Skip to main content

Table 3 Matching factors between m-EMR and ESD group and outcomes after propensity score matching

From: The outcomes of modified endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors and the value of endoscopic morphology classification in endoscopic resection

 m-EMR(n = 77)ESD(n = 77)P value
Variables matched between groups
 Patient-related variables
 Age, y (mean ± SD)50.3 ± 11.250.6 ± 10.60.883
 Sex, male/female46/3144/330.744
 Lesion-related variables
  Lesion size, mm (mean ± SD)5.9 ± 1.96.3 ± 2.40.280
  Lesion size group, n (%)  0.316
   < 10 mm70(90.9%)66 (85.7%) 
   ≥ 10 mm7(9.1%)11(14.3%) 
  Location, (U / Middle / L)5/42/306/43/280.918
  Histopathological grade(G1/G2)66/1170/70.316
  Invasion layer, (M/SM)16/6114/630.684
  Endoscopic morphology, n (%)  0.602
 Procedure time, min  0.000*
  Mean ± SD9.1 ± 4.416.0 ± 7.9 
  Median (range)8(3–26)14(6–40) 
 En bloc resection, n (%)76(98.7%)77(100%)1.000
 Complete resection(R0), n (%)70(90.9%)72(93.5%)0.548
 Procedure-related adverse events, n (%)2(2.6%)2(2.6%)1.000
 Operation involving incomplete resectiona, no.(%)1(1.3%)2(2.6%)1.000
  1. ESD Endoscopic submucosal dissection, m-EMR Modified endoscopic mucosal resection, SD standard deviation, U upper third of rectum, L lower third of rectum, M mucosal, SM submucosal
  2. *p < 0.05
  3. aThere are one patient in each group underwent subsequent surgery and one patient in the ESD group underwent additional ESD due to positive resection margins