Park Sung Min, Kim Joon Sung, Ji Jeong-Seon, Choi Hwang, Lee Bo-In, Kim Byung-Wook
Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, College of Medicine, Incheon St. Mary's Hospital, the Catholic University of Korea , Incheon , Korea.
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2015;50(9):1175-82. doi: 10.3109/00365521.2015.1045023. Epub 2015 May 8.
Gastric adenoma with low-grade dysplasia (LGD) can progress to gastric cancer; however, the optimal therapeutic modality for LGD has not been established. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy, safety of and local recurrence following endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for LGD. Specifically, we compared EMR with circumferential precutting (EMR-P) and EMR using a dual-channel endoscope (EMR-D) for the treatment of LGD ≤2 cm.
A total of 158 lesions from 147 patients with LGD treated by EMR were retrospectively analyzed. The en bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, procedure time, complication rate and local recurrence rate were compared between EMR-P and EMR-D.
The en bloc resection and complete resection rates of EMR were 91.1% and 90.5%, respectively. The bleeding and perforation rates were 1.3% and 1.3%, respectively. The local recurrence rate following EMR was 2.2%. The en bloc resection and complete resection rates did not differ between EMR-P and EMR-D (88.2% vs. 92.5%, p = not significant (NS); and 90.2% vs. 90.7%, p = NS, respectively). The procedure time was significantly longer for EMR-P compared with EMR-D (16 (5-141) vs. 7 (2-48) min, p < 0.001), and the complication rate was significantly higher for EMR-P (7.8% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.010). Local recurrence was not found in EMR-P, whereas the recurrence rate was 3.2% in EMR-D.
EMR is an effective method for the treatment of LGD ≤2 cm. Compared with EMR-P, EMR-D appears to be the more effective, technically simple and safer method.
伴有低级别异型增生(LGD)的胃腺瘤可进展为胃癌;然而,针对LGD的最佳治疗方式尚未确立。本研究的目的是评估内镜黏膜切除术(EMR)治疗LGD的疗效、安全性及局部复发情况。具体而言,我们比较了EMR联合环周预切开术(EMR-P)与使用双通道内镜的EMR(EMR-D)治疗直径≤2 cm的LGD的效果。
回顾性分析了147例接受EMR治疗的LGD患者的158个病变。比较了EMR-P与EMR-D的整块切除率、完整切除率、手术时间、并发症发生率及局部复发率。
EMR的整块切除率和完整切除率分别为91.1%和90.5%。出血率和穿孔率分别为1.3%和1.3%。EMR后的局部复发率为2.2%。EMR-P与EMR-D的整块切除率和完整切除率无差异(分别为88.2%对92.5%,p =无显著差异(NS);90.2%对90.7%,p = NS)。与EMR-D相比,EMR-P的手术时间显著更长(16(5 - 141)分钟对7(2 - 48)分钟,p < 0.001),且EMR-P的并发症发生率显著更高(7.8%对0.0%,p = 0.010)。EMR-P未发现局部复发,而EMR-D的复发率为3.2%。
EMR是治疗直径≤2 cm的LGD的有效方法。与EMR-P相比,EMR-D似乎是更有效、技术上更简单且更安全的方法。