BACKGROUND: Endoscopic snare papillectomy is increasingly performed with curative intent for benign papillary tumors. This study aimed to evaluate the outcome of endoscopic resection for ampullary tumors at a single center. METHODS: All ampullary tumors without macroscopic features of malignancy identified by the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) from January 1995 to February 2007 were included in the study. Papillectomy was performed by snare resection using electrocautery. Argon plasma coagulation was effective for fulguration of small tissue remnants not amenable to snare resection. RESULTS: Of the 21 patients (9 men and 12 women; mean age, 67.2 +/- 14.3 years) evaluated, 11 had adenoma (7 had low-grade dysplasia [LGD] and 4 had high-grade dysplasia [HGD]), and 10 had carcinoma. All the patients underwent papillectomy. Of the 21 patients, 18 had extraductal growth or minimal intraductal growth, and 3 had extensive intraductal growth. The endoscopic complications (23.8%) included one case of mild bleeding, two cases of mild pancreatitis, and two cases of moderate pancreatitis. After papillectomy, 15 patients underwent Whipple procedures (endoscopic failure, 74.1%), including 3 patients with extensive intraductal growth (complete removal of the lesion impossible), 9 patients with carcinoma beyond the mucosal layer, and 3 patients with recurrence treated surgically. Endoscopic success (28.5%) was obtained for the remaining six patients (4 with LGD and 2 with HGD). Papillectomy was determined to be curative after a mean follow-up period of 15.9 +/- 14.9 months. CONCLUSIONS: In the hands of an experienced endoscopist, endoscopic papillectomy is a clinically effective treatment for ampullary tumors without invasive neoplasia. Evaluation of a prepapillectomy tumor extension is an important criterion for assessment of endoscopic success.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic snare papillectomy is increasingly performed with curative intent for benign papillary tumors. This study aimed to evaluate the outcome of endoscopic resection for ampullary tumors at a single center. METHODS: All ampullary tumors without macroscopic features of malignancy identified by the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) from January 1995 to February 2007 were included in the study. Papillectomy was performed by snare resection using electrocautery. Argon plasma coagulation was effective for fulguration of small tissue remnants not amenable to snare resection. RESULTS: Of the 21 patients (9 men and 12 women; mean age, 67.2 +/- 14.3 years) evaluated, 11 had adenoma (7 had low-grade dysplasia [LGD] and 4 had high-grade dysplasia [HGD]), and 10 had carcinoma. All the patients underwent papillectomy. Of the 21 patients, 18 had extraductal growth or minimal intraductal growth, and 3 had extensive intraductal growth. The endoscopic complications (23.8%) included one case of mild bleeding, two cases of mild pancreatitis, and two cases of moderate pancreatitis. After papillectomy, 15 patients underwent Whipple procedures (endoscopic failure, 74.1%), including 3 patients with extensive intraductal growth (complete removal of the lesion impossible), 9 patients with carcinoma beyond the mucosal layer, and 3 patients with recurrence treated surgically. Endoscopic success (28.5%) was obtained for the remaining six patients (4 with LGD and 2 with HGD). Papillectomy was determined to be curative after a mean follow-up period of 15.9 +/- 14.9 months. CONCLUSIONS: In the hands of an experienced endoscopist, endoscopic papillectomy is a clinically effective treatment for ampullary tumors without invasive neoplasia. Evaluation of a prepapillectomy tumor extension is an important criterion for assessment of endoscopic success.
Authors: R J Schlemper; R H Riddell; Y Kato; F Borchard; H S Cooper; S M Dawsey; M F Dixon; C M Fenoglio-Preiser; J F Fléjou; K Geboes; T Hattori; T Hirota; M Itabashi; M Iwafuchi; A Iwashita; Y I Kim; T Kirchner; M Klimpfinger; M Koike; G Y Lauwers; K J Lewin; G Oberhuber; F Offner; A B Price; C A Rubio; M Shimizu; T Shimoda; P Sipponen; E Solcia; M Stolte; H Watanabe; H Yamabe Journal: Gut Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Ian D Norton; Christopher J Gostout; Todd H Baron; Alex Geller; Bret T Petersen; Maurits J Wiersema Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: A Scarpa; P Capelli; G Zamboni; T Oda; K Mukai; F Bonetti; G Martignoni; C Iacono; G Serio; S Hirohashi Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 1993-04 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Wim Laleman; Annelies Verreth; Baki Topal; Raymond Aerts; Mina Komuta; Tania Roskams; Schalk Van der Merwe; David Cassiman; Frederik Nevens; Chris Verslype; Werner Van Steenbergen Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-05-25 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Tianle Ma; Eun Jeong Jang; Lawrence R Zukerberg; Robert Odze; Manish K Gala; Peter B Kelsey; David G Forcione; William R Brugge; Brenna W Casey; Sapna Syngal; Daniel C Chung Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Bertrand Napoléon; M Victoria Alvarez-Sanchez; Philippe Leclercq; François Mion; Jean Pialat; Rodica Gincul; Daniel Ribeiro; Marie Cambou; Christine Lefort; Mar Rodríguez-Girondo; Jean Yves Scoazec Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-04-03 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Wiriyaporn Ridtitid; Damien Tan; Suzette E Schmidt; Evan L Fogel; Lee McHenry; James L Watkins; Glen A Lehman; Stuart Sherman; Gregory A Coté Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Chung Hwan Jun; Ho Seok Ki; Hoon Ki Lee; Kang Jin Park; Seon Young Park; Sung Bum Cho; Chang Hwan Park; Young Eun Joo; Hyun Soo Kim; Sung Kyu Choi; Jong Sun Rew Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-01-14 Impact factor: 5.742