Copyright
©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Gastroenterol. Aug 21, 2015; 21(31): 9387-9393
Published online Aug 21, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i31.9387
Published online Aug 21, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i31.9387
Table 1 Baseline patient characteristics n (%)
EMR-C(n = 65) | ESD(n = 51) | P value | |
Age (yr), mean ± SD | 52.31 ± 9.83 | 48.47 ± 12.23 | 0.063 |
Male gender | 43 (66.2) | 33 (64.7) | 0.872 |
Follow up period (d), mean ± SD | 689.58 ± 468.94 | 760.84 ± 458.91 | 0.414 |
Specimen size (mm), | 10.15 ± 2.21 | 13.10 ± 3.99 | < 0.001 |
mean ± SD (range) | (6.0-15.0) | (8.0-25.0) | |
Tumor size (mm), | 4.62 ± 1.66 | 7.73 ± 3.14 | < 0.001 |
mean ± SD (range) | (1.0-10.0) | (3.0-18.0) | |
EUS measured size (mm), | 4.72 ± 1.51 | 7.27 ± 2.54 | < 0.001 |
mean ± SD (range) | (1.0-8.0) | (2.7-17.0) | |
Tumor size (mm) | |||
0 < tumor size ≤ 5 | 50 | 13 | |
5 < tumor size ≤ 10 | 15 | 31 | |
> 10 | 0 | 7 |
- Citation: Park SB, Kim HW, Kang DH, Choi CW, Kim SJ, Nam HS. Advantage of endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap for rectal neuroendocrine tumors. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21(31): 9387-9393
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v21/i31/9387.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i31.9387