Feasibility of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for endoscopic management of gastric neoplasms in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis

• Published in: Surgical endoscopy Vol. 37; no. 9; pp. 6877 - 6884
• Main Authors: Shimamoto, Yusaku, Takeuchi, Yoji, Ishiguro, Shingo, Nakatsuka, Shin-ichi, Yunokizaki, Hiroshi, Ezoe, Yasumasa, Matsuno, Kenshi, Nakahira, Hiroko, Shichijo, Satoki, Maekawa, Akira, Kanesaka, Takashi, Yamamoto, Sachiko, Higashino, Koji, Uedo, Noriya, Ishihara, Ryu, Ishikawa, Hideki
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.09.2023; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Abdominal Surgery; Biopsy; Cancer; Cellular biology; Colon; Colorectal cancer; Endoscopy; Feasibility; Gastric cancer; Gastroenterology; Genetic counseling; Genetic disorders; Gynecology; Hepatology; Intervention; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Pathology; Polyps; Proctology; Rectum; Small intestine; Surgery; Tumors; Gastric neoplasms; Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection; Familial adenomatous polyposis; Endoscopic management
• ISSN: 0930-2794; 1432-2218
• DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10175-x

Background Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has been developed as an effective endoscopic intervention for colon, rectum, and duodenum neoplasms. However, there are no comprehensive reports regarding the stomach, and its safety and efficacy are unknown. We aimed to examine the feasibility of UEMR for gastric neoplasms in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Methods We retrospectively extracted data of patients with FAP who underwent endoscopic resection (ER) for gastric neoplasms at Osaka International Cancer Institute from February 2009 to December 2018. Elevated gastric neoplasms of ≤ 20 mm in diameter were extracted, and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) and UEMR were compared. Furthermore, outcomes after ER until March 2020 were examined. Results 91 endoscopically resected gastric neoplasms were extracted from 31 patients with 26 pedigrees, and 12 neoplasms underwent CEMR and 25 neoplasms underwent UEMR was compared. The procedure time was shorter for UEMR than for CEMR. There was no significant difference between en bloc resection and R0 resection rates by EMR methods. CEMR and UEMR showed postoperative hemorrhage rates of 8% and 0%, respectively. Residual/local recurrent neoplasms were identified in four lesions (4%), but additional endoscopic intervention (three UEMR and one cauterization) resulted in a local cure. Conclusion UEMR was feasible in gastric neoplasms of FAP patients, especially in elevated lesions and those of ≤ 20 mm in diameter.