Endoscopic mucosal resection
Endoscopic mucosal resection
Endoscopic submucosal dissection
Outcome
Propensity score matching
Short-term
Superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumor
Journal
World journal of gastrointestinal oncology
ISSN: 1948-5204
Titre abrégé: World J Gastrointest Oncol
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101532470
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Aug 2020
15 Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
01
01
2020
revised:
03
07
2020
accepted:
19
07
2020
entrez:
4
9
2020
pubmed:
4
9
2020
medline:
4
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The selection of endoscopic treatments for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) is controversial. To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for SNADETs. We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with SNADETs from a database of endoscopic treatment for SNADETs, which included eight hospitals in Fukuoka, Japan, between April 2001 and October 2017. A total of 142 patients with SNADETs treated with EMR or ESD were analyzed. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for the differences in the patient characteristics between the two groups. We analyzed the treatment outcomes, including the rates of Twenty-eight pairs of patients were created. The characteristics of patients between the two groups were similar after matching. The EMR group had a significantly shorter procedure time and hospital stay than those of the ESD group [median procedure time (interquartile range): 6 (3-10.75) min EMR has significantly shorter procedure time and hospital stay than ESD, and provides acceptable curability and safety compared to ESD. Accordingly, EMR for SNADETs is associated with lower medical costs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The selection of endoscopic treatments for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) is controversial.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for SNADETs.
METHODS
METHODS
We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with SNADETs from a database of endoscopic treatment for SNADETs, which included eight hospitals in Fukuoka, Japan, between April 2001 and October 2017. A total of 142 patients with SNADETs treated with EMR or ESD were analyzed. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for the differences in the patient characteristics between the two groups. We analyzed the treatment outcomes, including the rates of
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twenty-eight pairs of patients were created. The characteristics of patients between the two groups were similar after matching. The EMR group had a significantly shorter procedure time and hospital stay than those of the ESD group [median procedure time (interquartile range): 6 (3-10.75) min
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
EMR has significantly shorter procedure time and hospital stay than ESD, and provides acceptable curability and safety compared to ESD. Accordingly, EMR for SNADETs is associated with lower medical costs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32879668
doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v12.i8.918
pmc: PMC7443844
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
918-930Informations de copyright
©The Author(s) 2020. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
Digestion. 2017;96(3):149-157
pubmed: 28854423
Endoscopy. 2013;45(2):136-7
pubmed: 22930172
Stat Med. 2009 Nov 10;28(25):3083-107
pubmed: 19757444
Endoscopy. 2013;45(2):133-5
pubmed: 23364841
Stat Med. 1998 Oct 15;17(19):2265-81
pubmed: 9802183
Endosc Int Open. 2016 Jun;4(6):E699-708
pubmed: 27556081
Endoscopy. 2018 Feb;50(2):154-158
pubmed: 28962044
Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Jan;89(1):87-93
pubmed: 30055156
Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Aug;86(2):329-332
pubmed: 28003118
Gut. 2001 Feb;48(2):225-9
pubmed: 11156645
Dig Endosc. 2015 May;27(4):417-434
pubmed: 25652022
Dig Endosc. 2015 Mar;27(3):323-30
pubmed: 25186455
Dig Endosc. 2014 Mar;26(2):220-7
pubmed: 23621427
World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jul 14;20(26):8624-30
pubmed: 25024618
Dig Endosc. 2016 Jan;28(1):3-15
pubmed: 26234303
Endoscopy. 2009 Sep;41(9):746-50
pubmed: 19681023
Esophagus. 2019 Jan;16(1):1-24
pubmed: 30171413
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Oct;88(4):676-682
pubmed: 29753040
Endoscopy. 2004 Jul;36(7):584-9
pubmed: 15243879
Biomed Res Int. 2018 Jan 11;2018:3152346
pubmed: 29568748
Dig Endosc. 2020 Jan;32(1):84-95
pubmed: 31309619
Endoscopy. 2015 Apr;47(4):349-51
pubmed: 25479560
Digestion. 2019;99(1):21-26
pubmed: 30554227
Surg Endosc. 2014 May;28(5):1594-600
pubmed: 24442676
Endoscopy. 2009 Nov;41(11):923-8
pubmed: 19802773
Dig Endosc. 2009 Oct;21(4):270-4
pubmed: 19961529
Surg Endosc. 2019 Dec;33(12):4048-4056
pubmed: 30756173
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007 Jun;22(6):821-6
pubmed: 17565635
BMC Gastroenterol. 2018 Feb 27;18(1):35
pubmed: 29486717
Gastrointest Endosc. 2006 Feb;63(2):243-9
pubmed: 16427929
Endoscopy. 2015;47 Suppl 1 UCTN:E267-8
pubmed: 26099085
Endoscopy. 2004 Jul;36(7):579-83
pubmed: 15243878
Digestion. 2017;95(1):36-42
pubmed: 28052275
Endoscopy. 2015 Feb;47(2):129-35
pubmed: 25314330
Endoscopy. 2017 Aug;49(8):776-783
pubmed: 28493238
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Apr;97(15):e0330
pubmed: 29642169
Endosc Int Open. 2018 Aug;6(8):E1008-E1014
pubmed: 30083592
BMC Gastroenterol. 2018 Aug 6;18(1):125
pubmed: 30081824
World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Sep 16;10(9):156-164
pubmed: 30283598