4.6 Article

What are the appropriate indications for endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer? Analysis of 256 endoscopically resected lesions

Journal

ENDOSCOPY
Volume 32, Issue 10, Pages 773-778

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG
DOI: 10.1055/s-2000-7712

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Study Aims: Although endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for early gastric cancer (EGC) without ulceration or scarring has been very popular in Japan and thought to be beneficial, curability by EMR is still lower than that for surgical resection, We investigated patients whose EGCs were resected endoscopically in order to identify the factors affecting curability by EMR, Patients and Methods: We investigated retrospectively 256 EGC lesions (251 patients) which were subjected to EMR between 1989 and 1998 with respect to patient profile, macroscopic type, location, maximum diameter of tumors, resection method and histological typing. The prognoses of the patients were also investigated as far as possible. Results: The curative total resection rate for EMR of EGC was 74.2 %, Concerning the factors affecting curability, the size of the lesion lover 15 mm), the method of resection (divisional resection), and histological typing (poorly differentiated) had a statistically significant effect on the complete resection rate. Multivariate analysis of the factors confirmed these results. Submucosal invasion was suspected in 16 patients after EMR, but submucosal cancer was found in only one patient after further surgery. Where there was recurrence, the longest recurrence-free period after EMR of EGC was 48 months, whereas the mean recurrence-free period was 195.4 days. Conclusions: The appropriate indication for EMR for EGC is thought to be an intramucosal differentiated-type adenocarcinoma without ulceration or scarring, and no more than 15 mm in size regardless of macroscopic type. Periodic follow-up for at least 5 years is necessary.

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