Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026
Feasibility study of cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection for gastric adenocarcinoma of fundic gland type.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ashizaki Risa, Yoshizaki Tetsuya, Higasa Yuta, Tanabe Hiroshi, Nishikawa Eri, Hoki Shinya, Ishida Ryosuke, Hori Hitomi, Nakai Tatsuya, Ueda Chise, Urakami Satoshi, Abe Hirofumi, Takao Madoka, Takao Toshitatsu, Asahara Masakyo, Morita Yoshinori, Toyonaga Takashi, Kodama Yuzo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Gastric adenocarcinoma of fundic gland type (GA-FG) is a rare subtype that typically arises in the upper stomach, making endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) technically challenging. Cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (EMRC) is widely used for early gastric cancer due to its shorter procedure time and improved safety profile. We evaluated its efficacy and safety for GA-FG.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients with GA-FG who underwent EMRC or ESD between April 2013 and September 2024. Outcomes included en bloc, complete, and curative resection rates; procedure time; and adverse events. Odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using logistic regression, and inverse probability of treatment weighting was applied for adjustment.
RESULTS: We enrolled 70 patients with 77 lesions that were treated by EMRC (n = 57) or ESD (n = 20). En bloc resection was achieved in 100% of both groups. Complete resection rates were 96.5% for EMRC and 100% for ESD (P = 1.00). The EMRC group had significantly shorter median procedure time (6 vs. 46 min, P < 0.001) and fewer adverse events (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.003-0.36; P = 0.002). No significant differences were found in curative resection (OR 3.47, 95% CI 0.86-14.08; P = 0.08) and intraoperative perforation (10% in the ESD group, 0% in the EMRC group; P = 0.06).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that EMRC is a safe and effective treatment for GA-FG, offering shorter procedure times and a lower risk of complications compared with ESD.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients with GA-FG who underwent EMRC or ESD between April 2013 and September 2024. Outcomes included en bloc, complete, and curative resection rates; procedure time; and adverse events. Odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using logistic regression, and inverse probability of treatment weighting was applied for adjustment.
RESULTS: We enrolled 70 patients with 77 lesions that were treated by EMRC (n = 57) or ESD (n = 20). En bloc resection was achieved in 100% of both groups. Complete resection rates were 96.5% for EMRC and 100% for ESD (P = 1.00). The EMRC group had significantly shorter median procedure time (6 vs. 46 min, P < 0.001) and fewer adverse events (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.003-0.36; P = 0.002). No significant differences were found in curative resection (OR 3.47, 95% CI 0.86-14.08; P = 0.08) and intraoperative perforation (10% in the ESD group, 0% in the EMRC group; P = 0.06).
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that EMRC is a safe and effective treatment for GA-FG, offering shorter procedure times and a lower risk of complications compared with ESD.