DEN open · 2025
Efficacy and Safety of Gel Immersion Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Gastric Neoplasms in Patients With Familial Adenomatous Polyposis: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.
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.
Kimura Hidenori, Shigeta Kohei, Yabuuchi Yohei, Yamamoto Yoichi, Nagao Soichiro, Noguchi Akito, Uematsu Shinya, Shintani Shuhei, Inoue Hiroto, Nishida Atsushi, Ono Hiroyuki, Inatomi Osamu
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Approximately 10%-30% patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) develop gastric neoplasms (GNs). Although recent reports have suggested the effectiveness of gel-immersion endoscopic mucosal resection (GI-EMR) for FAP-associated GNs, given its simplicity and safety, treatment outcomes for such lesions have not been evaluated. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of GI-EMR compared with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for GNs in patients with FAP.
METHODS: In this multicenter, retrospective study, treatment outcomes of ESD and GI-EMR for GNs measuring ≤20 mm with protruding or flat elevated morphology between April 2011 and November 2024 were compared.
RESULTS: This study included 15 ESD and 12 GI-EMR cases. En bloc and R0 resection rates did not significantly differ between the ESD and GI-EMR groups (100% vs. 100% and 100% vs. 83.3%, p = 0.19, respectively). The procedure time was significantly shorter for GI-EMR than for ESD (2 vs. 47 min, p < 0.001, respectively). Intraprocedural perforation occurred in 6.7% of ESD cases, but was not observed in the GI-EMR group. Neither delayed bleeding nor perforation occurred in any group. During the median follow-up period of 22.3 months, no local recurrence was observed in either group.
CONCLUSIONS: GI-EMR may be considered one of the therapeutic options for GNs in patients with FAP.
METHODS: In this multicenter, retrospective study, treatment outcomes of ESD and GI-EMR for GNs measuring ≤20 mm with protruding or flat elevated morphology between April 2011 and November 2024 were compared.
RESULTS: This study included 15 ESD and 12 GI-EMR cases. En bloc and R0 resection rates did not significantly differ between the ESD and GI-EMR groups (100% vs. 100% and 100% vs. 83.3%, p = 0.19, respectively). The procedure time was significantly shorter for GI-EMR than for ESD (2 vs. 47 min, p < 0.001, respectively). Intraprocedural perforation occurred in 6.7% of ESD cases, but was not observed in the GI-EMR group. Neither delayed bleeding nor perforation occurred in any group. During the median follow-up period of 22.3 months, no local recurrence was observed in either group.
CONCLUSIONS: GI-EMR may be considered one of the therapeutic options for GNs in patients with FAP.