ISSN: 2161-0681

Журнал клинической и экспериментальной патологии

Открытый доступ

Наша группа организует более 3000 глобальных конференций Ежегодные мероприятия в США, Европе и США. Азия при поддержке еще 1000 научных обществ и публикует более 700 Открытого доступа Журналы, в которых представлены более 50 000 выдающихся деятелей, авторитетных учёных, входящих в редколлегии.

 

Журналы открытого доступа набирают больше читателей и цитируемости
700 журналов и 15 000 000 читателей Каждый журнал получает более 25 000 читателей

Индексировано в
  • Индекс Коперника
  • Google Scholar
  • Шерпа Ромео
  • Открыть J-ворота
  • Генамика ЖурналSeek
  • ЖурналТОС
  • Справочник периодических изданий Ульриха
  • РефСик
  • Университет Хамдарда
  • ЭБСКО, Аризона
  • OCLC- WorldCat
  • Публикации
  • Женевский фонд медицинского образования и исследований
  • Евро Паб
  • ICMJE
Поделиться этой страницей

Абстрактный

The Superiority of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection to Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Achieving Negative Margins in Adenocarcinomas of the Gastroesophageal Junction: A Histopathological Evaluation

Martelli MG, Gonzalo DH, Chang MD, Xiaomin Lu, Draganov PV and Duckworth LV

Background: Due to the significant morbidity associated with esophagectomy, advanced endoscopic therapies have been developed for diagnosis and resection of gastroesophageal junctional (GEJ) adenocarcinomas.

Aim: To compare two commonly employed techniques, namely endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), for efficacy in removing GEJ adenocarcinomas.

Methods: A retrospective review of all adenocarcinomas at the GEJ removed via EMR or ESD over a ten-year period with coexisting BE (2004-2014) was performed. Thirty-one cases met the study inclusion criteria. All cases were re-reviewed by a gastrointestinal pathologist, and a chi-square analysis of all variables including tumor stage, degree of differentiation, depth of invasion, presence of lymphovascular invasion, and margin status was performed to evaluate for statistically significant differences between EMR and ESD.

Results: ESDs were significantly more likely than EMRs to yield negative margins (64.3% vs. 35.7%; pvalue= 0.026). ESDs also produced fewer positive deep margins than EMRs; however, when the deep margin was analyzed independently, this number did not quite reach statistical significance (30.8% vs. 69.2%; p-value=0.057)

Conclusion: This study demonstrates that ESD is superior to EMR for achieving negative margins in endoscopically resected adenocarcinomas at the GEJ. ESD also allows for better margin assessment histologically by the pathologist. Further, we believe that as the number of ESDs performed increases, we will also see that ESD will be more likely to provide both deep and lateral margin negativity.