Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025
Usefulness of Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Compared With Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Early Gastric Cancer.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяVideo-Audio MediaСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Ando Yoshiaki, Uedo Noriya, Tani Yasuhiro, Ueda Tomoya, Tanabe Gentaro, Fujimoto Yuta, Ito Noriaki, Tsukuda Nobutoshi, Matsuyama Kazuki, Morita Muneshin, Kato Minoru, Yoshii Shunsuke, Shichijo Satoki, Kanesaka Takashi, Yamamoto Sachiko, Higashino Koji, Michida Tomoki, Ishihara Ryu
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is one of the standard treatments for small early gastric cancer (EGC) but has a low R0 resection rate. Consequently, underwater EMR (UEMR) has become the new standard treatment for endoscopic resection of colorectal and duodenal tumors; however, no study has compared the effectiveness of UEMR and conventional EMR (CEMR) for EGC. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to evaluate the usefulness of UEMR for EGC compared with that of CEMR.
METHODS: Patients who underwent UEMR or CEMR for intramucosal EGCs ≤ 20 mm without ulceration between January 2014 and March 2024 were identified. Propensity score matching analysis (1:1, caliper width of 0.2) was performed using operator expertise, tumor location, endoscopic tumor size, morphological type, and treatment period as covariates.
RESULTS: A total of 32 patients with 35 lesions and 89 patients with 103 lesions underwent UEMR and CEMR, respectively. After propensity score matching, the UEMR and CEMR groups comprised 26 lesions. The median tumor sizes in both UEMR and CEMR groups were 6 mm The R0 resection rate for UEMR (96%, 25/26) was significantly higher than that for CEMR (69%, 18/26; p = 0.024).
CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that, when EMR is indicated for EGC, UEMR is preferable to CEMR as it provides a better R0 resection rate.
METHODS: Patients who underwent UEMR or CEMR for intramucosal EGCs ≤ 20 mm without ulceration between January 2014 and March 2024 were identified. Propensity score matching analysis (1:1, caliper width of 0.2) was performed using operator expertise, tumor location, endoscopic tumor size, morphological type, and treatment period as covariates.
RESULTS: A total of 32 patients with 35 lesions and 89 patients with 103 lesions underwent UEMR and CEMR, respectively. After propensity score matching, the UEMR and CEMR groups comprised 26 lesions. The median tumor sizes in both UEMR and CEMR groups were 6 mm The R0 resection rate for UEMR (96%, 25/26) was significantly higher than that for CEMR (69%, 18/26; p = 0.024).
CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that, when EMR is indicated for EGC, UEMR is preferable to CEMR as it provides a better R0 resection rate.