| Literature DB >> 23519491 |
Seung Yeon Chun1, Kyoung Oh Kim, Dong Seon Park, In Joung Lee, Ji Won Park, Sung-Hoon Moon, Il Hyun Baek, Jong Hyeok Kim, Choong Kee Park, Mi Jung Kwon.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a well-established method for the treatment of gastrointestinal epithelial tumors. However, the treatment of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs) that originate from the muscularis propria layer still depends primarily on surgical techniques. We evaluated the appropriate indications for ESD in the treatment of SETs that originate from the muscularis propria layer.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23519491 PMCID: PMC3751271 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-013-2904-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Surg Endosc ISSN: 0930-2794 Impact factor: 4.584
Fig. 1The degree of muscular connection with a subepithelial tumor as shown by endoscopic ultrasound. A Narrow muscular connection with the tumor: the diameter of the connection with the fourth layer of the tumor is <50 % of the maximal diameter of the tumor base (black arrow hyperechoic demarcation line between the tumor and the muscularis propria layer). B Wide muscular connection with the tumor: the diameter of the connection with the fourth layer is >50 % of the maximal diameter of the tumor base
Fig. 2A Magnified scan of an H&E slide showing a well-demarcated submucosal tumor with clear circumferential resection margins following endoscopic submucosal dissection. B The deep resection margin (arrow) is negative (R0) (×40). C The resection margin, indicated by green color and an arrowhead, is involved with a gastrointestinal stromal tumor (R1) (×200)
Characteristics of the patients and the tumors (n = 35)
| Sex (female/male) | 14/21 |
| Age (year; mean ± SD) | 54.15 ± 9.3 |
| Follow-up duration (month; mean ± SD) | 6.13 ± 9.02 |
| Endoscopic findings | |
| Rolling sign, | |
| Positive | 16 (45.7 %) |
| Negative | 19 (54.3 %) |
| Mobility, | |
| Fixed | 5 (14.3 %) |
| Mobile | 30 (85.7 %) |
| Location, | |
| Fundus | 1 (2.9 %) |
| Cardia | 10 (28.6 %) |
| High body | 14 (40 %) |
| Mid body | 3 (8.6 %) |
| Lower body | 4 (11.4 %) |
| Antrum | 3 (8.6 %) |
| Endoscopic ultrasound findings | |
| Connection with the fourth layer on EUS, | |
| Narrow | 12 (34.3 %) |
| Wide | 23 (65.7 %) |
| Margin of tumor | |
| Well-demarcated | 34 (97.1 %) |
| Not well-demarcated | 1 (2.9 %) |
| Pathological diagnosis | |
| Leiomyoma | 21 (60 %) |
| GIST | 10 (28.6 %) |
| Neurogenic tumor | 2 (5.7 %) |
| Other | 2 (5.7 %) |
| Tumor diameter (mm; mean ± SD) | 17.99 ± 7.86 |
Predictive parameters for complete resection in patients who underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric subepithelial tumors
| Parameters | Complete resection |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes ( | No ( | ||
| Rolling sign, |
| ||
| Yes | 15 (93.8 %) | 1 (6.3 %) | |
| No | 11 (57.9 %) | 8 (42.1 %) | |
| Mobility, | 0.095 | ||
| Fixed lesion | 2 (40 %) | 3 (60 %) | |
| Mobile lesion | 24 (80 %) | 6 (20 %) | |
| Margin of tumor, | 0.257 | ||
| Well-demarcated margin | 26 (76.5 %) | 8 (23.5 %) | |
| No well-demarcated margin | 0 (0 %) | 1 (100 %) | |
| Connection with the fourth layer on EUS, | 0.121 | ||
| Narrow connection | 11 (91.7 %) | 1 (8.3 %) | |
| Wide connection | 15 (65.2 %) | 8 (34.8 %) | |
| Tumor size, |
| ||
| ≤20 mm | 20 (87 %) | 3 (13 %) | |
| >20 mm | 6 (50 %) | 6 (50 %) | |
| Histological diagnosis, | 0.291 | ||
| Leiomyoma | 18 (85.7 %) | 3 (14.3 %) | |
| GIST | 6 (60 %) | 4 (40 %) | |
| Neurogenic tumor | 1 (50 %) | 1 (50 %) | |
| Other | 1 (50 %) | 1 (50 %) | |
Bold values indicate statistically significant parameter
Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for the study subjects (n = 35)
| Resection |
|
|---|---|
| R0 | 26 (74.3 %) |
| R1 | 6 (17.1 %) |
| R2 | 3 (8.6 %) |
| Procedure time (min; mean ± SD) | 32.29 ± 20.55 |
| Major bleeding, | 0 (0 %) |
| Perforation, | 2 (5.7 %) |
Predictive parameters of perforation in patients who underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric subepithelial tumors
| Parameters | Perforation |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes ( | No ( | ||
| Rolling sign, | 0.489 | ||
| Positive | 0 (0 %) | 16 (100 %) | |
| Negative | 2 (10.5 %) | 17 (89.5 %) | |
| Mobility, |
| ||
| Fixed lesion | 2 (40.0 %) | 3 (60.0 %) | |
| Mobile lesion | 0 (0 %) | 30 (100 %) | |
| Connection with fourth layer on EUS, | 0.536 | ||
| Narrow connection | 0 (0 %) | 12 (100 %) | |
| Wide connection | 2 (8.7 %) | 21 (91.3 %) | |
| Tumor size, | 0.999 | ||
| ≤20 mm | 1 (4.3 %) | 22 (95.7 %) | |
| >20 mm | 1 (8.3 %) | 11 (91.7 %) | |
| Histological diagnosis, |
| ||
| Leiomyoma | 0 | 21 | |
| GIST | 0 | 10 | |
| Neurogenic tumor | 2 | 0 | |
| Other | 0 | 2 | |
Bold values indicate statistically significant parameter
Fig. 3Endoscopic findings obtained from the endoscopic submucosal dissection of a gastric subepithelial tumor. A The tumor base was surrounded by a bluish submucosal layer (black arrowheads) following the injection of a mixture of glycerol and indigo carmine. B Following the dissection of the submucosal layer, a whitish narrow muscular connection area (black arrow) was observed. C Wide muscular connection area (black arrows) and a muscularis propria layer (empty arrow) adjacent to the tumor were exposed following a circumferential incision around the lesion
Fig. 4Schematic illustrations of subepithelial tumors with differing growing patterns and muscular connections. A Subserosal. B Submucosal with a wide muscular connection. C Submucosal with a narrow muscular connection. D Intramural type