Intestinal Research

Original Articles

Colorectal neoplasia

Clinical outcomes of positive resection margin after endoscopic mucosal resection of early colon cancers: Junseok Park, Hyun Gun Kim, Shin Ok Jeong, Hoon gil Jo, Hyo Yeop Song, Jeeyeon Kim, Seri Ryu, Youngyun Cho, Hyun Jin Youn, Seong Ran Jeon, Jin-Oh Kim, Bong Min Ko, Yoon Mi Jeen, So-Young Jin; Intest Res 2019;17(4):516-526. Published online May 31, 2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2018.00169

Background/Aims
When determining the subsequent management after endoscopic resection of the early colon cancer (ECC), various factors including the margin status should be considered. This study assessed the subsequent management and outcomes of ECCs according to margin status.
Methods
We examined the data of 223 ECCs treated by endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) from 215 patients during 2004 to 2014, and all patients were followed-up at least for 2 years.
Results
According to histological analyses, the margin statuses of all lesions after EMR were as follows: 138 cases (61.9%) were negative, 65 cases (29.1%) were positive for dysplastic cells on the resection margins, and 20 cases (8.9%) were uncertain. The decision regarding subsequent management was affected not only by pathologic outcomes but also by the endoscopist’s opinion on whether complete resection was obtained. Surgery was preferred if the lesion extended to the submucosa (odds ratio [OR], 25.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.09–91.42), the endoscopic resection was presumed incomplete (OR, 15.55; 95% CI, 4.28–56.56), or the lymph system was invaded (OR, 13.69; 95% CI, 1.76–106.57). Fourteen patients (6.2%) had residual or recurrent malignancies at the site of the previous ECC resection and were significantly associated with presumed incomplete endoscopic resection (OR, 4.59; 95% CI, 1.21–17.39) and submucosal invasion (OR, 5.14; 95% CI, 1.18–22.34).
Conclusions
Subsequent surgery was associated with submucosa invasion, lymphatic invasion, and cancer-positive margins. Presumed completeness of the resection may be helpful for guiding the subsequent management of patients who undergo endoscopic resection of ECC.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Risk Factors for Perforation in Endoscopic Treatment for Early Colorectal Cancer: A Nationwide ENTER-K Study
Ik Hyun Jo, Hyun Gun Kim, Young-Seok Cho, Hyun Jung Lee, Eun Ran Kim, Yoo Jin Lee, Sung Wook Hwang, Kyeong-Ok Kim, Jun Lee, Hyuk Soon Choi, Yunho Jung, Chang Mo Moon
Gut and Liver.2025; 19(1): 95. CrossRef
Long-term outcomes after endoscopic versus surgical resection of T1 colorectal carcinoma
Hyun Jin Bae, Hoyeon Ju, Han Hee Lee, Jinsu Kim, Bo-In Lee, Sung Hak Lee, Daeyoun David Won, Yoon Suk Lee, In Kyu Lee, Young-Seok Cho
Surgical Endoscopy.2023; 37(2): 1231. CrossRef
Emergence of a New Optical Marker for Colorectal Neoplasms: To What Extent Should We Accept It?
Han Hee Lee
Clinical Endoscopy.2022; 55(2): 315. CrossRef
Comparison of long-term recurrence-free survival between primary surgery and endoscopic resection followed by secondary surgery in T1 colorectal cancer
Eun Hye Oh, Nayoung Kim, Sung Wook Hwang, Sang Hyoung Park, Dong-Hoon Yang, Byong Duk Ye, Seung-Jae Myung, Suk-Kyun Yang, Chang Sik Yu, Jin Cheon Kim, Jeong-Sik Byeon
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2021; 94(2): 394. CrossRef
Clinical outcomes of submucosal colorectal cancer diagnosed after endoscopic resection: a focus on the need for surgery
Yun Sik Choi, Wan Soo Kim, Sung Wook Hwang, Sang Hyoung Park, Dong-Hoon Yang, Byong Duk Ye, Seung-Jae Myung, Suk-Kyun Yang, Jeong-Sik Byeon
Intestinal Research.2020; 18(1): 96. CrossRef

10,625 View
175 Download
4 Web of Science
5 Crossref

Endoscopy

Clinical comparison of low-volume agents (oral sulfate solution and sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate) for bowel preparation: the EASE study: Jeeyeon Kim, Hyun Gun Kim, Kyeong Ok Kim, Hyung Wook Kim, Jongha Park, Jeong-Sik Byeon, Sung-Wook Hwang, Hyun Deok Shin, Jeong Eun Shin, Hyo-Joon Yang, Hyun Seok Lee, Yunho Jung, Young-Seok Cho, Young Eun Joo, Dae-Seong Myung, Kyu Chan Huh, Eu Mi Ahn; Intest Res 2019;17(3):413-418. Published online April 8, 2019; DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2018.00156

Abstract PDF PubReader ePub

Background/Aims
This study compared the efficacy, compliance, and safety of bowel preparation between sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate (SPMC) and oral sulfate solution (OSS).
Methods
A prospective randomized multicenter study was performed. Split preparation methods were performed in both groups; the SPMC group, 2 sachets on the day before, and 1 sachet on the day of the procedure, the OSS group, half of the OSS with 1 L of water on both the day before and the day of the procedure. The adenoma detection rate (ADR), adequacy of bowel preparation using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score, patient satisfaction on a visual analog scale (VAS), and safety were compared between the 2 groups.
Results
This study analyzed 229 patients (121 in the SPMC group and 108 in the OSS group). ADR showed no differences between 2 groups (51.7% vs. 41.7%, P> 0.05). The mean total BBPS score (7.95 vs. 8.11, P> 0.05) and adequate bowel preparation rate (94.9% vs. 96.3%, P> 0.05) were similar between the 2 groups. The mean VAS score for taste (7.62 vs. 6.87, P=0.006) was significantly higher in the SPMC group than in the OSS group. There were no significant differences in any other safety variables between the 2 groups except nausea symptom (36.1% vs. 20.3%, P=0.008).
Conclusions
Bowel preparation for colonoscopy using low volume OSS and SPMC yielded similar ADRs and levels of efficacy. SPMC had higher levels of satisfaction for taste and feeling than did OSS.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Efficacy and safety of split-dose ultra-low-volume polyethylene glycol with ascorbic acid versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate for bowel preparation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Abdallfatah Abdallfatah, Ahmed W. Hageen, Dania Albader, Abdulaziz Al-Tamimi, Khalid Alsalumi, Abdulrahman Alzmmam, Mahdi Abdullah, Laith Alreshaid, Saleh Aldhuwayhi, Nourah Almarri, Wala Fallatah, Abdullah Altamimi
European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology.2026;[Epub] CrossRef
Comments on Oral Sulfate Solution Is as Effective as Polyethylene Glycol with Ascorbic Acid in a Split Method for Bowel Preparation in Patients with Inactive Ulcerative Colitis: A Randomized, Multicenter, and Single-Blind Clinical Trial
Ji Eun Kim
Gut and Liver.2024; 18(1): 192. CrossRef
Oral Sulfate Solution Is as Effective as Polyethylene Glycol with Ascorbic Acid in a Split Method for Bowel Preparation in Patients with Inactive Ulcerative Colitis: A Randomized, Multicenter, and Single-Blind Clinical Trial
Ji Min Lee, Kang-Moon Lee, Ho Suk Kang, Ja Seol Koo, Hyun Seok Lee, Seok-Hoo Jeong, Jung Ho Kim, Dae Bum Kim
Gut and Liver.2023; 17(4): 591. CrossRef
Quality indicators in colonoscopy: the chasm between ideal and reality
Su Bee Park, Jae Myung Cha
Clinical Endoscopy.2022; 55(3): 332. CrossRef
Comparison of the efficacy and safety between oral sulfate tablet and polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation before colonoscopy according to age
Jae Hyun Kim, Yong Eun Park, Tae Oh Kim, Jongha Park, Gyu Man Oh, Won Moon, Seun Ja Park
Medicine.2022; 101(27): e29884. CrossRef
Efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral sulphate tablet for bowel preparation in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: A multicentre randomized controlled study
Kyeong Ok Kim, Eun Young Kim, Yoo Jin Lee, Hyun Seok Lee, Eun Soo Kim, Yun Jin Chung, Byung Ik Jang, Sung Kook Kim, Chang Heon Yang
Journal of Crohn's and Colitis.2022; 16(11): 1706. CrossRef
Comparison of Two Types of 1-L Polyethylene Glycol-ascorbic Acid as Colonoscopic Bowel Preparation: A Prospective Randomized Study
Suh Hyun Choi, Won Eui Yoon, Seung Hyuk Kim, Hee Jun Myung, Seo Hyun Kim, Soon Oh So, Se Hun Kim, Hyun Mi Lee, Yeoun Jung Oh, Jeong Seop Moon, Tae Yeong Park, You Sun Kim
The Korean Journal of Gastroenterology.2022; 80(2): 85. CrossRef
Correlation between Surrogate Quality Indicators for Adenoma Detection Rate and Adenoma Miss Rate in Qualified Colonoscopy, CORE Study: KASID Multicenter Study
Jae Hee Han, Hyun Gun Kim, Eu Mi Ahn, Suyeon Park, Seong Ran Jeon, Jae Myung Cha, Min Seob Kwak, Yunho Jung, Jeong Eun Shin, Hyun Deok Shin, Young-Seok Cho
Gut and Liver.2022; 16(5): 716. CrossRef
How to Choose the Optimal Bowel Preparation Regimen for Colonoscopy
Ji Eun Na, Eun Ran Kim
The Ewha Medical Journal.2021; 44(4): 122. CrossRef
Optimal Laxatives for Oral Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation: from High-volume to Novel Low-volume Solutions
Soo-Young Na, Won Moon
The Korean Journal of Gastroenterology.2020; 75(2): 65. CrossRef
No inferioridad entre dos agentes de bajo volumen (Picosulfato de Sodio/Citrato de Magnesio vs. Sulfato de Sodio/Potasio/Magnesio) en la preparación de colon para procedimientos diagnósticos: estudio observacional
Erika D. Pérez-Riveros, Margarita Rey R., Belén Mendoza De Molano, Juan Carlos Robayo, Jaime Solano Mariño, Rafael García Duperly, Andrés Gómez, Renzo Pinto Carta, Gerardo Ardila, Jose De la Hoz-Valle, Fernando Sierra-Arango
Revista Colombiana de Gastroenterología.2020; 35(4): 436. CrossRef

13,298 View
268 Download
11 Web of Science
11 Crossref

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Search