AIM: To clarify the safety and efficacy of repeat endoscopic submucosal dissection (re-ESD) for locally recurrent gastric cancers after ESD. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation was performed of the therapeutic efficacy, complications and follow-up results from ESD treatment for early gastric cancers in 521 consecutive patients with 616 lesions at St. Luke`s International Hospital between April 2004 and November 2012. In addition, tumor size, the size of resected specimens and the operation time were compared between re-ESD and initial ESD procedures. A flex knife was used as the primary surgical device and a hook knife was used in cases with severe fibrosis in the submucosal layer. Continuous variables were analyzed using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test and are expressed as medians (range). Categorical variables were analyzed using a Fisher's exact test and are reported as proportions. Statistical significance was defined as a P-value less than 0.05. RESULTS: The number of cases in the re-ESD group and the initial ESD group were 5 and 611, respectively. The median time interval from the initial ESD to re-ESD was 14 (range, 4-44 mo). En bloc resection with free lateral and vertical margins was successfully performed in all re-ESD cases without any complications. No local or distant recurrence was observed during the median follow-up period of 48 (range, 11-56 mo). Tumor size was not significantly different between the re-ESD group and the initial ESD group (median 22 mm vs 11 mm, P = 0.09), although the size of resected specimens was significantly larger in the re-ESD group (median 47 mm vs 34 mm, P < 0.05). There was a non-significant increase observed in re-ESD operation time compared to initial ESD (median 202 min vs 67 min, respectively, P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: Despite the low patient number and short follow-up, the results suggest that re-ESD is a safe and effective endoscopic treatment for recurrent gastric cancer after ESD.
AIM: To clarify the safety and efficacy of repeat endoscopic submucosal dissection (re-ESD) for locally recurrent gastric cancers after ESD. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation was performed of the therapeutic efficacy, complications and follow-up results from ESD treatment for early gastric cancers in 521 consecutive patients with 616 lesions at St. Luke`s International Hospital between April 2004 and November 2012. In addition, tumor size, the size of resected specimens and the operation time were compared between re-ESD and initial ESD procedures. A flex knife was used as the primary surgical device and a hook knife was used in cases with severe fibrosis in the submucosal layer. Continuous variables were analyzed using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test and are expressed as medians (range). Categorical variables were analyzed using a Fisher's exact test and are reported as proportions. Statistical significance was defined as a P-value less than 0.05. RESULTS: The number of cases in the re-ESD group and the initial ESD group were 5 and 611, respectively. The median time interval from the initial ESD to re-ESD was 14 (range, 4-44 mo). En bloc resection with free lateral and vertical margins was successfully performed in all re-ESD cases without any complications. No local or distant recurrence was observed during the median follow-up period of 48 (range, 11-56 mo). Tumor size was not significantly different between the re-ESD group and the initial ESD group (median 22 mm vs 11 mm, P = 0.09), although the size of resected specimens was significantly larger in the re-ESD group (median 47 mm vs 34 mm, P < 0.05). There was a non-significant increase observed in re-ESD operation time compared to initial ESD (median 202 min vs 67 min, respectively, P = 0.06). CONCLUSION: Despite the low patient number and short follow-up, the results suggest that re-ESD is a safe and effective endoscopic treatment for recurrent gastric cancer after ESD.
Authors: K Higuchi; S Tanabe; W Koizumi; T Sasaki; K Nakatani; K Saigenji; N Kobayashi; H Mitomi Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: H Isomoto; S Shikuwa; N Yamaguchi; E Fukuda; K Ikeda; H Nishiyama; K Ohnita; Y Mizuta; J Shiozawa; S Kohno Journal: Gut Date: 2008-11-10 Impact factor: 23.059