These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Treatment outcomes according to endoscopic treatment modalities for rectal carcinoid tumors.
    Author: Kim KM, Eo SJ, Shim SG, Choi JH, Min BH, Lee JH, Chang DK, Kim YH, Rhee PL, Kim JJ, Rhee JC, Kim JY.
    Journal: Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol; 2013 Jun; 37(3):275-82. PubMed ID: 22959100.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Despite a growing understanding of the clinical effectiveness of endoscopic treatment for small rectal carcinoid tumors, there is still controversy concerning the best endoscopic treatment for resecting rectal carcinoid tumors easily and effectively. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the present study was to compare the therapeutic efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device (ESMR-L) with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for rectal carcinoid tumors. In addition, a conventional snare-based endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) was included in the study and compared with both ESMR-L and ESD. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed in 115 patients who underwent endoscopic resection of a rectal carcinoid tumor between January 2005 and June 2011. These patients were classified into three groups according to the type of endoscopic procedure: EMR group (n=33), ESMR-L group (n=40) and ESD group (n=44). RESULTS: The complete resection rate of the EMR group was significantly lower than those of the ESMR-L and ESD groups (77.4 vs. 100 and 97.7%, P=0.002 and P=0.007). Tumor-free vertical margins were significantly greater in the ESMR-L and ESD groups than in the EMR group (ESMR-L and ESD vs. EMR group, P=0.013 and P=0.041). The curative resection rate of rectal carcinoid tumors in the EMR group was 77.4%, which was significantly lower than that of the ESMR-L (95%, 38/40) and EDS groups (97.7%, 43/44) (77.4% vs. 95%, P=0.036 and 77.4% vs. 97.7%, P=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that ESMR-L and ESD might be superior to conventional EMR for the treatment of small rectal carcinoid tumors.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]