• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

整块内镜黏膜切除术对无蒂锯齿状息肉和传统腺瘤同样有效。

En bloc endoscopic mucosal resection is equally effective for sessile serrated polyps and conventional adenomas.

机构信息

Division of Gastroenterology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, 3400 Civic Center Boulevard, South Pavilion, 4th Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.

出版信息

Surg Endosc. 2018 Apr;32(4):1871-1878. doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5876-3. Epub 2017 Sep 22.

DOI:10.1007/s00464-017-5876-3
PMID:28940106
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) are associated with higher rates of incomplete resection compared to conventional adenomas after traditional snare polypectomy. Outcomes after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are less established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the rate of residual neoplasia at surveillance colonoscopy for SSPs compared to conventional adenomas ≥ 10 mm after en bloc EMR.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients referred for EMR of a colonic lesion ≥ 10 mm from 2005 to 2013. Data on procedures, histopathology, and surveillance colonoscopies were recorded. The primary outcome was rate of macroscopically evident residual neoplasia at surveillance colonoscopy for SSPs compared to adenomas. Secondary outcomes included rate of neoplasia at the resection margin.

RESULTS

283 consecutive patients with 293 polyps underwent en bloc EMR including 101 SSPs and 192 adenomas. Pathology commented on the lateral resection margins of the specimen in 235 cases (80%). Of these, neoplasia was noted at the resection margin in 29/64 SSPs (45.3%) compared to 65/171 adenomas (38.0%; P = .37). Surveillance data were available for 153 index lesions with a median interval of 13 months (interquartile range, 10.75-23.25 months). Ten resection sites (6.5%) were found to have residual neoplasia, including 2/52 SSPs (3.8%) and 8/101 adenomas (7.9%; P = .50). Of the cases with surveillance data 128/153 (84%) commented on the lateral margin of the resection specimen. Residual neoplasia was noted in 3/68 lesions (4.4%) with negative margins compared to 5/60 lesions (8.3%) with positive margins (P = .47).

CONCLUSIONS

En bloc EMR for colonic lesions ≥ 10 mm is associated with a 6.5% rate of macroscopic residual neoplasia. Although 45% of SSPs had neoplasia extending to the resection margin, rates of residual neoplasia at surveillance colonoscopy were low. These results suggest that when feasible en bloc EMR is a reasonable option to resect SSPs ≥ 10 mm.

摘要

背景

与传统圈套息肉切除术相比,无蒂锯齿状息肉(SSP)在传统圈套息肉切除术后的不完全切除率更高。内镜黏膜切除术(EMR)的结果尚不明确。本研究旨在评估与 10mm 以上传统腺瘤相比,整块 EMR 后 SSPS 在监测结肠镜检查中残留肿瘤的发生率。

方法

对 2005 年至 2013 年间连续接受 EMR 治疗的结肠病变≥10mm 的患者进行回顾性队列研究。记录了手术过程、组织病理学和监测结肠镜检查的数据。主要结局是与腺瘤相比,SSP 在监测结肠镜检查中残留肿瘤的宏观表现率。次要结局包括切除边缘的肿瘤发生率。

结果

283 例连续患者共 293 个息肉接受了整块 EMR,包括 101 个 SSP 和 192 个腺瘤。235 例标本的侧向切除边缘有病理学评价(80%)。其中,64 个 SSP 中有 29 个(45.3%)和 171 个腺瘤中有 65 个(38.0%)有肿瘤累及切缘(P=0.37)。153 个指数病变中有 13 个月的中位间隔(四分位距,10.75-23.25 个月)可获得监测数据。10 个切除部位(6.5%)发现有残留肿瘤,包括 52 个 SSP 中有 2 个(3.8%)和 101 个腺瘤中有 8 个(7.9%)(P=0.50)。在有监测数据的病例中,153 例中的 128 例(84%)对切除标本的侧向边缘进行了评价。与阴性边缘的 68 个病变中的 3 个(4.4%)相比,阳性边缘的 60 个病变中有 5 个(8.3%)(P=0.47)有残留肿瘤。

结论

对于结肠病变≥10mm 的整块 EMR 与 6.5%的肉眼残留肿瘤发生率相关。尽管 45%的 SSP 有肿瘤累及切缘,但监测结肠镜检查中残留肿瘤的发生率较低。这些结果表明,在可行的情况下,整块 EMR 是切除≥10mm SSP 的合理选择。

相似文献

1
En bloc endoscopic mucosal resection is equally effective for sessile serrated polyps and conventional adenomas.整块内镜黏膜切除术对无蒂锯齿状息肉和传统腺瘤同样有效。
Surg Endosc. 2018 Apr;32(4):1871-1878. doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5876-3. Epub 2017 Sep 22.
2
Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Resection of Sessile Serrated Polyps 10 mm or Larger: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.内镜下切除 10mm 或更大的无蒂锯齿状息肉的疗效和安全性:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Oct;18(11):2448-2455.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.041. Epub 2019 Nov 29.
3
Cold EMR of large sessile serrated polyps at colonoscopy (with video).结肠镜下冷切除大肠大型无蒂锯齿状息肉(附有视频)。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Mar;87(3):837-842. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.11.002. Epub 2017 Nov 10.
4
Outcomes of EMR of defiant colorectal lesions directed to an endoscopy referral center.内镜转诊中心导向的挑战性结直肠病变内镜黏膜下剥离术的结果。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Aug;76(2):255-63. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.02.060. Epub 2012 May 31.
5
Avulsion is superior to argon plasma coagulation for treatment of visible residual neoplasia during EMR of colorectal polyps (with videos).在大肠息肉内镜下黏膜切除术(EMR)期间,对于治疗可见残留肿瘤,套扎术优于氩离子凝固术(附视频)。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Nov;84(5):822-829. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.03.1512. Epub 2016 Apr 11.
6
Effectiveness and safety of cold snare polypectomy and cold endoscopic mucosal resection for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps of 10-19 mm: a multicenter observational cohort study.冷圈套息肉切除术和冷内镜黏膜切除术治疗 10-19mm 无蒂结直肠息肉的有效性和安全性:一项多中心观察性队列研究。
Endoscopy. 2023 Jul;55(7):627-635. doi: 10.1055/a-2029-9539. Epub 2023 Feb 7.
7
Endoscopic mucosal resection-precutting conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for sessile colorectal polyps sized 10-20 mm.内镜黏膜下切除术-预切开术与传统内镜黏膜切除术治疗直径为 10-20mm 的无蒂结直肠息肉。
World J Gastroenterol. 2022 Dec 7;28(45):6397-6409. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i45.6397.
8
Local recurrence rates after resection of large colorectal serrated lesions with or without margin thermal ablation.切除伴或不伴边缘热消融的大型结直肠锯齿状病变后的局部复发率。
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2024 Jan-Jun;59(1):112-117. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2023.2257824. Epub 2023 Dec 26.
9
Efficacy and safety of cold snare polypectomy for sessile serrated polyps ≥ 10 mm: A systematic review and meta-analysis.冷圈套息肉切除术治疗≥ 10mm 无蒂锯齿状息肉的疗效和安全性:系统评价和荟萃分析。
Dig Liver Dis. 2022 Nov;54(11):1486-1493. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2022.01.132. Epub 2022 Feb 12.
10
Cold snare endoscopic resection of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps larger than 10 mm: a systematic review and pooled-analysis.冷圈套内镜切除术治疗直径大于 10mm 的无蒂结直肠息肉:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 May;89(5):929-936.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.12.022. Epub 2019 Jan 9.

引用本文的文献

1
Cold EMR vs. Hot EMR for the removal of sessile serrated polyps larger than 10 mm: a systematic review and meta-analysis.冷切除法(Cold EMR)与热切除法(Hot EMR)治疗大于 10mm 的无蒂锯齿状息肉:系统评价和荟萃分析。
BMC Surg. 2024 Mar 20;24(1):93. doi: 10.1186/s12893-024-02325-2.
2
Efficacy and Safety of Gel Immersion Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps.凝胶浸泡式内镜黏膜切除术治疗无蒂结直肠息肉的疗效与安全性
Life (Basel). 2023 Mar 6;13(3):711. doi: 10.3390/life13030711.
3
Acceptability of endoscopic submucosal dissection for sessile serrated lesions: comparison with non-sessile serrated lesions.

本文引用的文献

1
Endoscopic mucosal resection for large serrated lesions in comparison with adenomas: a prospective multicentre study of 2000 lesions.内镜下黏膜切除术治疗大型锯齿状病变与腺瘤的对比:一项 2000 例病变的前瞻性多中心研究。
Gut. 2017 Apr;66(4):644-653. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310249. Epub 2016 Jan 19.
2
Endoscopic resection is cost-effective compared with laparoscopic resection in the management of complex colon polyps: an economic analysis.在复杂结肠息肉的治疗中,与腹腔镜切除术相比,内镜切除术具有成本效益:一项经济学分析。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Jun;83(6):1248-57. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.11.014. Epub 2015 Dec 1.
3
Large Sessile Serrated Polyps Can Be Safely and Effectively Removed by Endoscopic Mucosal Resection.
内镜黏膜下剥离术治疗无蒂锯齿状病变的可接受性:与有蒂锯齿状病变的比较。
Endosc Int Open. 2020 Dec;8(12):E1832-E1839. doi: 10.1055/a-1268-7353. Epub 2020 Nov 17.
4
Tip-in versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for flat colorectal neoplasia 10 mm or larger in size.侧向切开术与传统内镜黏膜切除术治疗直径 10mm 或更大的平坦结直肠肿瘤。
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2020 Jul;35(7):1283-1290. doi: 10.1007/s00384-020-03604-z. Epub 2020 Apr 28.
5
Usefulness and safety of colorectal precutting EMR and hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection for sessile serrated polyps with use of a novel multifunctional snare.使用新型多功能圈套器进行结直肠预切开内镜黏膜切除术及混合内镜黏膜下剥离术治疗无蒂锯齿状息肉的有效性和安全性
VideoGIE. 2019 Apr 5;4(6):276-278. doi: 10.1016/j.vgie.2019.02.008. eCollection 2019 Jun.
6
Low detection rate of advanced neoplasia within 5 years after polypectomy of small serrated adenoma.小锯齿状腺瘤息肉切除后 5 年内高级别肿瘤的检出率低。
Postgrad Med J. 2019 Apr;95(1122):187-192. doi: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2018-136285. Epub 2019 Mar 29.
大型无蒂锯齿状息肉可通过内镜黏膜切除术安全有效地切除。
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Apr;14(4):568-74. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.10.013. Epub 2015 Oct 20.
4
Cost Analysis of Endoscopic Mucosal Resection vs Surgery for Large Laterally Spreading Colorectal Lesions.内镜黏膜切除术与手术治疗大型侧向蔓延结直肠病变的成本分析。
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Feb;14(2):271-8.e1-2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.08.037. Epub 2015 Sep 11.
5
Recurrence rates after EMR of large sessile serrated polyps.大的无蒂锯齿状息肉内镜下黏膜切除术(EMR)后的复发率
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Sep;82(3):538-41. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.01.025. Epub 2015 Apr 4.
6
Long-term adenoma recurrence following wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (WF-EMR) for advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia is infrequent: results and risk factors in 1000 cases from the Australian Colonic EMR (ACE) study.澳大利亚结直肠内镜黏膜切除术(ACE)研究 1000 例结果及危险因素分析:宽基内镜黏膜切除术(WF-EMR)治疗高级结直肠黏膜肿瘤后长期腺瘤复发罕见。
Gut. 2015 Jan;64(1):57-65. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-305516. Epub 2014 Jul 1.
7
Actual endoscopic versus predicted surgical mortality for treatment of advanced mucosal neoplasia of the colon.晚期结肠黏膜肿瘤治疗中实际内镜下与预测手术死亡率的对比
Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Oct;80(4):668-676. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.04.015. Epub 2014 Jun 7.
8
Sessile serrated adenomas/polyps with cytologic dysplasia: a triple threat for interval cancer.伴有细胞学异型增生的无蒂锯齿状腺瘤/息肉:间隔期癌的三重威胁。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Aug;80(2):307-10. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.03.050. Epub 2014 Jun 2.
9
Local recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis.无蒂结直肠病变内镜黏膜切除术后的局部复发:系统评价与荟萃分析
Endoscopy. 2014 May;46(5):388-402. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1364970. Epub 2014 Mar 26.
10
The cutting edge of serrated polyps: a practical guide to approaching and managing serrated colon polyps.锯齿状息肉的前沿:处理和管理结肠锯齿状息肉的实用指南。
Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Mar;77(3):360-75. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.11.013.