Klebsiella pneumoniae was identified from the blood culture test. And then intravenous antibiotics such as cefotaxime and metronidazole were administered. On hospital days seven, abscess pocket was observed in segment 6 (Figure 2-C), and percutaneous

drainage was inserted (Figure 2-D). And the patient was improved after 6 weeks of antibiotics therapy. Results Conclusion Key Word(s): 1. fiducial GSK3235025 concentration marker; 2. endoscopic ultrasonography Presenting Author: RYUSUKE KIMURA Additional Authors: SHU HOTEYA, DAISUKE KIKUCHI, TOSHIRO IIZUKA, TOSHIFUMI MITANI, AKIRA MATSUI, OSAMU OGAWA, SATOSHI YAMASHITA, TSUKASA FURUHATA, AKIHIRO YAMADA, YASUTAKA KURIBAYASHI, KOSUKE NOMURA, MITSURU KAISE Corresponding Author: RYUSUKE KIMURA Affiliations: Toranomon Hospital, Toranomon Hospital, Toranomon Hospital, Toranomon Hospital, Toranomon Hospital, Toranomon Hospital, Toranomon Hospital, Toranomon Hospital, Toranomon Hospital, Toranomon Hospital, Toranomon Hospital,

Toranomon Hospital Objective: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a viable alternative to surgery for removal of mucosal neoplastic lesions found along the GI tract. However, few studies have reported on the safety DZNeP price and efficacy of EMR for nonampullary duodenal tumors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of EMR for nonampullary duodenal tumors. Methods: Forty-three nonampullary duodenal tumors from 41 patients were excised by EMR between April 2008 and March 2014 at our hospital, and assessed. EMR was performed in patients with duodenal adenocarcinoma or adenoma suspected of harboring a cancerous component, but without nodal or distant metastasis. Tumor characteristics, en block resection and histologically-complete resection rates, procedure-related complications, and tumor recurrence were retrospectively analyzed. Results: Of the 41 patients, 32 (78.0%) were men. Mean patient age was 58.1 years (range, 32–84 years). Mean tumor size was 9.4 mm (range, 2–25 mm). Twenty-four were high-grade neoplasias (revised Vienna classification category 4), and 19 were below category 3. En block resection rate

was C-X-C chemokine receptor type 7 (CXCR-7) 76.7% (33/43), and histologically-complete resection was accomplished in 25 of 43 lesions (58.1%) at initial attempt. Procedure-related complications included bleeding after EMR in 4 patients, who were treated with endoscopic hemostasis, and perforation during the endoscopic procedure in 1 patient, who was successfully treated by endoscopic closure. After a median follow-up period of 11 months (range, 0 to 47 months), recurrence of the duodenal neoplasm was observed in 1 patient (2.3%). However, no distant metastasis and procedure-related mortality were observed. Conclusion: Endoscopic mucosal resection is considered a safe and effective therapeutic option for small nonampullary tumors with relatively few complications and low mortality rate. Even if the tumor is small (around 10 mm), it is important to perform EMR as diagnostic treatment.