Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

28 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of a follicular lymphoma : A case report

ABSTRACT: Abstract

Introduction:

Endoscopic resection of a follicular lymphoma (FL) presenting as a gastric subepithelial tumor (SET), along with periodic follow up can be a treatment option because gastrointestinal FL cells tend to reside in the primary site, which may explain its indolent nature.

Patient concerns:

A gastric lesion was found incidentally during a screening endoscopy in 73-year-old woman without any gastrointestinal symptom.

Diagnosis:

The patient was diagnosed with a grade I FL that was 1.4 cm large, at the greater curvature of lower-body.

Intervention:

We performed underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UW-EMR), and there was no serious complication, such as bleeding and perforation.

Outcomes:

Complete en bloc resection was achieved with UW-EMR. Follow-up endoscopic biopsy after 3 months revealed no residual tumor on the resection site.

Conclusion:

UW-EMR may be a simple and safe resection method for gastric FL without metastases, that measure >1 cm.

SUBMITTER: Kim T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8556042 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Feasibility and Efficacy of Gastric Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection.

Project description:Gastric cancer, a leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally, necessitates effective and early detection and treatment strategies. Endoscopic resection techniques, particularly endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), have evolved significantly, enhancing the treatment of gastric neoplasms. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a widely used technique for the resection of duodenal and colorectal neoplasms. However, the feasibility and efficacy of UEMR in the stomach are not well established. This retrospective observational study, conducted at a tertiary medical center, evaluated the efficacy and safety of UEMR in 81 patients with gastric neoplasms. Thus, it indicates that UEMR is a highly effective and safe technique for managing small to medium-sized gastric neoplasms, achieving 100% en bloc and 93.8% R0 resection rates with a low incidence of complications. Moreover, the procedure time was found to be significantly shorter for UEMR compared to ESD, thus highlighting its efficiency. While UEMR demonstrates high safety and efficacy, it is not suitable for all patients, with some requiring conversion to ESD as a treatment option. Despite the promising results, broader validation through extensive and randomized trials is recommended to establish UEMR as a standard approach in gastric cancer management.

| S-EPMC10931230 | biostudies-literature

Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for a Terminal Ileum Adenoma.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC10987165 | biostudies-literature

Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Small Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors.

Project description:Background and study aimsThe resection strategy for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NET) < 10 mm is not uniform. We compared the utility of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) to endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device (ESMR-L) to resect rectal NETs.Patients and methodsPatients with rectal NET < 10 mm treated with UEMR or ESMR-L were included. Their medical records were retrospectively reviewed.ResultsThirty-two patients were divided into a UEMR group (n = 7) and an ESMR-L group (n = 25). Histopathological diagnosis of NET by biopsy was known before resection in 43% (3/7) in the UEMR group and 68% (17/25) in the ESMR-L group, (p = 0.379). UEMR was performed on an outpatient basis for all patients, and 92% of ESMR-L (23/25) were performed as inpatient procedures (p < 0.001). The procedure time was significantly shorter in the UEMR group than in the ESMR-L group [median (IQR), min, 6 (5-8) vs. 12 (9-14), p = 0.002]. En bloc resection and R0 resection rates were 100% in both groups. Pathological evaluations were predominantly NET G1 in both groups (UEMR: 7/7, 100% and ESMR-L: 23/25, 92%). Two patients in the ESMR-L group developed delayed bleeding, controlled by endoscopic hemostasis. Device costs were significantly higher in the ESMR-L group than the UEMR group by approximately US$180 [median (IQR), $90.45 (83.64-108.41) vs. $274.73 (265.86-292.45), P < 0.001].ConclusionUEMR results in similar resection quality with shorter procedure time and lower costs compared to ESMR-L. We recommend UEMR for the resection of rectal NET < 10 mm.

| S-EPMC9063479 | biostudies-literature

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: Can it be an "Underwater" revolution?

Project description:Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a newly developed technique for the removal of colorectal, duodenal, esophageal, gastric, ampullary, and small intestinal lesions. We performed a PubMed literature search for articles reporting UEMR outcomes for colorectal polyps. Four randomized controlled trials, nine non-randomized prospective trials, 16 retrospective studies, and 27 case reports were selected for assessment of the efficacy and safety of UEMR. We summarized the therapeutic outcomes of UEMR in each category according to the lesion characteristics [small size (<10 mm), intermediate size (10-19 mm), large size (≥20 mm), recurrent lesion, and rectal neuroendocrine tumor], and calculated the incidence of adverse events among the included articles. As the treatment outcomes for small polyps appeared similar between UEMR and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR), UEMR can be a standard procedure for small colorectal polyps suspicious for high-grade dysplasia to avoid incomplete removal of occult invasive cancer by cold snare polypectomy. As UEMR showed satisfactory outcomes for intermediate-size lesions and recurrent lesions after endoscopic resection, UEMR can be a standard procedure for these lesions. Regarding large lesions and rectal neuroendocrine tumors, comparisons of UEMR with current standard methods for them were lacking, and further investigations are warranted. Adverse events appeared comparable or less frequent for UEMR compared with CEMR but still existed. Therefore, careful implementation of this new technique in clinical practice is important for its widespread use.

| S-EPMC8828230 | biostudies-literature

Acute appendicitis after colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection: a case report.

Project description:Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) was originally described in 1973 and is currently a popular practice used in treating polyps, small adenomas, and early cancers. Although the safety of EMR has been proven in numerous studies, complications occur occasionally. We report a case in which the patient complained of severe upper abdominal pain and who was diagnosed with acute appendicitis after colorectal EMR. The patient recovered well after surgery. Cautious observation is necessary when resuming oral intake in patients who undergo colorectal EMR and who complain of postoperative abdominal pain. Observation is especially important for patients with a fecalith that may have originally existed in the appendix or in the colon near the appendix.

| S-EPMC9112757 | biostudies-literature

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors: A case series pilot study (with video).

Project description:IntroductionUnderwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UW-EMR) has been recently introduced as an effective technique for rectal third layer subepithelial tumors. Therefore, we aimed to assess the safety, efficacy, and procedure time of UW-EMR for upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs) originating from the deep mucosal and/or submucosal layers.MethodsBetween August 2018 to July 2022, a total of 17 SETs (7 duodenal SETs, 6 gastric SETs, and 4 esophageal SETs) were included in this study. On endoscopic ultrasound examinations, the tumors were found to be embedded in the submucosa without muscularis propria invasion. All SETs were resected successfully using UW-EMR. The characteristics of the tumors and their R0 resection rate, adverse event rate, and recurrence rate were evaluated retrospectively.ResultsThe mean tumor size was 0.9 cm (range, 0.3-1.5 cm). En bloc resection and complete resection rates were 100%, respectively. The patients showed no complications such as perforation or bleeding. Histologic assessments of the resected tumors revealed 9 neuroendocrine tumors (7 on the duodenum, 2 on the stomach), 2 gastric cystica profunda, 1 gastric follicular lymphoma, 1 gastric fibromyxoma, 3 esophageal granular cell tumors, and 1 esophageal adenoid cystic carcinoma. The mean procedural time was 3.2 min (range, 1.3-8.7 minutes). The overall en bloc and complete resection rates were 100%, respectively. No recurrence was observed during the follow-up period.ConclusionUW-EMR is a safe and effective treatment for upper gastrointestinal SETs embedded in the submucosal layer. Further studies are needed to compare other endoscopic resection techniques.

| S-EPMC9575717 | biostudies-literature

Is underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of colon polyps superior to conventional techniques? A network analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection.

Project description:Background and study aims Evidence from recent trials comparing conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to underwater EMR (UEMR) have matured. However, studies comparing UEMR to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are lacking. Hence, we sought to conduct a comprehensive network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of UEMR, ESD, and EMR. Methods Embase and Medline databases were searched from inception to December 2020 for articles comparing UEMR with EMR and ESD. Outcomes of interest included rates of en bloc and complete polyp resection, risk of perforation and bleeding, and local recurrence. A network meta-analysis comparing all three approaches was conducted. In addition, a conventional comparative meta-analysis comparing UEMR to EMR was performed. Analysis was stratified according to polyp sizes (< 10 mm, ≥ 10 mm, and ≥ 20 mm). Results Twenty-two articles were included in this study. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, UEMR was inferior to ESD in achieving en bloc resection ( P = 0.02). However, UEMR had shorter operating time for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P < 0.001), and ≥20 mm ( P = 0.019) with reduced perforation risk for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P = 0.05) compared to ESD. In addition, en bloc resection rates were similar between UEMR and EMR, although UEMR had reduced recurrence for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P = 0.013) and ≥ 20 mm ( P = 0.014). UEMR also had shorter mean operating than EMR for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P < 0.001) and ≥ 20 mm ( P < 0.001). Risk of bleeding and perforation with UEMR and EMR were similar for polyp of all sizes. Conclusions UEMR has demonstrated technical and oncological outcomes comparable to ESD and EMR, along with a desirable safety profile. UEMR appears to be a safe and effective alternative to conventional methods for resection of polyps ≥ 10 mm.

| S-EPMC8759939 | biostudies-literature

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of an incompletely resected superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial neoplasm using the loop-and-let-go technique: A case report.

Project description:RationaleEndoscopic resection of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial neoplasm (SNADEN) is a challenging procedure owing to the high recurrence rate and considerable incidence rate of adverse events.Patient concernsSNADEN accidentally found during a medical examination in a 56-year-old man.DiagnosisThe patient was diagnosed as having a 20-mm-sized flat elevated SNADEN at the superior duodenal angle.InterventionsFirst, we tried to perform conventional EMR (CEMR). However, the submucosal injection interrupted the endoscopic view and did not provide enough space for CEMR because of its angulated location. Therefore, we chose to perform endoscopic resection using the "loop-and-let-go" technique. Follow-up duodenoscopy after 2 days revealed post CEMR ulcer with suspicious remnant lesion. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) was successfully performed 3 months after the first session of endoscopic resection.OutcomesComplete endoscopic en bloc resection and histological complete resection were achieved with UEMR. Follow-up duodenoscopy revealed no recurrence.LessonsStep-by-step endoscopic treatment with UEMR following loop-and-let-go technique may be a good strategy for SNADEN over 20-mm in diameter.

| S-EPMC7808504 | biostudies-literature

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection is very useful for treating multiple bleeding gastric polyps.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC7774660 | biostudies-literature

Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection without Submucosal Injection Facilitates En bloc Resection of Colon Adenomas Extending into a Diverticulum.

Project description:Superficial colonic neoplasms sometimes extend into a diverticulum. Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection of these lesions is considered challenging because colonic diverticula do not have a muscularis propria and are deeply inverted. Even if the solution is carefully injected below the mucosa at the bottom of the diverticulum, the mucosa is rarely elevated from the diverticular orifice, and it is usually just narrowed. Although endoscopic submucosal dissection or full-thickness resection with an over-the-scope clip device enables the complete resection of these lesions, it is still challenging, time consuming and expensive. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection without submucosal injection (UEMR) is an innovative technique enabling en bloc resection of superficial colon lesions. We report three patients with colon adenomas extending into a diverticulum treated with successful UEMR. UEMR enabled rapid and safe en bloc resection of colon lesions extending into a diverticulum.

| S-EPMC8182237 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data