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 ± 11.2

50.6 ± 10.6

0.883

 Sex, male/female

46/31

44/33

0.744

 Lesion-related variables

  Lesion size, mm (mean ± SD)

5.9 ± 1.9

6.3 ± 2.4

0.280

  Lesion size group, n (%)

  

0.316

   < 10 mm

70(90.9%)

66 (85.7%)

 

   ≥ 10 mm

7(9.1%)

11(14.3%)

 

  Location, (U / Middle / L)

5/42/30

6/43/28

0.918

  Histopathological grade(G1/G2)

66/11

70/7

0.316

  Invasion layer, (M/SM)

16/61

14/63

0.684

  Endoscopic morphology, n (%)

  

0.602

   Ia

5(6.5%)

5(6.5%)

 

   Ib

58(75.3%)

52(67.5%)

 

   II

13(16.9%)

17(22.1%)

 

   III

1(1.3%)

3(3.9%)

 

Outcomes

 Procedure time, min

  

0.000*

  Mean ± SD

9.1 ± 4.4

16.0 ± 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