Retrospective Study
Copyright ©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Gastroenterol. Jul 14, 2014; 20(26): 8624-8630
Published online Jul 14, 2014. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i26.8624
Selection of appropriate endoscopic therapies for duodenal tumors: An open-label study, single-center experience
Satohiro Matsumoto, Yukio Yoshida
Satohiro Matsumoto, Yukio Yoshida, Department of Gastroenterology, Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama 330-8503, Japan
Author contributions: Matsumoto S conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments and analyzed the data; Matsumoto S contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, wrote the paper; Matsumoto S and Yoshida Y approved the final manuscript.
Correspondence to: Satohiro Matsumoto, MD, PhD, Department of Gastroenterology, Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, 1-847 Amanuma, Omiya, Saitama 330-8503, Japan. s.w.himananon@ac.auone-net.jp
Telephone: +81-48-6472111 Fax: +81-48-6485188
Received: January 23, 2014
Revised: March 11, 2014
Accepted: April 15, 2014
Published online: July 14, 2014
Processing time: 168 Days and 22.5 Hours
Abstract

AIM: To determine an appropriate compartmentalization of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for duodenal tumors.

METHODS: Forty-six duodenal lesions (excluding papillary lesions) from 44 patients with duodenal tumors treated endoscopically between 2005 and 2013 were divided into the ESD and EMR groups for retrospective comparison and analysis.

RESULTS: The mean age was 65 ± 9 years (35-79 years). There were 24 lesions from men and 22 from women. The lesions consisted of 6 early cancers, 31 adenomas and 9 neuroendocrine tumors. Lesion location was the duodenal bulb in 15 cases and the descending part of the duodenum in 31 cases. The most common macroscopic morphology was elevated type in 21 cases (45.6%). Mean tumor diameter was 11.9 ± 9.7 mm (3-60 mm). Treatment procedure was ESD (15 cases) vs EMR (31 cases). The examined parameters in the ESD vs EMR groups were as follows: mean tumor diameter, 12.9 ± 14.3 mm (3-60 mm) vs 11.4 ± 6.7 mm (4-25 mm); en bloc resection rate, 86.7% vs 83.9%; complete resection rate, 86.7% vs 74.2%; procedure time, 86.5 ± 63.1 min (15-217 min) vs 13.2 ± 17.0 min (2-89 min) (P < 0.0001); intraprocedural perforation, 3 cases vs none (P = 0.0300); delayed perforation, none in either group; postprocedural bleeding, 1 case vs none; mean postoperative length of hospitalization, 8.2 ± 2.9 d (5-16 d) vs 6.1 ± 2.0 d (2-12 d) (P = 0.0067); recurrence, none vs 1 case (occurring at 7 mo postoperatively).

CONCLUSION: ESD was associated with a longer procedure time and a higher incidence of intraprocedural perforation; EMR was associated with a lower rate of complete resection.

Keywords: Duodenal tumor; Endoscopic submucosal dissection; Endoscopic mucosal resection; Cancer; Adenoma; Neuroendocrine tumor

Core tip: Endoscopic treatment of duodenal lesions is associated with a high incidence of complications. In particular, duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is technically difficult. Therefore, the indications for duodenal ESD are not yet to be established. This study aimed to determine an appropriate compartmentalization of duodenal ESD or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). ESD was associated with a longer procedure time and a higher incidence of intraprocedural perforation; EMR was associated with a lower rate of complete resection. For early duodenal cancer and neuroendocrine tumors, which require en bloc resection, ESD is preferable if en bloc resection by EMR is difficult, while EMR is sufficient for endoscopic treatment of adenomas.