ISSN: 2161-0681

Zeitschrift für klinische und experimentelle Pathologie

Offener Zugang

Unsere Gruppe organisiert über 3000 globale Konferenzreihen Jährliche Veranstaltungen in den USA, Europa und anderen Ländern. Asien mit Unterstützung von 1000 weiteren wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften und veröffentlicht über 700 Open Access Zeitschriften, die über 50.000 bedeutende Persönlichkeiten und renommierte Wissenschaftler als Redaktionsmitglieder enthalten.

Open-Access-Zeitschriften gewinnen mehr Leser und Zitierungen
700 Zeitschriften und 15.000.000 Leser Jede Zeitschrift erhält mehr als 25.000 Leser

Indiziert in
  • Index Copernicus
  • Google Scholar
  • Sherpa Romeo
  • Öffnen Sie das J-Tor
  • Genamics JournalSeek
  • JournalTOCs
  • Ulrichs Zeitschriftenverzeichnis
  • RefSeek
  • Hamdard-Universität
  • EBSCO AZ
  • OCLC – WorldCat
  • Publons
  • Genfer Stiftung für medizinische Ausbildung und Forschung
  • Euro-Pub
  • ICMJE
Teile diese Seite

Abstrakt

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.