ISSN: 2161-0681

Journal de pathologie clinique et expérimentale

Accès libre

Notre groupe organise plus de 3 000 séries de conférences Événements chaque année aux États-Unis, en Europe et en Europe. Asie avec le soutien de 1 000 autres Sociétés scientifiques et publie plus de 700 Open Access Revues qui contiennent plus de 50 000 personnalités éminentes, des scientifiques réputés en tant que membres du comité de rédaction.

Les revues en libre accès gagnent plus de lecteurs et de citations
700 revues et 15 000 000 de lecteurs Chaque revue attire plus de 25 000 lecteurs

Indexé dans
  • Index Copernic
  • Google Scholar
  • Sherpa Roméo
  • Ouvrir la porte J
  • JournalSeek de génamique
  • JournalTOC
  • Annuaire des périodiques d'Ulrich
  • Recherche de référence
  • Université Hamdard
  • EBSCO AZ
  • OCLC-WorldCat
  • Publons
  • Fondation genevoise pour l'enseignement et la recherche médicale
  • Euro Pub
  • ICMJE
Partager cette page

Abstrait

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.