4.6 Article

Outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric neoplasm in relationship to endoscopic classification of submucosal fibrosis

Journal

GASTRIC CANCER
Volume 16, Issue 3, Pages 404-410

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10120-012-0203-0

Keywords

ESD; Gastric neoplasm; Submucosal fibrosis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Whether submucosal fibrosis is related to ulceration and affects the outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC) is unknown. This study aimed to determine ESD outcome in relationship to degree of submucosal fibrosis of gastric epithelial neoplasms and to identify factors predictive of submucosal fibrosis. Eight hundred ninety-one patients with 1,027 gastric epithelial neoplasms were treated by ESD from April 2005 to January 2011. Complete en bloc resection and perforation rates in relationship to degree of submucosal fibrosis (F0, no fibrosis; F1; mild fibrosis; F2, severe fibrosis) were determined during ESD, as well as degree of concordance between endoscopically observed ulceration and pathologically determined ulceration and pathological fibrosis stained with Masson's trichrome. The complete en bloc resection rate was significantly low and the perforation rate was high for F2 versus F0/F1 tumors. Ulceration, tumor size a parts per thousand yen30 mm, and depressed histological type were independent risk factors for severe (F2) fibrosis. No fibrosis (F0) was observed in 77 % (732/951) of endoscopically negative ulceration cases, whereas fibrosis was observed in 100 % (76/76) of endoscopically positive cases. Masson trichrome staining was weak in 97 % (710/732) of F0, moderate in 85 % (181/214) of F1, and strong in 100 % (81/81) of F2 cases. Histopathological type of submucosal fibrosis predicts outcome of ESD for EGC. Endoscopic indications of F2 submucosal fibrosis are ulceration, tumor a parts per thousand yen30 mm, and macroscopic depression.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available