European journal of medical research · 2005
Strategy of treatment of submucosal gastric tumors.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Sato T, Peiper Matthias, Fritscher-Ravens A, Gocht A, Soehendra N, Knoefel W T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The more frequent use of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) leads to an increased number of diagnosed gastric submucosal tumors (G-SMT). Since until now rather little therapeutical success in respect of these tumors has been achieved, we evaluated our concept of watchful waiting and selective treatment of patients with G-SMT in an analysis of prospectively collected data.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-seven consecutive patients with G-SMT treated at our institution between 1994 and 2000, were included. All patients underwent abdominal ultrasound and EUS, and in case of suspicious findings or a tumor size > 2 cm EUS fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) was performed. Patients were operated on if a malignant tumor was suspected (tumor size > 2 cm; detection of metastases) or if complications occurred (e.g. bleeding, ulceration).
RESULTS: All 47 patients were included in this study. Typical symptoms were nausea (64%), bleeding (11%) and pain (9%). EUS showed a G-SMT averaging 6.4 (0.8 - 30) cm in size. EUS-FNA was performed in 24 patients revealing PAP III (n = 1), PAP II (n = 21) and PAP I (n = 2) scores. Surgery was performed in 33 patients, revealing gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) in 18 patients as well as several other malignant and non-malignant lesions. During follow-up (median 37 months), none of the conservatively treated patients (n = 14) developed a malignant tumor.
CONCLUSIONS: In one third of our patients surgery could be avoided with this strategy. No delayed diagnosis of a malignant tumor during follow-up was established. Small G-GMT's should be monitored conservatively if diagnostic procedures and follow-up was performed by EUS and eventually EUS-FNA.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-seven consecutive patients with G-SMT treated at our institution between 1994 and 2000, were included. All patients underwent abdominal ultrasound and EUS, and in case of suspicious findings or a tumor size > 2 cm EUS fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) was performed. Patients were operated on if a malignant tumor was suspected (tumor size > 2 cm; detection of metastases) or if complications occurred (e.g. bleeding, ulceration).
RESULTS: All 47 patients were included in this study. Typical symptoms were nausea (64%), bleeding (11%) and pain (9%). EUS showed a G-SMT averaging 6.4 (0.8 - 30) cm in size. EUS-FNA was performed in 24 patients revealing PAP III (n = 1), PAP II (n = 21) and PAP I (n = 2) scores. Surgery was performed in 33 patients, revealing gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) in 18 patients as well as several other malignant and non-malignant lesions. During follow-up (median 37 months), none of the conservatively treated patients (n = 14) developed a malignant tumor.
CONCLUSIONS: In one third of our patients surgery could be avoided with this strategy. No delayed diagnosis of a malignant tumor during follow-up was established. Small G-GMT's should be monitored conservatively if diagnostic procedures and follow-up was performed by EUS and eventually EUS-FNA.