Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Vs Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Superficial Nonampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors in the Western Setting.

IF 11.6 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-22 DOI:10.1016/j.cgh.2024.05.011
Rui Morais, José Amorim, Renato Medas, Bernardo Sousa-Pinto, João Santos-Antunes, Romain Legros, Jérémie Albouys, Frédéric Moll, Margarida Marques, Filipe Vilas-Boas, Eduardo Rodrigues-Pinto, Irene Gullo, Fátima Carneiro, Elisa Gravito Soares, Pedro Amaro, Pedro Mesquita, Jaime Rodrigues, Gianluca Andrisani, Sandro Sferrazza, Sara Archer, Ricardo Kuttner-Magalhães, Francisco Manzano, Enrique Rodríguez de Santiago, Alessandro Rimondi, Alberto Murino, Edward Despott, Mathieu Pioche, Jérémie Jacques, Guilherme Macedo
{"title":"Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Vs Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Superficial Nonampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors in the Western Setting.","authors":"Rui Morais, José Amorim, Renato Medas, Bernardo Sousa-Pinto, João Santos-Antunes, Romain Legros, Jérémie Albouys, Frédéric Moll, Margarida Marques, Filipe Vilas-Boas, Eduardo Rodrigues-Pinto, Irene Gullo, Fátima Carneiro, Elisa Gravito Soares, Pedro Amaro, Pedro Mesquita, Jaime Rodrigues, Gianluca Andrisani, Sandro Sferrazza, Sara Archer, Ricardo Kuttner-Magalhães, Francisco Manzano, Enrique Rodríguez de Santiago, Alessandro Rimondi, Alberto Murino, Edward Despott, Mathieu Pioche, Jérémie Jacques, Guilherme Macedo","doi":"10.1016/j.cgh.2024.05.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background & aims: </strong>Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) is established as the primary treatment modality for superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs), but recently underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) has emerged as a potential alternative. The majority of previous studies focused on Asian populations and small lesions (≤20 mm). We aimed to compare the efficacy and outcomes of U-EMR vs C-EMR for SNADETs in a Western setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective multinational study from 10 European centers that performed both C-EMR and U-EMR between January 2013 and July 2023. The main outcomes were the technical success, procedure-related adverse events (AEs), and the residual/recurrent adenoma (RRA) rate, evaluated on a per-lesion basis. We assessed the association between the type of endoscopic mucosal resection and the occurrence of AEs or RRAs using mixed-effects logistic regression models (propensity scores). Sensitivity analyses were performed for lesions ≤20 mm or >20 mm.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 290 SNADETs submitted to endoscopic resection during the study period met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed (C-EMR: n = 201, 69.3%; U-EMR: n = 89, 30.7%). The overall technical success rate was 95.5% and comparable between groups. In logistic regression models, compared with U-EMR, C-EMR was associated with a significantly higher frequency of overall delayed AEs (odds ratio [OR], 4.95; 95% CI, 2.87-8.53), postprocedural bleeding (OR, 7.92; 95% CI, 3.95-15.89), and RRAs (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.49-5.37). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results when solely considering either small (≤20 mm) or large (>20 mm) lesions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared with C-EMR, U-EMR was associated with a lower rate of overall AEs and RRAs, regardless of lesion size. Our results confirm the possible role of U-EMR as an effective and safe technique in the management of SNADETs.</p>","PeriodicalId":10347,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology","volume":" ","pages":"79-88.e4"},"PeriodicalIF":11.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2024.05.011","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background & aims: Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) is established as the primary treatment modality for superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs), but recently underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) has emerged as a potential alternative. The majority of previous studies focused on Asian populations and small lesions (≤20 mm). We aimed to compare the efficacy and outcomes of U-EMR vs C-EMR for SNADETs in a Western setting.

Methods: This was a retrospective multinational study from 10 European centers that performed both C-EMR and U-EMR between January 2013 and July 2023. The main outcomes were the technical success, procedure-related adverse events (AEs), and the residual/recurrent adenoma (RRA) rate, evaluated on a per-lesion basis. We assessed the association between the type of endoscopic mucosal resection and the occurrence of AEs or RRAs using mixed-effects logistic regression models (propensity scores). Sensitivity analyses were performed for lesions ≤20 mm or >20 mm.

Results: A total of 290 SNADETs submitted to endoscopic resection during the study period met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed (C-EMR: n = 201, 69.3%; U-EMR: n = 89, 30.7%). The overall technical success rate was 95.5% and comparable between groups. In logistic regression models, compared with U-EMR, C-EMR was associated with a significantly higher frequency of overall delayed AEs (odds ratio [OR], 4.95; 95% CI, 2.87-8.53), postprocedural bleeding (OR, 7.92; 95% CI, 3.95-15.89), and RRAs (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.49-5.37). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results when solely considering either small (≤20 mm) or large (>20 mm) lesions.

Conclusions: Compared with C-EMR, U-EMR was associated with a lower rate of overall AEs and RRAs, regardless of lesion size. Our results confirm the possible role of U-EMR as an effective and safe technique in the management of SNADETs.

Abstract Image

水下 EMR 与传统 EMR 在西方国家治疗浅表非髓质十二指肠上皮肿瘤的对比。
背景和目的:传统内镜粘膜切除术(C-EMR)是治疗浅表非髓质十二指肠上皮肿瘤(SNADETs)的主要方法,但最近出现了水下EMR(U-EMR)作为一种潜在的替代方法。以前的研究大多集中于亚洲人群和小病灶(≤20 毫米)。我们的目的是在西方环境中比较 U-EMR 与 C-EMR 治疗 SNADETs 的疗效和结果:这是一项回顾性多国研究,来自欧洲的 10 个中心在 2013 年 1 月至 2023 年 7 月期间同时进行了 C-EMR 和 U-EMR 治疗。主要结果包括技术成功率、手术相关不良事件(AE)和残留/复发腺瘤率(RRA),以每个腺体为单位进行评估。我们使用混合效应逻辑回归模型(倾向评分)评估了EMR类型与AEs或RRA发生率之间的关联。对≤或>20毫米的病灶进行了敏感性分析:研究期间共有290例SNADET符合纳入标准,并进行了分析(C-EMR n=201, 69.3%;U-EMR n=89, 30.7%)。总体技术成功率为 95.5%,组间相当。在逻辑回归模型中,与 U-EMR 相比,C-EMR 发生总体延迟 AEs(OR 4.95;95%CI=2.87-8.53)、术后出血(OR=7.92;95%CI=3.95-15.89)和 RRA(OR=3.66;95%CI=2.49-5.37)的频率明显更高。当仅考虑小病灶(≤20 毫米)或大病灶(>20 毫米)时,敏感性分析证实了这些结果:结论:与 C-EMR 相比,无论病变大小,U-EMR 的总体 AE 和 RRA 发生率均较低。我们的研究结果证实,U-EMR 是治疗 SNADETs 的一种有效而安全的技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
16.90
自引率
4.80%
发文量
903
审稿时长
22 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CGH) is dedicated to offering readers a comprehensive exploration of themes in clinical gastroenterology and hepatology. Encompassing diagnostic, endoscopic, interventional, and therapeutic advances, the journal covers areas such as cancer, inflammatory diseases, functional gastrointestinal disorders, nutrition, absorption, and secretion. As a peer-reviewed publication, CGH features original articles and scholarly reviews, ensuring immediate relevance to the practice of gastroenterology and hepatology. Beyond peer-reviewed content, the journal includes invited key reviews and articles on endoscopy/practice-based technology, health-care policy, and practice management. Multimedia elements, including images, video abstracts, and podcasts, enhance the reader's experience. CGH remains actively engaged with its audience through updates and commentary shared via platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信