Gut and Liver is an international journal of gastroenterology, focusing on the gastrointestinal tract, liver, biliary tree, pancreas, motility, and neurogastroenterology. Gut atnd Liver delivers up-to-date, authoritative papers on both clinical and research-based topics in gastroenterology. The Journal publishes original articles, case reports, brief communications, letters to the editor and invited review articles in the field of gastroenterology. The Journal is operated by internationally renowned editorial boards and designed to provide a global opportunity to promote academic developments in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. +MORE
Yong Chan Lee |
Professor of Medicine Director, Gastrointestinal Research Laboratory Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Univ. California San Francisco San Francisco, USA |
Jong Pil Im | Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea |
Robert S. Bresalier | University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA |
Steven H. Itzkowitz | Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA |
All papers submitted to Gut and Liver are reviewed by the editorial team before being sent out for an external peer review to rule out papers that have low priority, insufficient originality, scientific flaws, or the absence of a message of importance to the readers of the Journal. A decision about these papers will usually be made within two or three weeks.
The remaining articles are usually sent to two reviewers. It would be very helpful if you could suggest a selection of reviewers and include their contact details. We may not always use the reviewers you recommend, but suggesting reviewers will make our reviewer database much richer; in the end, everyone will benefit. We reserve the right to return manuscripts in which no reviewers are suggested.
The final responsibility for the decision to accept or reject lies with the editors. In many cases, papers may be rejected despite favorable reviews because of editorial policy or a lack of space. The editor retains the right to determine publication priorities, the style of the paper, and to request, if necessary, that the material submitted be shortened for publication.
Tae-Se Kim , Byung-Hoon Min
, Yang Won Min
, Hyuk Lee
, Poong-Lyul Rhee
, Jae J. Kim
, and Jun Haeng Lee
Correspondence to:Byung-Hoon Min
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8048-361X
E-mail bhmin@skku.edu
Jun Haeng Lee
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5272-1841
E-mail stomachlee@gmail.com
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Gut Liver
Published online September 1, 2021
Copyright © Gut and Liver.
Background/Aims: It is uncertain whether additional endoscopic treatment may be chosen over surgery in patients with positive lateral margins (pLMs) as the only non-curative factor after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC). We aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of additional endoscopic treatments in such patients with those of surgery and elucidate the clinicopathological factors that could influence the treatment selection.
Methods: A total of 99 patients with 101 EGC lesions undergoing additional treatment after noncurative ESD with pLMs as the only non-curative factor were analyzed. Among them, 25 (27 lesions) underwent ESD, 29 (29 lesions) underwent argon plasma coagulation (APC), and 45 (45 lesions) underwent surgery. Clinicopathological characteristics and long-term outcomes were compared.
Results: Residual tumor was found in 73.6% of cases. The presence of multiple pLMs was associated with higher risk of residual tumor (p=0.046). During a median follow-up of 58.9 months, recurrent or residual lesions after additional ESD and APC were found in 4% (1/25) and 6.8% (2/29) of patients, respectively. However, all were completely cured with surgery or repeated ESD. There were no extragastric recurrences after additional endoscopic treatment. Lymph node metastasis was identified after additional surgery in one (2.2%) patient with an EGC showing histological heterogeneity.
Conclusions: Given the favorable long-term outcomes, additional ESD or APC may be an acceptable choice for patients with pLMs as the only non-curative factor after ESD for EGC. However, clincopathological characteristics such as multiple pLMs and histological heterogeneity should be considered in the treatment selection.
Keywords: Endoscopic mucosal resection, Margins of excision, Outcomes, Stomach neoplasms
Gut and Liver
Published online September 1, 2021
Copyright © Gut and Liver.
Tae-Se Kim , Byung-Hoon Min
, Yang Won Min
, Hyuk Lee
, Poong-Lyul Rhee
, Jae J. Kim
, and Jun Haeng Lee
Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
Correspondence to:Byung-Hoon Min
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8048-361X
E-mail bhmin@skku.edu
Jun Haeng Lee
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5272-1841
E-mail stomachlee@gmail.com
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Background/Aims: It is uncertain whether additional endoscopic treatment may be chosen over surgery in patients with positive lateral margins (pLMs) as the only non-curative factor after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC). We aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of additional endoscopic treatments in such patients with those of surgery and elucidate the clinicopathological factors that could influence the treatment selection.
Methods: A total of 99 patients with 101 EGC lesions undergoing additional treatment after noncurative ESD with pLMs as the only non-curative factor were analyzed. Among them, 25 (27 lesions) underwent ESD, 29 (29 lesions) underwent argon plasma coagulation (APC), and 45 (45 lesions) underwent surgery. Clinicopathological characteristics and long-term outcomes were compared.
Results: Residual tumor was found in 73.6% of cases. The presence of multiple pLMs was associated with higher risk of residual tumor (p=0.046). During a median follow-up of 58.9 months, recurrent or residual lesions after additional ESD and APC were found in 4% (1/25) and 6.8% (2/29) of patients, respectively. However, all were completely cured with surgery or repeated ESD. There were no extragastric recurrences after additional endoscopic treatment. Lymph node metastasis was identified after additional surgery in one (2.2%) patient with an EGC showing histological heterogeneity.
Conclusions: Given the favorable long-term outcomes, additional ESD or APC may be an acceptable choice for patients with pLMs as the only non-curative factor after ESD for EGC. However, clincopathological characteristics such as multiple pLMs and histological heterogeneity should be considered in the treatment selection.
Keywords: Endoscopic mucosal resection, Margins of excision, Outcomes, Stomach neoplasms