FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2894319634> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2894319634 endingPage "657" @default.
• W2894319634 startingPage "651" @default.
• W2894319634 abstract "Rationale and objectives The aim of this study was to compare the utility and timing of computed tomography (CT) in the detection of recurrent tumors between patients after surgical and endoscopic resections for early gastric cancer (EGC). Materials and Methods A total of 670 patients after surgical (n = 535) and endoscopic (n = 135) resections for EGC between 2007 and 2009 were enrolled. The mean numbers of CT and endoscopy between both treatment groups were compared. The mean and cumulative dose length products of CT examinations were calculated. The modality that detected recurrence was compared between the two groups using the Pearson chi-square test. Results The mean interval of CT was significantly shorter and the mean number of CTs was significantly larger in the surgical resection group than in the endoscopic resection group. All 34 gastric recurrences were diagnosed by endoscopy. All seven extragastric recurrences occurred in patients treated for EGC with submucosal invasion. Six extragastric recurrences were detected by CT out of a total of 5417 CT scans. The average cumulative dose length product was significantly higher in the surgical group than in the endoscopic resection group (P = 0.004). Conclusion Follow-up CTs were performed more frequently in patients after surgical resection than in patients after endoscopic resection of EGCs. However, CT scans were not effective in detecting recurrent tumors after either treatment methods, especially for patients treated for mucosal gastric cancer. The aim of this study was to compare the utility and timing of computed tomography (CT) in the detection of recurrent tumors between patients after surgical and endoscopic resections for early gastric cancer (EGC). A total of 670 patients after surgical (n = 535) and endoscopic (n = 135) resections for EGC between 2007 and 2009 were enrolled. The mean numbers of CT and endoscopy between both treatment groups were compared. The mean and cumulative dose length products of CT examinations were calculated. The modality that detected recurrence was compared between the two groups using the Pearson chi-square test. The mean interval of CT was significantly shorter and the mean number of CTs was significantly larger in the surgical resection group than in the endoscopic resection group. All 34 gastric recurrences were diagnosed by endoscopy. All seven extragastric recurrences occurred in patients treated for EGC with submucosal invasion. Six extragastric recurrences were detected by CT out of a total of 5417 CT scans. The average cumulative dose length product was significantly higher in the surgical group than in the endoscopic resection group (P = 0.004). Follow-up CTs were performed more frequently in patients after surgical resection than in patients after endoscopic resection of EGCs. However, CT scans were not effective in detecting recurrent tumors after either treatment methods, especially for patients treated for mucosal gastric cancer." @default.
• W2894319634 created "2018-10-05" @default.
• W2894319634 creator A5044644134 @default.
• W2894319634 creator A5049255506 @default.
• W2894319634 creator A5090324143 @default.
• W2894319634 creator A5091022795 @default.
• W2894319634 date "2019-05-01" @default.
• W2894319634 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2894319634 title "More Frequent Follow-up CT Scans in Postsurgical Resection Patients Than in Postendoscopic Resection Patients of Early Gastric Cancers: Impracticality of CTs for Mucosal Cancer" @default.
• W2894319634 cites W1979700661 @default.
• W2894319634 cites W1988099823 @default.
• W2894319634 cites W1991097958 @default.
• W2894319634 cites W1994699725 @default.
• W2894319634 cites W2012403469 @default.
• W2894319634 cites W2026435221 @default.
• W2894319634 cites W2047245597 @default.
• W2894319634 cites W2067440670 @default.
• W2894319634 cites W2080337148 @default.
• W2894319634 cites W2086171591 @default.
• W2894319634 cites W2093985191 @default.
• W2894319634 cites W2109101328 @default.
• W2894319634 cites W2141834520 @default.
• W2894319634 cites W2142878906 @default.
• W2894319634 cites W2144284383 @default.
• W2894319634 cites W2166990483 @default.
• W2894319634 cites W2171805024 @default.
• W2894319634 cites W2207800149 @default.
• W2894319634 cites W2285427603 @default.
• W2894319634 cites W2292477607 @default.
• W2894319634 cites W2411180154 @default.
• W2894319634 cites W2515452405 @default.
• W2894319634 cites W4242151806 @default.
• W2894319634 cites W908482109 @default.
• W2894319634 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2018.07.020" @default.
• W2894319634 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30268723" @default.
• W2894319634 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W2894319634 type Work @default.
• W2894319634 sameAs 2894319634 @default.
• W2894319634 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2894319634 countsByYear W28943196342022 @default.
• W2894319634 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2894319634 hasAuthorship W2894319634A5044644134 @default.
• W2894319634 hasAuthorship W2894319634A5049255506 @default.
• W2894319634 hasAuthorship W2894319634A5090324143 @default.
• W2894319634 hasAuthorship W2894319634A5091022795 @default.
• W2894319634 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2894319634 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2894319634 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2894319634 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2894319634 hasConcept C159110652 @default.
• W2894319634 hasConcept C2778451229 @default.
• W2894319634 hasConcept C544519230 @default.
• W2894319634 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2894319634 hasConceptScore W2894319634C121608353 @default.
• W2894319634 hasConceptScore W2894319634C126322002 @default.
• W2894319634 hasConceptScore W2894319634C126838900 @default.
• W2894319634 hasConceptScore W2894319634C141071460 @default.
• W2894319634 hasConceptScore W2894319634C159110652 @default.
• W2894319634 hasConceptScore W2894319634C2778451229 @default.
• W2894319634 hasConceptScore W2894319634C544519230 @default.
• W2894319634 hasConceptScore W2894319634C71924100 @default.
• W2894319634 hasFunder F4320322120 @default.
• W2894319634 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2894319634 hasLocation W28943196341 @default.
• W2894319634 hasLocation W28943196342 @default.
• W2894319634 hasOpenAccess W2894319634 @default.
• W2894319634 hasPrimaryLocation W28943196341 @default.
• W2894319634 hasRelatedWork W113810927 @default.
• W2894319634 hasRelatedWork W1586374228 @default.
• W2894319634 hasRelatedWork W2003938723 @default.
• W2894319634 hasRelatedWork W2047967234 @default.
• W2894319634 hasRelatedWork W2118496982 @default.
• W2894319634 hasRelatedWork W2364998975 @default.
• W2894319634 hasRelatedWork W2369162477 @default.
• W2894319634 hasRelatedWork W2439875401 @default.
• W2894319634 hasRelatedWork W4238867864 @default.
• W2894319634 hasRelatedWork W2525756941 @default.
• W2894319634 hasVolume "26" @default.
• W2894319634 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2894319634 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2894319634 magId "2894319634" @default.
• W2894319634 workType "article" @default.