4 (80.0)
SRC39 (25.8)14 (15.2)1 (3.7)118 (37.2)10 (23.8)0
Mucinous04 (4.4)2 (7.4)4 (1.3)2 (4.8)1 (20.0)
Lymphovascular invasion049 (53.3)27 (100.0)<0.001018 (42.9)5 (100.0)<0.001
Ulceration15 (9.9)10 (10.9)2 (7.4)0.85632 (10.1)4 (9.5)1 (20.0)0.749
Positive vertical margin4 (2.6)33 (35.9)17 (63.0)<0.0015 (1.6)17 (40.5)4 (80.0)<0.001

Data are presented as median (interquartile range) or number (%)..

ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; PD, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma; SRC, signet ring cell carcinoma..

*The low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories of the eCura system are assigned 0–1, 2–4, and 5–6 points, respectively, according to the sum of the following risk scores: 1 point for tumor size >30 mm, 1 point for submucosal invasion ≥500 µm from the muscularis mucosa, 3 points for lymphovascular invasion, and 1 point for positive vertical margin; The proportion of patients with signet ring cell carcinoma was compared against the proportion of patients with poorly differentiated or mucinous adenocarcinoma..


Table 3. Adjusted Analysis* of Hazards for Mortality and Recurrence According to Risk Categories of the eCura System in the No Additional Treatment Group†.

Risk categoryOverall mortalityCancer-specific mortalityCancer recurrence
Person time at risk, moNo. of casesHR (95% CI)p-valuePerson time at risk, moNo. of casesHR (95% CI)p-valuePerson time at risk, moNo. of casesHR (95% CI)p-value
Low-risk27,16531127,165118,5633
Intermediate-risk3,342152.80 (1.45–5.40)0.0023,342349.39 (2.95–826.70)0.0072,004312.63 (1.91–83.31)0.008
High-risk34624.61 (1.01–21.08)0.0493461586.83 (6.81–50,574)0.005195157.32 (2.37–1,384)0.013
Overall p-value0.0040.0110.011
p for trend2.48 (1.46–4.21)0.00127.45 (3.27–230.26)0.0028.98 (2.16–37.32)0.003

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval..

*HRs were adjusted for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, location, histology, and ulceration; The low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories of the eCura system are assigned 0–1, 2–4, and 5–6 points, respectively, according to the sum of the following risk scores: 1 point for tumor size >30 mm, 1 point for submucosal invasion ≥500 µm from the muscularis mucosa, 3 points for lymphovascular invasion, and 1 point for positive vertical margin..


Table 4. Adjusted Analysis* of Hazards for Mortality and Recurrence in the No Additional Treatment Group Compared to the Radical Surgery Group Stratified by Risk Categories of the eCura System†.

Risk categoryOverall mortalityCancer-specific mortalityCancer recurrence
Person time at risk, moNo. of casesHR (95% CI)p-valuePerson time at risk, moNo. of casesHR (95% CI)p-valuePerson time at risk, moNo. of casesHR (95% CI)p-value
Low
Radical surgery13,10411113,104019,16901
No additional treatment27,165310.52 (0.24–1.13)0.09927,16514,128.26
(not estimated)
0.98318,56333.70×105
(not estimated)
0.978
Intermediate-high
Radical surgery1,0031211,003316,65141
No additional treatment3,688173.18 (1.41–7.17)0.0053,68842.60 (0.46–14.66)0.2802,19942.23 (0.41–12.18)0.354

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval..

*HRs were adjusted for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, location, histology, and ulceration; The low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories of the eCura system are assigned 0–1, 2–4, and 5–6 points, respectively, according to the sum of the following risk scores: 1 point for tumor size >30 mm, 1 point for submucosal invasion ≥500 µm from the muscularis mucosa, 3 points for lymphovascular invasion, and 1 point for positive vertical margin..



This statement does not change the outcome of the original paper. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.

Table 1 Baseline Characteristics of Patients in the Radical Surgery and No Additional Treatment Groups According to the Risk Categories of the eCura System*

CharacteristicRadical surgery group (n=270)No additional treatment group (n=364)
Low-risk
(n=151)
Intermediate-risk (n=92)High-risk
(n=27)
p-valueLow-risk
(n=317)
Intermediate-risk (n=42)High-risk
(n=5)
p-value
Age, yr57.6 (51.1–66.7)62.8 (55.6–70.4)59.8 (52.4–71.8)0.01763.1 (53.0–72.5)69.9 (54.8–78.4)75.4 (72.2–79.6)0.005
Male sex93 (61.6)57 (62.0)22 (81.5)0.132185 (58.4)27 (64.3)1 (20.0)0.695
ASA physical status0.1650.035
I93 (61.6)48 (52.2)17 (63.0)176 (55.5)19 (45.2)3 (60.0)
II57 (37.7)38 (41.3)8 (29.6)125 (39.4)15 (35.7)1 (20.0)
III-IV1 (0.7)6 (6.5)2 (7.4)16 (5.1)8 (19.1)1 (20.0)
Tumor location0.2470.511
Upper third61 (40.4)43 (46.7)13 (48.2)119 (37.5)16 (38.1)2 (40.0)
Middle third71 (47.0)42 (45.7)11 (40.7)173 (54.6)20 (47.6)2 (40.0)
Lower third19 (12.6)7 (7.6)3 (11.1)25 (7.9)6 (14.3)1 (20.0)
Tumor size, mm26.0 (20.0–35.0)23.0 (18.0–33.0)35.0 (18.0–44.0)0.01426.0 (22.0–34.0)25.5 (17.5–36.0)24.0 (21.5–42.3)0.872
Depth of invasion<0.001<0.001
Mucosa85 (56.3)13 (14.1)0233 (73.5)8 (19.1)0
Submucosa <500 µm27 (17.9)20 (21.8)045 (14.2)5 (11.9)0
Submucosa ≥500 µm39 (25.8)59 (64.1)27 (100.0)39 (12.3)29 (69.0)5 (100.0)
Histology0.0030.019
PD112 (74.2)74 (80.4)24 (88.9)195 (61.5)30 (71.4)4 (80.0)
SRC39 (25.8)14 (15.2)1 (3.7)118 (37.2)10 (23.8)0
Mucinous04 (4.4)2 (7.4)4 (1.3)2 (4.8)1 (20.0)
Lymphovascular invasion049 (53.3)27 (100.0)<0.001018 (42.9)5 (100.0)<0.001
Ulceration15 (9.9)10 (10.9)2 (7.4)0.85632 (10.1)4 (9.5)1 (20.0)0.749
Positive vertical margin4 (2.6)33 (35.9)17 (63.0)<0.0015 (1.6)17 (40.5)4 (80.0)<0.001

Data are presented as median (interquartile range) or number (%).

ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; PD, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma; SRC, signet ring cell carcinoma.

*The low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories of the eCura system are assigned 0–1, 2–4, and 5–6 points, respectively, according to the sum of the following risk scores: 1 point for tumor size >30 mm, 1 point for submucosal invasion ≥500 µm from the muscularis mucosa, 3 points for lymphovascular invasion, and 1 point for positive vertical margin; The proportion of patients with signet ring cell carcinoma was compared against the proportion of patients with poorly differentiated or mucinous adenocarcinoma.


Table 3 Adjusted Analysis* of Hazards for Mortality and Recurrence According to Risk Categories of the eCura System in the No Additional Treatment Group†

Risk categoryOverall mortalityCancer-specific mortalityCancer recurrence
Person time at risk, moNo. of casesHR (95% CI)p-valuePerson time at risk, moNo. of casesHR (95% CI)p-valuePerson time at risk, moNo. of casesHR (95% CI)p-value
Low-risk27,16531127,165118,5633
Intermediate-risk3,342152.80 (1.45–5.40)0.0023,342349.39 (2.95–826.70)0.0072,004312.63 (1.91–83.31)0.008
High-risk34624.61 (1.01–21.08)0.0493461586.83 (6.81–50,574)0.005195157.32 (2.37–1,384)0.013
Overall p-value0.0040.0110.011
p for trend2.48 (1.46–4.21)0.00127.45 (3.27–230.26)0.0028.98 (2.16–37.32)0.003

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.

*HRs were adjusted for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, location, histology, and ulceration; The low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories of the eCura system are assigned 0–1, 2–4, and 5–6 points, respectively, according to the sum of the following risk scores: 1 point for tumor size >30 mm, 1 point for submucosal invasion ≥500 µm from the muscularis mucosa, 3 points for lymphovascular invasion, and 1 point for positive vertical margin.


Table 4 Adjusted Analysis* of Hazards for Mortality and Recurrence in the No Additional Treatment Group Compared to the Radical Surgery Group Stratified by Risk Categories of the eCura System†

Risk categoryOverall mortalityCancer-specific mortalityCancer recurrence
Person time at risk, moNo. of casesHR (95% CI)p-valuePerson time at risk, moNo. of casesHR (95% CI)p-valuePerson time at risk, moNo. of casesHR (95% CI)p-value
Low
Radical surgery13,10411113,104019,16901
No additional treatment27,165310.52 (0.24–1.13)0.09927,16514,128.26
(not estimated)
0.98318,56333.70×105
(not estimated)
0.978
Intermediate-high
Radical surgery1,0031211,003316,65141
No additional treatment3,688173.18 (1.41–7.17)0.0053,68842.60 (0.46–14.66)0.2802,19942.23 (0.41–12.18)0.354

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.

*HRs were adjusted for age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, location, histology, and ulceration; The low-, intermediate-, and high-risk categories of the eCura system are assigned 0–1, 2–4, and 5–6 points, respectively, according to the sum of the following risk scores: 1 point for tumor size >30 mm, 1 point for submucosal invasion ≥500 µm from the muscularis mucosa, 3 points for lymphovascular invasion, and 1 point for positive vertical margin.


References

  1. Yang HJ, Kim YI, Ahn JY, et al. External Validation of the eCura System for Undifferentiated-Type Early Gastric Cancer with Noncurative Endoscopic Resection. Gut Liver 2023;17:537-546.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
Gut and Liver

Vol.18 No.3
May, 2024

pISSN 1976-2283
eISSN 2005-1212

qrcode
qrcode

Share this article on :

  • line

Popular Keywords

Gut and LiverQR code Download
qr-code

Editorial Office