4.6 Article

Is endoscopic submucosal dissection safe for papillary adenocarcinoma of the stomach?

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 13, Pages 3944-3952

Publisher

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i13.3944

Keywords

Gastric cancer; Papillary adenocarcinoma; Endoscopic submucosal dissection; Metastasis; Lymph node

Funding

  1. Korea Healthcare Technology R and D Project, Ministry of Health and Welfare, South Korea [HI12C1845]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIM: To identify the clinicopathological predictors of lymph node (LN) metastasis and evaluate the outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in papillary adenocarcinoma-type early gastric cancers (EGCs). METHODS: From January 2005 to May 2013, 49 patients who underwent surgical operation and 24 patients who underwent ESD for papillary adenocarcinoma-type EGC were enrolled to identify clinicopathological characteristics and predictive factors of LN metastasis and to evaluate the outcomes of ESD for papillary adenocarcinoma-type EGC. RESULTS: Most papillary adenocarcinoma-type EGCs were located in the lower third of the stomach and had an elevated macroscopic shape. The overall prevalence of LN metastasis was 18.3% (9/49). The presence of lymphovascular invasion was found to be a predictor of LN metastasis (P = 0.016). According to current indication criteria of ESD, 6 and 11 of the 49 patients had absolute and expanded indications for ESD, respectively. Two patients (11.8%) with expanded indication for ESD had LN metastasis. Of the 24 patients who underwent ESD, 13 (54%) achieved out-of-ESD indication, with 9 of those 13 patients undergoing surgical operation due to non-curative resection. CONCLUSION: The use of ESD should be carefully considered for papillary adenocarcinoma-type EGC with suspected ESD indication after pre-treatment work-up because of the higher frequency of LN metastasis and additional surgeries.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available