Arab journal of gastroenterology : the official publication of the Pan-Arab Association of Gastroenterology · 2021
An evaluation of resectability among endoscopic treatment methods for rectal neuroendocrine tumors <10 mm.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Toriyama Kazuhiro, Yamamura Takeshi, Nakamura Masanao, Maeda Keiko, Sawada Tsunaki, Mizutani Yasuyuki, Ishikawa Eri, Furukawa Kazuhiro, Ishikawa Takuya, Ohno Eizaburo, Kawashima Hiroki, Fujishiro Mitsuhiro
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: With respect to rectal neuroendocrine tumor (NET) resection, it remains unclear which of the following methods is the most effective: conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (cEMR), EMR using a fitted cap (EMR-C), EMR with a ligation band device (EMR-L), or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Thus, in this study, we aim to retrospectively evaluate the most effective endoscopic resection for rectal NETs < 10 mm.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: In total, 61 consecutive patients with primary rectal NETs < 10 mm in diameter were included in this study; they were then divided into three groups: those with cEMR; those with modified EMR (mEMR) involving EMR-C and EMR-L; and those with ESD. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the difference in the complete en bloc resection rate. The secondary endpoint was to investigate differences in procedure time and complications.
RESULTS: Among the three groups, a significant difference was found in procedure time (cEMR vs ESD, P < .01; mEMR vs ESD, P < .01), en bloc resection rate (cEMR vs mEMR, P = .015), tumor size (mEMR vs ESD, P < .01), percentage of tumor diameter ≥ 5 mm (mEMR vs ESD, P < .01), and complete en bloc resection rate (cEMR vs mEMR, P = .014). Meanwhile, no significant difference was noted in terms of complication rate among the three groups.
CONCLUSION: The mEMR was the most suitable resection method for rectal NETs < 10 mm with respect to the risks and benefits from procedure-related factors, such as complete en bloc resection rate, procedure time, and complication rate.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: In total, 61 consecutive patients with primary rectal NETs < 10 mm in diameter were included in this study; they were then divided into three groups: those with cEMR; those with modified EMR (mEMR) involving EMR-C and EMR-L; and those with ESD. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the difference in the complete en bloc resection rate. The secondary endpoint was to investigate differences in procedure time and complications.
RESULTS: Among the three groups, a significant difference was found in procedure time (cEMR vs ESD, P < .01; mEMR vs ESD, P < .01), en bloc resection rate (cEMR vs mEMR, P = .015), tumor size (mEMR vs ESD, P < .01), percentage of tumor diameter ≥ 5 mm (mEMR vs ESD, P < .01), and complete en bloc resection rate (cEMR vs mEMR, P = .014). Meanwhile, no significant difference was noted in terms of complication rate among the three groups.
CONCLUSION: The mEMR was the most suitable resection method for rectal NETs < 10 mm with respect to the risks and benefits from procedure-related factors, such as complete en bloc resection rate, procedure time, and complication rate.