| Literature DB >> 28210705 |
Ai Fujimoto1, Osamu Goto1, Toshihiro Nishizawa1, Yasutoshi Ochiai1, Joichiro Horii1, Tadateru Maehata1, Teppei Akimoto1, Satoshi Kinoshita1, Seiji Sagara1, Motoki Sasaki1, Toshio Uraoka1, Naohisa Yahagi1.
Abstract
Background and study aims We sometimes perform gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for total pathologic diagnosis when preoperative diagnosis is difficult. In the present study we analyzed the treatment outcomes and adverse events of diagnostic ESD for early gastric cancer (EGC). Patients and methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of 18 consecutive cases of EGC in 18 patients with a suspected out-of-indication diagnosis who underwent diagnostic ESD, between June 2010 and November 2014. The following parameters were examined: the average length of the longer axis of the lesion; the procedure time; the rates of en bloc resection (ER), complete en bloc resection (CER), and curative resection (CR) as treatment outcomes; and the rates of perforation, delayed bleeding, aspiration pneumonia, disease-related death, and emergency surgery as adverse events. Results The treatment outcomes were as follows: average length of the longer axis of the lesion, 27.4 ± 10.0 mm; procedure time, 87.0 ± 43.1 minutes; ER rate, 18/18 (100.0 %); CER rate, 13/18 (72.2 %); CR rate, 4/18 (22.2 %). CR rate was achieved 37.5 % for the lesions which preoperative diagnosis was more than 30 mm (> 30 mm) in diameter differentiated type with mucosal layer/submucosal layer 1 invasion and ulceration positive. The adverse events (AEs) were perforation in 1 of 18 (5.5 %) patients and delayed bleeding in 1 of 18 (5.5 %). There were no other AEs. Conclusions Diagnostic ESD may be acceptable for future therapeutic strategy when we unconfirmed the pre ESD diagnosis because of lower rate of adverse events and high rate of ER.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28210705 PMCID: PMC5303017 DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-119392
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Preoperative diagnosis. 1
| Preoperative diagnosis | n = 18 | |
| Deeper than SM2 (n = 6) | 6 | |
| M/SM1 invasion (n = 12) | > 30 mm + UL(+) | 8 |
| Undifferentiated-type + > 20 mm | 1 | |
| Undifferentiated-type + UL(+) | 2 | |
| > 20 mm + UL(+) + Undifferentiated-type | 1 | |
M, mucosal layer; SM, submucosal layer; UL(+), ulceration positive.
The cancer invasion was deeper than SM2 in 6 cases, M/SM1 in 12 cases. (( Is footnote here in correct place?))
Outcomes of ESD.
| Outcomes | n = 18 |
| Average of longer axis of lesions (mm) | 27.4 ± 10.0 |
| Average ESD procedure times (minutes) | 87.0 ± 43.1 |
| ER | 18/18 (100 %) |
| CER | 13/18(72.2 %) |
| CR | 4/18 (22.2 %) |
ER, en bloc resection; CER, Complete en bloc resection; CR, curative resection.
The rates of ER, CER, and CR were 100 %, 72.2 %, and 22.2 %, respectively.
Pathologic studies confirmed that CER was not achieved.1
| Preoperative diagnosis | Postoperative diagnosis | ||
| 1 | VM unclear | 20 mm ≥ SM2 UL(-) diff. | 21 mm SM1 UL(-) tub1 |
| 2 | VM positive | 15 mm ≥ SM2 UL(-) diff. | 15 mm ≥ SM2 UL(-) tub2 > por |
| 3 | VM positive | 15 mm ≥ SM2 UL(-) diff. | 15 mm ≥ SM2 UL(+) tub2 > 1 > por |
| 4 | VM positive | 30 mm ≥ SM2 UL(-) diff. | 30 mm ≥ SM2 UL(-) por > tub2 > sig |
| 5 | VM unclear | 45 mm ≥ SM2 UL(-) diff. | 48 mm ≥ SM2 UL(-) tub2 |
CER, complete en bloc resection; HM, horizontal margin; VM, vertical margin; SM, submucosal layer; ≥ SM2, deeper than or equal to SM2; UL, ulceration; diff., differentiated type; tub1, well differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma; tub2, moderately differentiated tubular adenocaricinoma; por, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma; sig, signet-ring cell carcinoma.
4 in 5 cases were deeper than or equal to SM2 invasion.
Pathologic studies confirmed to achieve CR.
| Case | Preoperative diagnosis | Postoperative diagnosis |
| 1 | 35 mm M/SM1 UL(+) diff. | 30 mm adenoma |
| 2 | 20 mm ≥ SM2 UL(-) diff. | 22 mm SM1 UL(-) tub1 > 2 ly0 v0 |
| 3 | 35 mm M/SM1 UL(+) diff. | 12 mm M UL(+) tub1 ly0 v0 |
| 4 | 31 mm M/SM1 UL(+) diff | 32 mm M UL(-) tub2 > tub1 ly0 v0 |
CR, complete resection; M, mucosal layer; SM, submucosal layer; ≥ SM2, deeper than or equal to SM2; UL, ulceration; diff, differentiated-type; tub1, well-differentiated tubular adenocarcinoma; tub2, moderately-differentiated tubular adenocaricinoma; ly, lymphatic invasion; v, blood vessel invasion.
Preoperative diagnosis for 3 in 4 CR cases (75.0 %) were > 30 mm M/SM1 differentiate-type with UL(+)’.
CR rate.
| Preoperative diagnosis | Curative resection rate | |
| Deeper than SM2 | 6 | 1/6 (16.6 %) |
| > 30 mm M/SM1 differentiated-type with UL(+) | 8 | 3/8 (37.5 %) |
| Undifferentiated-type with 1 positive among SM1, UL(+) or > 20 mm | 4 | 0/4 (0 %) |
CR; curative resection; SM, submucosal layer; UL(+), ulceration positive.
CR rate of lesions for > 30 mm M/SM1 differentiated-type with UL(+) was 37.5 %.
Adverse events.
| Adverse event | |
| Perforation | 1 (5.5 %) |
| Delayed bleeding | 1 (5.5 %) |
| Aspiration pneumonia | 0 |
| Emergency surgery | 0 |
| Disease-related death | 0 |
There were no severe adverse events in the undiagnosed lesions that appeared not to be indicated for ESD.