OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic resection is preferred for duodenal carcinoids less than 20 mm; however, the efficacy of simple polypectomy has not been compared with advanced endoscopic resection techniques. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 33 patients who underwent endoscopic duodenal carcinoid resection (10 simple, 23 endoscopic mucosal resection) at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania between January 1, 2006, and June 15, 2017. The primary outcomes were resection margin positivity and local tumor recurrence. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in demographics or tumor functionality. Lesions managed with simple polypectomy had smaller median gross specimen size (6.0 mm vs 8.0 mm, P = 0.043). There was no significant difference in pathology resection margins between simple polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (86% vs 68% positive, P = 0.64). Local recurrence on surveillance endoscopy was also similar (14.3% vs 17.7%, respectively; P = 1.000), with median time to recurrence 2.3 months (interquartile range, 1.2-5.4 months). The median follow-up time in patients without local recurrence was 21.4 months (interquartile range, 7.1-39.6 months). CONCLUSIONS: Simple polypectomy may be adequate treatment of small duodenal carcinoids, although further studies are needed for validation and to define the upper limits of tumor size that can be managed with this technique.
OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic resection is preferred for duodenal carcinoids less than 20 mm; however, the efficacy of simple polypectomy has not been compared with advanced endoscopic resection techniques. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 33 patients who underwent endoscopic duodenal carcinoid resection (10 simple, 23 endoscopic mucosal resection) at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania between January 1, 2006, and June 15, 2017. The primary outcomes were resection margin positivity and local tumor recurrence. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in demographics or tumor functionality. Lesions managed with simple polypectomy had smaller median gross specimen size (6.0 mm vs 8.0 mm, P = 0.043). There was no significant difference in pathology resection margins between simple polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (86% vs 68% positive, P = 0.64). Local recurrence on surveillance endoscopy was also similar (14.3% vs 17.7%, respectively; P = 1.000), with median time to recurrence 2.3 months (interquartile range, 1.2-5.4 months). The median follow-up time in patients without local recurrence was 21.4 months (interquartile range, 7.1-39.6 months). CONCLUSIONS: Simple polypectomy may be adequate treatment of small duodenal carcinoids, although further studies are needed for validation and to define the upper limits of tumor size that can be managed with this technique.
Authors: Nuzhat A Ahmad; Michael L Kochman; William B Long; Emma E Furth; Gregory G Ginsberg Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: James C Yao; Manal Hassan; Alexandria Phan; Cecile Dagohoy; Colleen Leary; Jeannette E Mares; Eddie K Abdalla; Jason B Fleming; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Asif Rashid; Douglas B Evans Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: H Yoshikane; H Goto; Y Niwa; M Matsui; S Ohashi; T Suzuki; E Hamajima; T Hayakawa Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 1998-06 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Sang Ho Kim; Chang Hwan Park; Ho Seok Ki; Chung Hwan Jun; Seon Young Park; Hyun Soo Kim; Sung Kyu Choi; Jong Sun Rew Journal: Clin Endosc Date: 2013-11-19
Authors: Catherine G Tran; Scott K Sherman; Mohammed O Suraju; Apoorve Nayyar; Henning Gerke; Rami G El Abiad; Chandrikha Chandrasekharan; Po Hien Ear; Thomas M O'Dorisio; Joseph S Dillon; Andrew M Bellizzi; James R Howe Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2021-09-13 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Shria Kumar; Nadim Mahmud; Robert E Roses; Bryson W Katona; Gregory G Ginsberg; David C Metz Journal: Pancreas Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 3.243