Retrospective study demonstrates high efficacy and manageable complications of endoscopic resection in large ampullary tumors, suggesting a viable alternative to surgery.
Background and study aims Current guidelines recommend en bloc endoscopic resection (ER) for ampullary tumors up to 3 cm, surgery for those exceeding 4 cm, based on low-quality evidence. Robust clinical data and operative experience with ER for tumors >3 cm are relatively limited. This study is to investigate the safety and efficacy of ER for large ampullary tumors exceeding 3 cm. Patients and methods This retrospective study included 28 patients with large ampullary tumors (>3 cm) treated by ER at two tertiary academic endoscopy centers from September 2017 to July 2025. Clinical, endoscopic, pathological records, and follow-up data were collected and analyzed. Results All 28 patients successfully underwent ER with a complete endoscopic resection rate of 100% and an R0 resection rate of 67.9%. The overall postoperative delayed bleeding rate was 14.3% (4/28; 95%CI: 5.7–31.5%). Subgroup data: bleeding occurred in 2 of 24 patients (8.3%; 95%CI: 1.5–25.8%) with stent placement, in 2 of 4 patients (50.0%; 95%CI: 8.9–91.1%) without stents, in 3 of 27 patients (11.1%; 95%CI: 3.9–28.1%) with wound closure, and in the single patient without wound closure (100%; 95%CI: 5.1–100.0%). All bleeding events were managed endoscopically. No other adverse events occurred. After a mean follow‑up of 27.4 months (range 10.0–97.0 months), 2 patients (7.1%) developed recurrence and underwent surgical resection (n=1) or repeat ER (n=1). Conclusions ER appears safe and effective for ampullary tumors exceeding 3 cm. The potential roles of wound closure and stent placement in reducing adverse events require validation in larger comparative trials.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: