ISSN: 2161-0681

Jornal de Patologia Clínica e Experimental

Acesso livre

Nosso grupo organiza mais de 3.000 Séries de conferências Eventos todos os anos nos EUA, Europa e outros países. Ásia com o apoio de mais 1.000 Sociedades e publica mais de 700 Acesso aberto Periódicos que contém mais de 50.000 personalidades eminentes, cientistas de renome como membros do conselho editorial.

Periódicos de acesso aberto ganhando mais leitores e citações
700 periódicos e 15 milhões de leitores Cada periódico está obtendo mais de 25.000 leitores

Indexado em
  • Índice Copérnico
  • Google Scholar
  • Sherpa Romeu
  • Abra o portão J
  • Genâmica JournalSeek
  • JornalTOCs
  • Diretório de Periódicos de Ulrich
  • RefSeek
  • Universidade Hamdard
  • EBSCO AZ
  • OCLC – WorldCat
  • Publons
  • Fundação de Genebra para Educação e Pesquisa Médica
  • Euro Pub
  • ICMJE
Compartilhe esta página

Abstrato

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.