Search

Background and aims: The recent surge in demand for screening endoscopy has led to an increased detection of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs). According to current guideline, SETs less than 2 cm in size are recommended for periodic surveillance. In light of recent advancement in therapeutic endoscopy in resection of small SET, we analyzed the histopathological features and the effectiveness of endoscopic resection for these small SETs. Methods: Retrospectively study was performed on 74 patients who underwent endoscopic resection of gastric small (≤ 2 cm) upper gastrointestinal tract SETs. The outcomes including histopathology and en bloc resection were analyzed. Results: The mean SET size was 11.69 ± 5.11 mm. The mean procedure time was 81.26 ± 42.53 min. Of the 74 patients, 28 patients had leiomyomas, 26 had gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), 14 had ectopic pancreas, 4 had lipomas, and 2 had neuroendocrine tumors. Among those with GIST, two patients exhibited high-risk histology. All patients underwent successful and uneventful endoscopy. Conclusions: Endoscopic resection can be recommended even for the small gastric SETs. In our study, we found that SETs with a size of less than 2 cm have significant proportion of GISTs which harbor malignant transformation potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence of the advantages of robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy (RPD) over laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD) is limited. Thus, this study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic reconstruction L-recon) versus robotic reconstruction (R-recon) in patients with soft pancreas and small pancreatic duct. Method: Among 429 patients treated with minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD) between October 2012 and June 2020 by three surgeons at three institutions, 201 patients with a soft pancreas and a small pancreatic duct (< 3 mm) were included in this study. Results: Sixty pairs of patients who underwent L-recon and R-recon were selected after propensity score matching. The perioperative outcomes were comparable between the reconstruction approaches, with comparable clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) rates (15.0% [L-recon] vs. 13.3% [R-recon]). The sub-analysis according to the type of MIPD procedure also showed comparable outcomes, but only a significant difference in postoperative hospital stay was identified. During the learning curve analysis using the cumulative summation by operation time (CUSUMOT), two surgeons who performed both L-recon and R-recon procedures reached their first peak in the CUSUMOT graph earlier for the R-recon group than for the L-recon group (i.e., 20th L-recon case and third R-recon case of surgeon A and 43rd L-recon case and seventh R-recon case of surgeon B). Surgeon C, who only performed R-recon, demonstrated the first peak in the 22nd case. The multivariate regression analysis for risk factors of CR-POPF showed that the MIPD procedure type, as well as other factors, did not have any significant effect. Conclusion: Postoperative pancreatic fistula rates and the overall perioperative outcomes of L-recon and R-recon were comparable in patients with soft-textured pancreas and small pancreatic duct treated by experienced surgeons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Undifferentiated-type early gastric cancer (UD EGC) shows lower curative resection rates after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Additional surgery is recommended after non-curative resection. We evaluated the long-term outcomes of ESD followed by additional surgery after non-curative resection in UD EGC compared to those for surgery as initial treatment. Methods: We reviewed 1139 UD EGC patients who underwent ESD at 18 hospitals and 1956 patients who underwent surgery at two hospitals between February 2005 and May 2015. We enrolled 636 patients with non-curative ESD and 1429 surgery subjects beyond the curative ESD criteria. Among them, 133 patients with additional surgery after ESD (ESD + OP group) and 252 patients without additional surgery (ESD-only group) were matched 1:1 using propensity scores to patients with surgery as initial treatment (surgery group). Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared. Results: Signet ring cell carcinoma and poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma (PDA) were observed in 939 and 1126 cases, respectively. OS was significantly longer in the surgery group than in the ESD + OP group, especially for PDA. However, RFS was shorter in the ESD-only group than those in the ESD + OP and surgery groups. RFS did not differ significantly between the ESD + OP and surgery groups. Compared to the surgery group, the ESD-only and ESD + OP groups had an overall hazard ratio for RFS of 3.58 (95% confidence interval 1.44–8.88) and 0.46 (0.10–2.20), respectively. Conclusions: ESD followed by additional surgery after non-curative resection showed comparable cancer-specific outcomes to initial surgery in UD EGC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an effective treatment for early gastric cancer (EGC); however, its curative resection rate is low for undifferentiated-type EGC. We developed and externally validated a prediction model for curative ESD of undifferentiated-type EGC. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we included 448 patients who underwent ESD for undifferentiated-type EGC at 18 hospitals in Korea between 2005 and 2015 in the development cohort and 1342 patients who underwent surgery at two hospitals in the validation cohort. A prediction model was developed using the logistic regression model. Results: Endoscopic tumor size 1–2 cm (odds ratio [OR], 2.40; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.54–3.73), tumor size > 2 cm (OR, 14.00; 95% CI 6.81–28.77), and proximal tumor location from the lower to upper third of the stomach (OR, 1.45; 95% CI 1.03–2.04) were independent predictors of non-curative ESD. A six-score prediction model was developed by assigning points to endoscopic tumor size > 2 cm (five points), tumor size 1–2 cm (two points), upper third location (two points), and middle third location (one point). The rate of curative ESD ranged from 70.6% (score 0) to 11.6% (score 5) with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.720 (95% CI 0.673–0.766). The model also showed good performance in the validation cohort (AUC, 0.775; 95% CI 0.748–0.803). Conclusions: This six-score prediction model may help in predicting curative ESD and making informed decisions about the treatment selection between ESD and surgery for undifferentiated-type EGC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely used for large superficial gastrointestinal tumors. Epigastric pain is a frequent complication of ESD. However, little is known about its incidence and associated factors. This study evaluated pain incidence and characteristics of patients with pain after gastric ESD.Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a prospectively collected registry of clinical, endoscopic, and pathologic results of patients who underwent ESD for gastric adenoma or cancer from January 2010 to December 2015. A Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to assess pain immediately after, and 2, 12, and 24 h after ESD. The primary outcome was the use of painkillers (VAS score > 4). Analyzed data included age, sex, pathology, specimen and tumor size, procedure time, and tumor location.Results: Of 1226 patients, 461 (36.4%) needed a painkiller at least once after ESD (pain group). Compared with the no pain group, the pain group had more females, less alcohol consumption, larger tumor and specimen size, and more antral lesions. In multivariate analysis, female sex (OR 1.559, 95% CI 1.217-1.996, p < 0.001), antral tumor location (OR 1.780, 95% CI 1.398-2.265, p < 0.001), and procedure time over 30 min (OR 1.443, 95% CI 1.130-1.842, p = 0.003) were predictive factors for pain.Conclusion: This study showed that a considerable number of patients needed one or more painkiller doses after gastric ESD. The factors affecting pain included sex, procedure time, and lesion location. Endoscopists should use preemptive or aggressive pain management in high-risk patients after ESD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]