4.5 Article

THERAPEUTIC OUTCOMES OF ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION OF UNDIFFERENTIATED-TYPE INTRAMUCOSAL GASTRIC CANCER WITHOUT ULCERATION AND PREOPERATIVELY DIAGNOSED AS 20 MILLIMETRES OR LESS IN DIAMETER

期刊

DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 112-118

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2010.00945.x

关键词

complication; curative resection; endoscopic submucosal dissection; marking; undifferentiated-type intramucosal gastric cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: The aim of the present study was to examine therapeutic outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of undifferentiated-type intramucosal gastric cancer and the problems of diagnosis. Methods: We reviewed 58 patients with preoperatively diagnosed undifferentiated-type intramucosal early gastric cancer (EGC) without ulceration with a diameter of 20 mm or smaller (expanded-indication lesion) who underwent ESD at the Cancer Institute Hospital between September 2003 and August 2008. Results: The overall rates of one-piece resection and complete resection were 98% and 90% respectively, and the median operation time was 70 min. Bleeding was seen in 8.6% and perforation in 3.4%. The curative resection rate was low at 79%. Factors responsible for non-curative resection were most commonly submucosal invasions. If limited to pathologically diagnosed expanded-indication lesions, the curative resection rate was 98%. The difference in tumor size between a macroscopic diameter and a histological diameter was within +/- 5 mm in 96% of expanded-indication lesions, with none of these cases having a histological diameter that exceeded the macroscopic diameter by more than 5 mm. Conclusion: ESD was technically feasible for expanded-indication lesions of undifferentiated-type EGC. We achieved a high rate of curative resection by the markings at sites 5 mm beyond the preoperatively determined lesion area. Factors responsible for non-curative resection were most commonly submucosal invasions. We should diagnose the depth of such lesions more carefully.

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