基于垂直切缘距离的直肠小神经内分泌肿瘤最佳内镜切除方法:倾向评分匹配研究。

IF 2.3 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Endoscopy International Open Pub Date : 2025-08-15 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1055/a-2655-1320
Jianning Liu, Weihua Yu, Peng Liu, Hao Tian, Lihong Gan, Kaige Zhang, Hui Chen, Nian Fang
{"title":"基于垂直切缘距离的直肠小神经内分泌肿瘤最佳内镜切除方法:倾向评分匹配研究。","authors":"Jianning Liu, Weihua Yu, Peng Liu, Hao Tian, Lihong Gan, Kaige Zhang, Hui Chen, Nian Fang","doi":"10.1055/a-2655-1320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and study aims: </strong>Advanced endoscopic resection methods are recommended for removing rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) < 10 mm, but there is no consensus on optimal endoscopic technique. This study aimed to determine whether endoscopic mucosal resection with ligation (EMR-L) is superior to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in terms of efficacy and safety, focusing on achieving adequate vertical margin distance.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This dual-center cohort study included consecutive patients with rectal NETs ≤ 10 mm. Adequate vertical margins were exploratively defined as a margin distance exceeding 115 μm, the 25th percentile threshold. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to compare outcomes between EMR-L and ESD.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 204 rectal NETs from 186 patients, with 61 lesions in each group after PSM. Compared with ESD, the EMR-L group demonstrated a higher R0 resection rate (98.4% vs. 83.6%, <i>P</i> = 0.021), a greater proportion of adequate vertical margins (80.3% vs. 62.3%, <i>P</i> = 0.030), and a lower rate of positive vertical margins (1.6% vs. 13.1%, <i>P</i> = 0.041). Subgroup analysis indicated that lesions ≤ 5 mm without prior biopsy or central depression derived greater benefit from EMR-L. Furthermore, EMR-L was associated with significantly shorter procedure times (median 5.0 vs. 19 minutes) and a markedly lower overall complication rate (8.2% vs. 29.5%, <i>P</i> = 0.005), particularly perforation (3.3% vs. 16.4%, <i>P</i> = 0.028).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>EMR-L outperforms ESD for small rectal NETs by achieving higher R0 and better vertical margins in shorter times, while minimizing risk of perforation.</p>","PeriodicalId":11671,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy International Open","volume":"13 ","pages":"a26551320"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12371650/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimal endoscopic resection method based on vertical margin distance for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: Propensity score-matched study.\",\"authors\":\"Jianning Liu, Weihua Yu, Peng Liu, Hao Tian, Lihong Gan, Kaige Zhang, Hui Chen, Nian Fang\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2655-1320\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and study aims: </strong>Advanced endoscopic resection methods are recommended for removing rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) < 10 mm, but there is no consensus on optimal endoscopic technique. This study aimed to determine whether endoscopic mucosal resection with ligation (EMR-L) is superior to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in terms of efficacy and safety, focusing on achieving adequate vertical margin distance.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This dual-center cohort study included consecutive patients with rectal NETs ≤ 10 mm. Adequate vertical margins were exploratively defined as a margin distance exceeding 115 μm, the 25th percentile threshold. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to compare outcomes between EMR-L and ESD.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 204 rectal NETs from 186 patients, with 61 lesions in each group after PSM. Compared with ESD, the EMR-L group demonstrated a higher R0 resection rate (98.4% vs. 83.6%, <i>P</i> = 0.021), a greater proportion of adequate vertical margins (80.3% vs. 62.3%, <i>P</i> = 0.030), and a lower rate of positive vertical margins (1.6% vs. 13.1%, <i>P</i> = 0.041). Subgroup analysis indicated that lesions ≤ 5 mm without prior biopsy or central depression derived greater benefit from EMR-L. Furthermore, EMR-L was associated with significantly shorter procedure times (median 5.0 vs. 19 minutes) and a markedly lower overall complication rate (8.2% vs. 29.5%, <i>P</i> = 0.005), particularly perforation (3.3% vs. 16.4%, <i>P</i> = 0.028).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>EMR-L outperforms ESD for small rectal NETs by achieving higher R0 and better vertical margins in shorter times, while minimizing risk of perforation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11671,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Endoscopy International Open\",\"volume\":\"13 \",\"pages\":\"a26551320\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12371650/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Endoscopy International Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2655-1320\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopy International Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2655-1320","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景与研究目的:对于< 10 mm的直肠神经内分泌肿瘤(NETs),建议采用先进的内镜切除方法,但对最佳内镜技术尚无共识。本研究旨在确定内镜下粘膜结扎切除术(EMR-L)是否优于内镜下粘膜剥离术(ESD)的有效性和安全性,重点关注是否能获得足够的垂直切缘距离。患者和方法:这项双中心队列研究包括直肠NETs≤10 mm的连续患者。适当的垂直边缘被探索性地定义为边缘距离超过115 μm,即第25个百分位阈值。倾向评分匹配(PSM)用于比较EMR-L和ESD的结果。结果:本研究纳入186例204例直肠NETs,每组经PSM后病变61个。与ESD组相比,EMR-L组的R0切除率更高(98.4%比83.6%,P = 0.021),垂直切缘充足的比例更高(80.3%比62.3%,P = 0.030),垂直切缘阳性的比例更低(1.6%比13.1%,P = 0.041)。亚组分析表明,病变≤5mm且没有事先活检或中枢性凹陷的患者从EMR-L中获益更大。此外,EMR-L显著缩短了手术时间(中位数5.0 vs 19分钟),显著降低了总并发症发生率(8.2% vs 29.5%, P = 0.005),尤其是穿孔(3.3% vs 16.4%, P = 0.028)。结论:EMR-L优于ESD,在更短的时间内获得更高的R0和更好的垂直切缘,同时最大限度地降低了穿孔的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Optimal endoscopic resection method based on vertical margin distance for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: Propensity score-matched study.

Optimal endoscopic resection method based on vertical margin distance for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: Propensity score-matched study.

Optimal endoscopic resection method based on vertical margin distance for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: Propensity score-matched study.

Optimal endoscopic resection method based on vertical margin distance for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: Propensity score-matched study.

Background and study aims: Advanced endoscopic resection methods are recommended for removing rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) < 10 mm, but there is no consensus on optimal endoscopic technique. This study aimed to determine whether endoscopic mucosal resection with ligation (EMR-L) is superior to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in terms of efficacy and safety, focusing on achieving adequate vertical margin distance.

Patients and methods: This dual-center cohort study included consecutive patients with rectal NETs ≤ 10 mm. Adequate vertical margins were exploratively defined as a margin distance exceeding 115 μm, the 25th percentile threshold. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to compare outcomes between EMR-L and ESD.

Results: The study included 204 rectal NETs from 186 patients, with 61 lesions in each group after PSM. Compared with ESD, the EMR-L group demonstrated a higher R0 resection rate (98.4% vs. 83.6%, P = 0.021), a greater proportion of adequate vertical margins (80.3% vs. 62.3%, P = 0.030), and a lower rate of positive vertical margins (1.6% vs. 13.1%, P = 0.041). Subgroup analysis indicated that lesions ≤ 5 mm without prior biopsy or central depression derived greater benefit from EMR-L. Furthermore, EMR-L was associated with significantly shorter procedure times (median 5.0 vs. 19 minutes) and a markedly lower overall complication rate (8.2% vs. 29.5%, P = 0.005), particularly perforation (3.3% vs. 16.4%, P = 0.028).

Conclusions: EMR-L outperforms ESD for small rectal NETs by achieving higher R0 and better vertical margins in shorter times, while minimizing risk of perforation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Endoscopy International Open
Endoscopy International Open GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
3.80%
发文量
270
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信