Ichijima R, Suzuki S, Esaki M, Horii T, Kusano C, Ikehara H, Gotoda T. Efficacy and safety of grasping forceps-assisted endoscopic resection for gastric neoplasms: A multi-centre retrospective study. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2021; 13(3): 174-184 [PMID: 33738045 DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v13.i3.174]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Ryoji Ichijima, MD, Doctor, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Nihon University School of Medicine, 1-6 Kanda-Surugadai, Chiyoda-ku 101-0062, Tokyo, Japan. ryoji0331@yahoo.co.jp
Research Domain of This Article
Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Article-Type of This Article
Retrospective Study
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Gastrointest Oncol. Mar 15, 2021; 13(3): 174-184 Published online Mar 15, 2021. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v13.i3.174
Table 1 Comparison of baseline clinicopathologic characteristics between grasping forceps assisted endoscopic resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection groups
GF-ER
ESD
P value
Age, yr
Median (IQR)
68.0 (54-80)
75.0 (66-82)
0.28
Sex, n (%)
Male
6 (75.0)
45 (71.4)
1
Female
2 (25.0)
18 (28.6)
Morphology, n (%)
Flat or depressed
5 (55.6)
46 (73.0)
0.43
Elevated
4 (44.4)
17 (27.0)
Ulceration, n (%)
Presence
0 (0)
4 (6.3)
1
Absence
9 (100)
59 (93.7)
Tumor size, mm
Median (IQR)
7 (4-11)
16 (9-22)
< 0.01
Tumor depth, n (%)
Mucosa
6 (66.7)
49 (77.8)
0.43
Submucosa
3 (33.3)
14 (22.2)
Histology, n (%)
Differentiated
9 (100)
49 (77.8)
0.31
Undifferentiated
0 (0)
14 (22.2)
Table 2 Comparison of baseline clinicopathologic characteristics between grasping forceps assisted endoscopic resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection groups for small lesions (defined as ≤ 10 mm in diameter)
GF-ER
ESD
P value
Age, yr
Median (IQR)
67.5 (54-80)
75.5 (66-79)
0.39
Sex, n
Male
4 (66.7)
16 (80.0)
0.60
Female
2 (33.3)
4 (20.0)
Morphology, n (%)
Flat or depressed
4 (57.1)
16 (80.0)
0.33
Elevated
3 (42.9)
4 (20.0)
Ulceration, n (%)
Presence
0 (0)
1 (5.0)
1.0
Absence
7 (100)
19 (95.0)
Tumor size, mm
Median (IQR)
6.0 (4-8)
6.5 (5-9)
0.45
Tumor depth, n (%)
Mucosa
4 (57.1)
18 (90.0)
0.09
Submucosa
3 (42.9)
2 (10.0)
Histology, n (%)
Differentiated
7 (100)
17 (85.0)
1.0
Undifferentiated
0 (0)
3 (15.0)
Table 3 Comparison of treatment outcomes between grasping forceps assisted endoscopic resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection groups
GF-ER
ESD
P value
Procedure time, min
Median (IQR)
4.0 (3.0-5.0)
55.0 (30-105)
< 0.01
En bloc resection, n (%)
9 (100)
63 (100)
1.0
R0 resection, n (%)
9 (100)
62 (98.4)
1.0
Curative resection, n (%)
9 (100)
55 (87.3)
0.54
Perforation, n (%)
0 (0)
5 (8.0)
1.0
Delayed bleeding, n (%)
0 (0)
1 (1.6)
1.0
Table 4 Comparison of treatment outcomes for small lesions (defined as ≤ 10 mm in diameter) between grasping forceps assisted endoscopic resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection groups
GF-ER
ESD
P value
Procedure time, min
Median (IQR)
4.0 (3.0-5.0)
35.0 (25-75)
< 0.01
En bloc resection, n (%)
7 (100)
20 (100)
1.0
R0 resection, n (%)
7 (100)
20 (100)
1.0
Curative resection, n (%)
7 (100)
19 (95.0)
1.0
Perforation, n (%)
0 (0)
1 (5.0)
1.0
Delayed bleeding, n (%)
0 (0)
0 (0)
1.0
Citation: Ichijima R, Suzuki S, Esaki M, Horii T, Kusano C, Ikehara H, Gotoda T. Efficacy and safety of grasping forceps-assisted endoscopic resection for gastric neoplasms: A multi-centre retrospective study. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2021; 13(3): 174-184