4.5 Article

Local recurrence after endoscopic resection of colorectal tumors

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COLORECTAL DISEASE
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 225-230

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-008-0596-8

关键词

Colorectal tumors; Colonoscopy; Neoplasm recurrence; Follow-up studies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Local recurrence frequently occurs after endoscopic resection of large colorectal tumors. However, appropriate intervals for surveillance colonoscopy to assess local recurrence after endoscopic resection have not been clarified. The aim of the present study was to determine local recurrence rates following en-bloc and piecemeal endoscopic resection and establish appropriate surveillance colonoscopy intervals based on retrospective analysis of local recurrences. A total of 461 patients with 572 a parts per thousand yenaEuro parts per thousand 10-mm lesions underwent endoscopic resection and follow-up. We retrospectively compared local recurrence rates on lesion size, macroscopic type, and histological type after en-bloc resection (440 lesions) and piecemeal resection (132 lesions). Cumulative local recurrence rates were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Local recurrence occurred for 34 lesions (5.9%). Local recurrence rates for the en-bloc and piecemeal groups was 0.7% (3/440) and 23.5% (31/132), respectively (P < 0.001). The difference between the two groups was distinct in terms of lesion size, macroscopic type, and histological type. Of the 34 local recurrences, 32 were treated endoscopically and two cases required additional surgery. The 6-, 12-, and 24-month cumulative local recurrence rate of the en-bloc group was 0.24%, 0.49%, and 0.81%. Then the 6-, 12-, and 24-month cumulative local recurrence rate for the piecemeal group was 18.4%, 23.1%, and 30.7%. Local recurrence occurred more frequently after piecemeal resection than en-bloc resection. However, almost all cases of local recurrences could be cured by additional endoscopic resection, so piecemeal resection can be acceptable treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据