Cargando…

Endoscopic Resection for Rectal Carcinoid Tumors: Comparision of Polypectomy and Endoscopic Submucosal Resection with Band Ligation

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Rectal carcinoid tumors, at diagnosis, are as small as 10 mm or less in about 80% of patients. These tumors are generally removed by endoscopic resection. The aim of this study was to compare treatment efficacy and safety between endoscopic submucosal resection with band ligation (E...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Sang Heon, Park, Seun Ja, Kim, Hyung Hun, Ok, Kyung Sun, Kim, Ji Hyun, Jee, Sam Ryong, Seol, Sang Young, Kim, Bo Mi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3363123/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22741138
http://dx.doi.org/10.5946/ce.2012.45.1.89
_version_ 1782234297786171392
author Lee, Sang Heon
Park, Seun Ja
Kim, Hyung Hun
Ok, Kyung Sun
Kim, Ji Hyun
Jee, Sam Ryong
Seol, Sang Young
Kim, Bo Mi
author_facet Lee, Sang Heon
Park, Seun Ja
Kim, Hyung Hun
Ok, Kyung Sun
Kim, Ji Hyun
Jee, Sam Ryong
Seol, Sang Young
Kim, Bo Mi
author_sort Lee, Sang Heon
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND/AIMS: Rectal carcinoid tumors, at diagnosis, are as small as 10 mm or less in about 80% of patients. These tumors are generally removed by endoscopic resection. The aim of this study was to compare treatment efficacy and safety between endoscopic submucosal resection with band ligation (ESMR-L) and conventional polypectomy. METHODS: Between January 2005 and September 2010, a total of 88 patients, who visited at Busan Paik Hospital and Kosin University Gospel Hospital for endoscopic resection of rectal carcinoid, were reviewed, retrospectively. RESULTS: Thirty-three cases were treated by ESMR-L, and 55 cases by conventional polypectomy. There were no significant difference in the size of tumor between ESMR-L group and polypectomy group (6.02±2.36 vs. 6.49±3.24 mm, p=0.474). The rate of positive resection margin was significantly lower in ESMR-L group (2/33, 6.1%) than in polypectomy group (19/55, 34.5%; p=0.002). The rate of positive vertical resection margin, among others, was markedly lower in ESMR-L group (1/33, 3.0%) compared to polypectomy group (19/55, 34.5%; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ESMR-L, rather than conventional polypectomy, is a useful treatment option for removal of rectal carcinoid tumors less than 10 mm in diameter.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3363123
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33631232012-06-27 Endoscopic Resection for Rectal Carcinoid Tumors: Comparision of Polypectomy and Endoscopic Submucosal Resection with Band Ligation Lee, Sang Heon Park, Seun Ja Kim, Hyung Hun Ok, Kyung Sun Kim, Ji Hyun Jee, Sam Ryong Seol, Sang Young Kim, Bo Mi Clin Endosc Original Article BACKGROUND/AIMS: Rectal carcinoid tumors, at diagnosis, are as small as 10 mm or less in about 80% of patients. These tumors are generally removed by endoscopic resection. The aim of this study was to compare treatment efficacy and safety between endoscopic submucosal resection with band ligation (ESMR-L) and conventional polypectomy. METHODS: Between January 2005 and September 2010, a total of 88 patients, who visited at Busan Paik Hospital and Kosin University Gospel Hospital for endoscopic resection of rectal carcinoid, were reviewed, retrospectively. RESULTS: Thirty-three cases were treated by ESMR-L, and 55 cases by conventional polypectomy. There were no significant difference in the size of tumor between ESMR-L group and polypectomy group (6.02±2.36 vs. 6.49±3.24 mm, p=0.474). The rate of positive resection margin was significantly lower in ESMR-L group (2/33, 6.1%) than in polypectomy group (19/55, 34.5%; p=0.002). The rate of positive vertical resection margin, among others, was markedly lower in ESMR-L group (1/33, 3.0%) compared to polypectomy group (19/55, 34.5%; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ESMR-L, rather than conventional polypectomy, is a useful treatment option for removal of rectal carcinoid tumors less than 10 mm in diameter. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2012-03 2012-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC3363123/ /pubmed/22741138 http://dx.doi.org/10.5946/ce.2012.45.1.89 Text en Copyright © 2012 The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Lee, Sang Heon
Park, Seun Ja
Kim, Hyung Hun
Ok, Kyung Sun
Kim, Ji Hyun
Jee, Sam Ryong
Seol, Sang Young
Kim, Bo Mi
Endoscopic Resection for Rectal Carcinoid Tumors: Comparision of Polypectomy and Endoscopic Submucosal Resection with Band Ligation
title Endoscopic Resection for Rectal Carcinoid Tumors: Comparision of Polypectomy and Endoscopic Submucosal Resection with Band Ligation
title_full Endoscopic Resection for Rectal Carcinoid Tumors: Comparision of Polypectomy and Endoscopic Submucosal Resection with Band Ligation
title_fullStr Endoscopic Resection for Rectal Carcinoid Tumors: Comparision of Polypectomy and Endoscopic Submucosal Resection with Band Ligation
title_full_unstemmed Endoscopic Resection for Rectal Carcinoid Tumors: Comparision of Polypectomy and Endoscopic Submucosal Resection with Band Ligation
title_short Endoscopic Resection for Rectal Carcinoid Tumors: Comparision of Polypectomy and Endoscopic Submucosal Resection with Band Ligation
title_sort endoscopic resection for rectal carcinoid tumors: comparision of polypectomy and endoscopic submucosal resection with band ligation
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3363123/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22741138
http://dx.doi.org/10.5946/ce.2012.45.1.89
work_keys_str_mv AT leesangheon endoscopicresectionforrectalcarcinoidtumorscomparisionofpolypectomyandendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithbandligation
AT parkseunja endoscopicresectionforrectalcarcinoidtumorscomparisionofpolypectomyandendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithbandligation
AT kimhyunghun endoscopicresectionforrectalcarcinoidtumorscomparisionofpolypectomyandendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithbandligation
AT okkyungsun endoscopicresectionforrectalcarcinoidtumorscomparisionofpolypectomyandendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithbandligation
AT kimjihyun endoscopicresectionforrectalcarcinoidtumorscomparisionofpolypectomyandendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithbandligation
AT jeesamryong endoscopicresectionforrectalcarcinoidtumorscomparisionofpolypectomyandendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithbandligation
AT seolsangyoung endoscopicresectionforrectalcarcinoidtumorscomparisionofpolypectomyandendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithbandligation
AT kimbomi endoscopicresectionforrectalcarcinoidtumorscomparisionofpolypectomyandendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithbandligation