Retrospective Cohort Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2016.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Apr 10, 2016; 8(7): 330-337
Published online Apr 10, 2016. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v8.i7.330
Table 3 Factors associated with sufficient safety margin after endoscopic submucosal dissection (Univariate)
Safety margin1 mmSafety margin > 1 mmP value
n = 63n = 352
Age, yr (mean ± SD)65.9 ± 11.163.9 ± 9.50.14
Male/female38/25253/990.12
Tumor margin, n (%)0.52
Well-defined53 (84.1)284 (80.7)
Ill-defined10 (15.9)68 (19.3)
Tumor size, n (%)0.55
≤ 20 mm21 (33.3)95 (27.0)
21-30 mm12 (19.0)65 (18.5)
31-40 mm14 (22.2)108 (30.7)
> 40 mm16 (25.4)84 (23.9)
Tumor location, n (%)< 0.0001
Upper7 (11.1)8 (2.3)
Mid31 (49.2)98 (27.8)
Lower25 (39.7)246 (69.9)
Histology, n (%)0.85
Well differentiated32 (50.8)163 (46.3)
Moderate differentiated24 (38.1)156 (44.3)
Poorly differentiated3 (4.8)27 (7.7)
Signet ring cell4 (6.3)6 (1.7)
Procedure time, min (mean ± SD)58.9 ± 43.848.5 ± 35.40.04