Safe and successful resection of difficult GI lesions using a novel single-step full-thickness resection device (FTRD®)

Endoscopic full-thickness resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for challenging colorectal lesions: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The optimal endoscopic resection method of challenging colorectal lesions (ie, adenomatous recurrences, nongranular laterally spreading tumors [LST-NGs], lesions without lifting sign <30 mm) is still under debate. The aim of this study was to directly compare endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) for the resection of challenging colorectal lesions in a randomized trial.

METHODS

A multicenter, prospective, randomized study was performed in 4 Italian referral centers. Consecutive patients referred for endoscopic resection of challenging lesions were randomly assigned to undergo EFTR or ESD. Primary outcomes were complete (R0) resection and en bloc resection of lesions. Technical success, procedure time, procedure speed, area of the resected specimen, adverse event rate, and local recurrence rate at 6 months were also compared.

RESULTS

Overall, 90 patients were included in the study, equally representing the 3 challenging lesion types. Age and sex were comparable in the 2 groups. En bloc resection was obtained in 95.5% of the EFTR group and in 93.3% of the ESD group. R0 resection rate was comparable in the 2 groups (EFTR vs ESD, 42 [93.3%] vs 36 [80%]; P = .06). The EFTR group exhibited a significantly shorter total procedure time (25.6 ± 10.6 minutes vs 76.7 ± 26.4 minutes, P ≤ .01), as well as overall procedure speed (16.8 ± 11.8 mm2/min vs 11.9 ± 9.2 mm2/min, P = .03). The EFTR group had a significantly smaller mean lesion size (21.6 ± 8.3 mm vs 28.7 ± 7.7 mm, P ≤ .01). Adverse events were reported less frequently in patients in the EFTR group (4.44% vs 15.5%, P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

EFTR is comparable to ESD in the treatment of challenging colorectal lesions in terms of safety and efficacy. EFTR is considerably faster than ESD in the treatment of nonlifting lesions and adenoma recurrences. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT05502276.).

Full-thickness resection device for management of lesions involving the appendiceal orifice: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims Endoscopic resection of lesions involving the appendiceal orifice is technically challenging and is commonly referred for surgical resection. However, post-resection appendicitis is a concern. Many studies have varying rates of post-procedure appendicitis. We aim to report the rate of post-resection appendicitis by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods Studies that involved the use of a full-thickness resection device (FTRD) for management of appendiceal polyps were included. The primary outcome was appendicitis after FTRD and a subgroup analysis was performed on studies that only included FTRD performed at the appendiceal orifice. Results Appendicitis was encountered in 15% (95%CI: [11-21]) of the patients with 61% (95% CI: [44-76]) requiring surgical management. Pooled rates of technical success, histologic FTR, and histologic R0 resection in this sub-group (n=123) were 92% (95% CI: [85-96]), 98% (95% CI: [93-100]), and 72% (95% CI: [64-84%]), respectively. Post-resection histopathological evaluation revealed a mean resected specimen size of 16.8 ± 5.4 mm, with non-neoplastic pathology in 9 (7%), adenomas in 103 (84%), adenomas + high-grade dysplasia (HGD) in nine (7%), and adenocarcinoma in two (2%). The pooled rate for non-appendicitis-related surgical management (technical failure and/or high-risk lesions) was 11 % (CI: 7-17). Conclusions FTRD appears to be an effective method for managing appendiceal lesions. However, appendicitis post-resection occurs in a non-trivial number of patients and the R0 resection rate in appendiceal lesions is only 72%. Therefore, caution should be employed in the use of this technique, considering the relative risks of surgical intervention in each patient.

Adverse events of endoscopic full-thickness resection: results from the German and Dutch nationwide colorectal FTRD registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is emerging as a minimally invasive alternative to surgery for complex colorectal lesions. Previous studies have demonstrated favorable safety results; however, large studies representing a generalizable estimation of adverse events (AEs) are lacking. Our aim was to provide further insight in AEs after eFTR.

METHODS

Data from all registered eFTR procedures in the German and Dutch colorectal full-thickness resection device registries between July 2015 and March 2021 were collected. Safety outcomes included immediate and late AEs.

RESULTS

Of 1892 procedures, the overall AE rate was 11.3% (213/1892). No AE-related mortality occurred. Perforations occurred in 2.5% (47/1892) of all AEs, 57.4% (27/47) of immediate AEs, and 42.6% (20/47) of delayed AEs. Successful endoscopic closure was achieved in 29.8% of cases (13 immediate and 1 delayed), and antibiotic treatment was sufficient in 4.3% (2 delayed). The appendicitis rate for appendiceal lesions was 9.9% (13/131), and 46.2% (6/13) could be treated conservatively. The severe AE rate requiring surgery was 2.2% (42/1892), including delayed perforations in .9% (17/1892) and immediate perforations in .7% (13/1892). Delayed perforations occurred between days 1 and 10 (median, 2) after eFTR, and 58.8% (10/17) were located on the left side. Other severe AEs were appendicitis (.4%, 7/1892), luminal stenosis (.1%, 2/1892), delayed bleeding (.1%, 1/1892), pain after eFTR close to the dentate line (.1%, 1/1892), and grasper entrapment in the clip (.1%, 1/1892).

CONCLUSIONS

Colorectal eFTR is a safe procedure with a low risk for severe AEs in everyday practice and without AE-related mortality. These results further support the position of eFTR as an established minimally invasive technique for complex colorectal lesions.

Long-term oncological outcomes of endoscopic full-thickness resection after previous incomplete resection of low-risk T1 CRC (LOCAL-study): study protocol of a national prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) without histological high-risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) can potentially be cured by endoscopic resection, which is associated with significantly lower morbidity, mortality and costs compared to radical surgery. An important prerequisite for endoscopic resection as definite treatment is the histological confirmation of tumour-free resection margins. Incomplete resection with involved (R1) or indeterminate (Rx) margins is considered a strong risk factor for residual disease and local recurrence. Therefore, international guidelines recommend additional surgery in case of R1/Rx resection, even in absence of high-risk factors for LNM. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a relatively new technique that allows transmural resection of colorectal lesions. Local scar excision after prior R1/Rx resection of low-risk T1 CRC could offer an attractive minimal invasive strategy to achieve confirmation about radicality of the previous resection or a second attempt for radical resection of residual luminal cancer. However, oncologic safety has not been established and long-term data are lacking. Besides, surveillance varies widely and requires standardization.

METHODS/DESIGN

In this nationwide, multicenter, prospective cohort study we aim to assess feasibility and oncological safety of completion eFTR following incomplete resection of low-risk T1 CRC. The primary endpoint is to assess the 2 and 5 year luminal local tumor recurrence rate. Secondary study endpoints are to assess feasibility, percentage of curative eFTR-resections, presence of scar tissue and/or complete scar excision at histopathology, safety of eFTR compared to surgery, 2 and 5 year nodal and/or distant tumor recurrence rate and 5-year disease-specific and overall-survival rate.

DISCUSSION

Since the implementation of CRC screening programs, the diagnostic rate of T1 CRC is steadily increasing. A significant proportion is not recognized as cancer before endoscopic resection and is therefore resected through conventional techniques primarily reserved for benign polyps. As such, precise histological assessment is often hampered due to cauterization and fragmentation and frequently leads to treatment dilemmas. This first prospective trial will potentially demonstrate the effectiveness and oncological safety of completion eFTR for patients who have undergone a previous incomplete T1 CRC resection. Hereby, substantial surgical overtreatment may be avoided, leading to treatment optimization and organ preservation. Trial registration Nederlands Trial Register, NL 7879, 16 July 2019 ( https://trialregister.nl/trial/7879 ).

Endoscopic Full Thickness Resection: A Systematic Review

Background Endoscopic full thickness resection (EFTR) is an emerging therapeutic option for resecting subepithelial lesions (SELs) and epithelial neoplasms. We aimed to systematically review the techniques, applications, outcomes, and complications of EFTR.

Methods A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed. All relevant original research articles involving EFTR were included for the review along with case report/series describing novel/rare techniques from 2001 to February 2022.

Results After screening 7,739 citations, finally 141 references were included. Non-exposed EFTR has lower probability of peritoneal contamination or tumor seeding compared with exposed EFTR. Among exposed EFTR, tunneled variety is associated with lower risk of peritoneal seeding or contamination compared with non-tunneled approach. Closure techniques involve though the scope (TTS) clips, loop and clips, over the scope clips (OTSC), full thickness resection device (FTRD), and endoscopic suturing/plicating/stapling devices. The indications of EFTR range from esophagus to rectum and include SELs arising from muscularis propria (MP), non-lifting adenoma, recurrent adenoma, and even early gastric cancer (EGC) or superficial colorectal carcinoma. Other indications include difficult locations (involving appendicular orifice or diverticulum) and full thickness biopsy for motility disorders. The main limitation of FTRD is feasibility in smaller lesions (<20–25 mm), which can be circumvented by hybrid EFTR techniques. Oncologic resection with lymphadencetomy for superficial GI malignancy can be accomplished by hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) combining EFTR and NOTES. Bleeding, perforation, appendicitis, enterocolonic fistula, FTRD malfunction, peritoneal tumor seeding, and contamination are among various adverse events. Post OTSC artifacts need to be differentiated from recurrent/residual lesions to avoid re-FTRD/surgery.

Conclusion EFTR is safe and effective therapeutic option for SELs, recurrent and non-lifting adenomas, tumors in difficult locations and selected cases of superficial GI carcinoma.

From advanced diagnosis to advanced resection in early neoplastic colorectal lesions: Never-ending and trending topics in the 2020s

Colonoscopy represents the most widespread and effective tool for the prevention and treatment of early stage preneoplastic and neoplastic lesions in the panorama of cancer screening. In the world there are different approaches to the topic of colorectal cancer prevention and screening: different starting ages (45-50 years); different initial screening tools such as fecal occult blood with immunohistochemical or immune-enzymatic tests; recto-sigmoidoscopy; and colonoscopy. The key aspects of this scenario are composed of a proper bowel preparation that ensures a valid diagnostic examination, experienced endoscopist in detection of preneoplastic and early neoplastic lesions and open-minded to upcoming artificial intelligence-aided examination, knowledge in the field of resection of these lesions (from cold-snaring, through endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection, up to advanced tools), and management of complications.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of T1 colorectal cancers: a retrospective analysis from a multicenter Dutch eFTR registry

BACKGROUND

Complete endoscopic resection and accurate histological evaluation for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) are critical in determining subsequent treatment. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a new treatment option for T1 CRC < 2 cm. We aimed to report clinical outcomes and short-term results.

METHODS

Consecutive eFTR procedures for T1 CRC, prospectively recorded in our national registry between November 2015 and April 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes were technical success and R0 resection. Secondary outcomes were histological risk assessment, curative resection, adverse events, and short-term outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 330 procedures: 132 primary resections and 198 secondary scar resections after incomplete T1 CRC resection. Overall technical success, R0 resection, and curative resection rates were 87.0 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 82.7 %-90.3 %), 85.6 % (95 %CI 81.2 %-89.2 %), and 60.3 % (95 %CI 54.7 %-65.7 %). Curative resection rate was 23.7 % (95 %CI 15.9 %-33.6 %) for primary resection of T1 CRC and 60.8 % (95 %CI 50.4 %-70.4 %) after excluding deep submucosal invasion as a risk factor. Risk stratification was possible in 99.3 %. The severe adverse event rate was 2.2 %. Additional oncological surgery was performed in 49/320 (15.3 %), with residual cancer in 11/49 (22.4 %). Endoscopic follow-up was available in 200/242 (82.6 %), with a median of 4 months and residual cancer in 1 (0.5 %) following an incomplete resection.

CONCLUSIONS

eFTR is relatively safe and effective for resection of small T1 CRC, both as primary and secondary treatment. eFTR can expand endoscopic treatment options for T1 CRC and could help to reduce surgical overtreatment. Future studies should focus on long-term outcomes.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of polyps involving the appendiceal orifice: a multicenter international experience

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection of lesions involving the appendiceal orifice remains a challenge. We aimed to report outcomes with the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) for the resection of appendiceal lesions and identify factors associated with the occurrence of appendicitis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study at 18 tertiary-care centers (USA 12, Canada 1, Europe 5) between November 2016 and August 2020. Consecutive patients who underwent resection of an appendiceal orifice lesion using the FTRD were included. The primary outcome was the rate of R0 resection in neoplastic lesions, defined as negative lateral and deep margins on post-resection histologic evaluation. Secondary outcomes included the rates of: technical success (en bloc resection), clinical success (technical success without need for further surgical intervention), post-resection appendicitis, and polyp recurrence.

RESULTS

66 patients (32 women; mean age 64) underwent resection of colonic lesions involving the appendiceal orifice (mean [standard deviation] size, 14.5 (6.2) mm), with 40 (61 %) being deep, extending into the appendiceal lumen. Technical success was achieved in 59/66 patients (89 %), of which, 56 were found to be neoplastic lesions on post-resection pathology. Clinical success was achieved in 53/66 (80 %). R0 resection was achieved in 52/56 (93 %). Of the 58 patients in whom EFTR was completed who had no prior history of appendectomy, appendicitis was reported in 10 (17 %), with six (60 %) requiring surgical appendectomy. Follow-up colonoscopy was completed in 41 patients, with evidence of recurrence in five (12 %).

CONCLUSIONS

The FTRD is a promising non-surgical alternative for resecting appendiceal lesions, but appendicitis occurs in 1/6 cases.

Over-the-scope clip-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection has potential to treat complex nonampullary duodenal lesions: a single-center case series

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The duodenum is considered a challenging area for the endoscopic resection of lesions. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of over-the-scope clip (OTSC)-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) for complex nonampullary duodenal lesions unsuitable for conventional resection techniques.

METHODS AND PATIENTS

We conducted a retrospective case review of 13 consecutive patients with complex nonampullary duodenal tumors that were unsuitable for conventional resection techniques; these patients underwent EFTR assisted with OTSC at Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University from September 2015 to September 2020. The OTSC device was placed, and tumors were resected after the lesions were identified. Data were abstracted for demographics, lesion features, histopathologic diagnoses, technical success rates, complete resection (R0 resection) rates, and complications.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients with duodenal lesions (6 adenomas and 7 submucosal tumors with nonlifting signs, incomplete lifting signs, difficult locations, failed ESD/EMR attempts or suspected origin in the muscularis propria) subjected to EFTR were included. The sizes of all the lesions evaluated by endoscopy were smaller than 20 mm, and most of them (84.6%, 11/13) were smaller than 12 mm. All 13 applications of the clips, endoscopic resection and full-thickness resection were successful (13/13, 100%). Complete resection was achieved in 12 patients (12/13, 92.3%). There were no immediate or delayed complications, including bleeding, infection and perforation.

CONCLUSIONS

OTSC -assisted EFTR appears to be effective and safe for complex nonampullary duodenal lesions smaller than 20 mm (particularly those ≤ 10-12 mm) that are unsuitable for conventional resection techniques.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on effectiveness and safety of the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) in the colon

BACKGROUND

 Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) has expanded the possibilities of endoscopic resection. The full-thickness resection device (FTRD, Ovesco Endoscopy, Tübingen, Germany) combines a clip-based defect closure and snare resection in a single device.

METHODS

 Systematic review and meta-analysis on effectiveness and safety of the FTRD in the colon.

RESULTS

 A total of 26 studies (12 published as full-text articles and 14 conference papers) with 1538 FTRD procedures were included. The pooled estimate for reaching the target lesion was 96.1 % (95 % confidence interval [95 % CI]: 94.6-97.1) and 90.0 % (95 % CI: 87.0-92.3) for technically successful resection. Pooled estimate of histologically complete resection was 77.8 % (95 % CI: 74.7-80.6). Adverse events occurred at a pooled estimate rate of 8.0 % (95 % CI: 5.8-10.4). Pooled estimates for bleeding and perforation were 1.5 % (95 % CI: 0.3-3.3) and 0.3 % (95 % CI: 0.0-0.9), respectively. The rate for need of emergency surgery after FTRD was 1.0 % (95 % CI: 0.4-1.8).

CONCLUSION

 The use of the FTRD in the colon shows very high rates of technical success and complete resection (R0) as well as a low risk of adverse events. Emergency surgery after colonic FTRD resection is necessary in single cases only.

Hybrid resection of large colorectal adenomas combining EMR and FTRD

BACKGROUND

The introduction of the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) allowed resection of difficult adenomas in the duodenum and colorectum with non-lifting. The main limitation of this endoscopic technique is the lesion size. We describe a hybrid approach combining endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and FTRD in a cohort of 17 patients to reduce tumor size and enable full-thickness resection.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis from data of 17 patients who underwent hybrid EMR-FTRD for large adenomas in the colorectum at our institution. Technical success, histological confirmation of margin-free resection and adverse advents were studied.

RESULTS

16 of 17 (94.1%) lesions could be resected macroscopically complete with confirmed full-thickness resection. Histological work-up of the full-thickness specimens showed free lateral margins in 13 patients (76.4%), unclear margins in two patients (11.8%) and positive margins in two patients (11.8%). There were no immediate perforation or major bleeding, however one patient showed a stenosis after resection in the follow-up endoscopy. Follow-up endoscopy was available in 12 patients. In two of 12 patients a recurrent adenoma was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid EMR-EFTR in the colorectum seems to be a safe and effective technique for large non-lifting lesions with positive lifting signs in the margins. Further prospective evaluation of efficacy, safety and long-term outcome of this hybrid technique is necessary.

Outcomes of a hybrid technique using EMR and endoscopic full-thickness resection for polyps not amenable to standard techniques (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The full-thickness resection device (FTRD) offers a safe and effective approach for resection of complex colorectal lesions but is limited to lesions <2 cm in size. A hybrid approach-combining EMR with the FTRD-significantly expands the pool of lesions amenable to this technique; however, its safety and efficacy has not been well established.

METHODS

We report a single-center retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent full-thickness resection (FTR) of colorectal lesions, either with a standalone FTRD or a hybrid (EMR + FTRD) approach. Outcomes of technical success, clinical success (macroscopically complete resection), R0 resection, and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine FTR procedures (38 standalone FTR and 31 hybrid EMR + FTR) were performed on 65 patients. The most common indications were nonlifting polyp (43%) or suspected high-grade dysplasia or carcinoma (38%). Hybrid EMR + FTR permitted resection of significantly larger lesions (mean, 39 mm; range, 15-70 mm) compared with standalone FTR (mean, 17 mm; range, 7-25 mm; P < .01). Clinical success (91%), technical success (83%), and R0 resection (81%) rates did not differ between standalone and hybrid groups. Most patients (96%) were discharged home on the day of the procedure. Three AEs occurred, including 2 patients who developed acute appendicitis.

CONCLUSIONS

A hybrid approach combining EMR and FTRD maintains safety and efficacy while permitting resection of significantly larger lesions than FTRD alone.

A Narrative Review of update in per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and endoscopic esophageal surgery

The field of endoscopic esophageal surgery is based on the concept of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). Submucosal space surgery or third space surgery with the use of flexible endoscopy allows for decreased morbidity and hospital length of stay with equivalent outcomes for patients. In the case of achalasia, per oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) allows for management of refractory cases in setting of previous Heller Myotomy or in patients whom laparoscopic or thoracoscopic surgery is contraindicated. Lastly, POEM more directly divides circular muscular layer of esophagus without destroying surrounding structures that exist to prevent reflux. The innovations in endoscopic surgery began in the animal lab with experiments in the porcine model to develop a way to access the peritoneal cavity through an entry point in the gastric mucosa. Over the last 10 years, the biggest treatment innovations in endoscopy have focused on management of achalasia with the use of POEM. POEM became possible as technology was developed that revolutionized the use of flexible technology and the methods of mucosal closure. In addition to benign esophageal disease, endoscopic methods improved in management of esophageal malignancy with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The innovations of endoscopic surgery have been developed through the utilization of the submucosal space as a method to ensure adequate closure of the mucosal entry point into the peritoneal cavity. The goal of this review paper is to explore POEM and other techniques in endoscopic esophageal surgery for the management of esophageal diverticulum, submucosal tumors, gastroparesis, and gastrointestinal esophageal reflux disease.

Current Status and Prospects of Endoscopic Resection Technique for Colorectal Tumors

Currently, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a well-established and common treatment for intramucosal colorectal cancer in Japan. However, colorectal ESD is technically more difficult to perform than esophageal and gastric ESD, and some lesions, such as fibrotic lesions, are difficult to dissect by endoscopy. Several techniques, such as the pocket-creation method and laparoscopically assisted endoscopic polypectomy, have been utilized for challenging targets. In recent years, endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) using full-thickness resection devices have mainly been performed in Western countries. We have used laparoscopy and endoscopy cooperative surgery for colorectal tumors (LECS-CR) since 2011 for the challenging treatment of colorectal ESD. Improvements in ESD techniques have resulted in an increase in the literature on EFTR, and LECS-CR may be considered an effective endoscopic technique for colorectal ESD in the future.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection in the treatment of colonic neoplastic lesions ≤ 30 mm-a single-center experience

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (FTR) is a novel technique of endoscopic treatment of colorectal neoplastic lesions not suitable for endoscopic polypectomy or mucosal resection. FTR appears to be a reasonable alternative to technically demanding endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for lesions ≤ 30 mm. However, comparison between FTR and ESD has not been published yet and their mutual positioning in the treatment algorithm is still unclear. The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate efficacy and safety of FTR in the treatment of colorectal lesions ≤ 30 mm by comparing prospectively followed FTR cohort to retrospective ESD cohort in the setting of single tertiary endoscopy center. Primary outcomes were technical success rate, R0 resection and curative resection rate, and complication rate. A total of 52 patients in FTR and 50 patients in ESD group were treated between 2015 and 2018. Technical success rate was significantly higher in FTR group (92 vs. 74%, P = 0.01) as well as R0 resection rate (85 vs. 62%, P = 0.01) and curative resection rate (75 vs. 56%, P = 0.01). Complications occurred more frequently in ESD group (40 vs. 13%, P = 0.002), mainly due to high incidence of electrocoagulation syndrome (24 vs. 0%). Total procedure time was substantially shorter in FTR group (26.4 ± 11.0 min vs. estimated 90-240 min). Local residual neoplastic lesions were detected numerically more often in FTR group (12 vs. 5%, P = 0.12). No patient died during follow-up. Compared to ESD, FTR proved significantly higher technical success rate, higher R0 and curative resection rate, and shorter procedure time. In the FTR group, there were significantly less complications but higher incidence of local residual neoplasia. Further research including randomized trials is needed to compare both resection techniques.

Efficacy and Safety of Full-thickness Resection Device (FTRD) for Colorectal Lesions Endoscopic Full-thickness Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a field of increasing interest that offers a minimally invasive resection modality for lesions that are not amenable for resection by conventional methods. Full-thickness resection device (FTRD) is a new device that was developed for a single-step eFTR using an over-the scope-clip. In this meta-analysis, we aim to assess the efficacy and safety of FTRD for eFTR of colorectal lesions.

METHODS

A Comprehensive literature review of different databases to identify studies reporting FTRD with outcomes of interest was performed. Studies with <10 cases were excluded. Rates of histologic complete resection (R0), technical success, and complications were extracted. Efficacy was assessed by using the technical and the R0 rates whereas safety was assessed by using the complications rates. Weighted pooled rates (WPRs) and the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated depending on the heterogeneity (I2 statistics).

RESULTS

Nine studies including 551 patients with 555 lesions were included in this study. The WPR for overall R0 was 82.4% (95% CI: 79.0%-85.5%),with moderate heterogeneity (I2=34.8%). The WPR rate for technical success was 89.25% (95% CI: 86.4%-91.7%), with low heterogeneity (I2=23.7%). The WPR for total complications rate was 10.2% (7.8, 12.8%) with no heterogeneity. The pooled rate for minor bleeding, major bleeding, postpolypectomy syndrome, and perforation were 3.2%, 0.97%, 2.2%, and 1.2%, respectively. Of 44 periappendicular lesions, the pooled rate for acute appendicitis was 19.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

FTRD seems to be effective and safe for eFTR of difficult colorectal lesions. Large prospective studies comparing FTRD with conventional resection techniques are warranted.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) of colorectal lesions: results from the Dutch colorectal eFTR registry

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a minimally invasive resection technique that allows definite diagnosis and treatment for complex colorectal lesions ≤ 30 mm unsuitable for conventional endoscopic resection. This study reports clinical outcomes from the Dutch colorectal eFTR registry.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing eFTR in 20 hospitals were prospectively included. The primary outcome was technical success, defined as macroscopic complete en bloc resection. Secondary outcomes were: clinical success, defined as tumor-free resection margins (R0 resection); full-thickness resection rate; and adverse events. RESULTS : Between July 2015 and October 2018, 367 procedures were included. Indications were difficult polyps (non-lifting sign and/or difficult location; n = 133), primary resection of suspected T1 colorectal cancer (CRC; n = 71), re-resection after incomplete resection of T1 CRC (n = 150), and subepithelial tumors (n = 13). Technical success was achieved in 308 procedures (83.9 %). In 21 procedures (5.7 %), eFTR was not performed because the lesion could not be reached or retracted into the cap. In the remaining 346 procedures, R0 resection was achieved in 285 (82.4 %) and full-thickness resection in 288 (83.2 %). The median diameter of resected specimens was 23 mm. Overall adverse event rate was 9.3 % (n = 34/367): 10 patients (2.7 %) required emergency surgery for five delayed and two immediate perforations and three cases of appendicitis. CONCLUSION : eFTR is an effective and relatively safe en bloc resection technique for complex colorectal lesions with the potential to avoid surgery. Further studies assessing the role of eFTR in early CRC treatment with long-term outcomes are needed.

Resection of a Nonampullary Adenoma with the New Gastroduodenal Full-Thickness Resection Device

Introduction Surgical resection of adenomas or subepithelial tumors in the duodenum has a high morbidity compared with endoscopic resection which also has a significant risk of complication. Endoscopic full-thickness resection has shown its feasibility and safety in the colorectum and in the upper gastrointestinal tract.

Patient and Methods We present the new gastroduodenal full-thickness resection device (FTRD) for full-thickness resection in a patient with a recurrent nonlifting adenoma in the nonampullary duodenum.

Results The procedure was successful with R0 resection without major complications. A control gastroscopy showed no recurrence of the adenoma.

Conclusion The gastroduodenal FTRD seems to be a promising new technique for resecting nonlifting adenomas in the nonampullary duodenum.

Methods for Endoscopic Removal of Over-the-Scope Clip: A Systematic Review

AIMS

The over-the-scope clip (OTSC) has recently emerged as a new endoscopic device for treating gastrointestinal bleeding, perforations, fistulas, and leaks. A modified OTSC device (full-thickness resection device, FTRD) has been widely used for endoscopic full-thickness resection. However, there is less experience regarding the indications and methods for OTSC removal. We aimed to summarize the existing methods and indications for OTSC removal.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify relevant publications on OTSC removal. The details of OTSC removal, including the methods, indications, success rates, adverse events, and failure causes, were extracted and summarized. A meta-analysis of pooled success rates was conducted using STATA 15.0.

RESULTS

Eighteen articles were included. The reported methods for OTSC removal included (1) grasping forceps, (2) the Nd : YAG laser, (3) argon plasma coagulation, (4) the remOVE system, (5) endoscopic mucosal resection/endoscopic submucosal dissection, and (6) ice-cold saline solution. Indications for OTSC removal were (1) poor healing, (2) OTSC misplacement, (3) repeat biopsy/therapy or further treatment, (4) adverse events after OTSC implantation, (5) removal after recovery, and (6) patient wishes. The pooled success rate of OTSC removal was 89% in patients treated with the remOVE system. Minor bleeding, superficial thermal damage, and superficial mucosal tears were common adverse events. Mucosal overgrowth was the main cause of OTSC removal failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The remOVE system is the best investigated method, with sufficient efficacy and safety for OTSC removal. This is the first systematic review of OTSC removal and provides significant guidance for clinical practice.

Repeat full-thickness resection device use for recurrent duodenal adenoma: A case report

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of adenomas or subepithelial tumors is a novel and promising endoscopic technique. There have been several recent studies of full-thickness resection device (FTRD) use in the colon, but data regarding its use and efficacy in the duodenum are still limited.

CASE SUMMARY

A 64-year-old female underwent resection of a recurrent adenoma of 7 mm in size in the duodenum after FTRD use for an adenoma eight months prior. The biopsies revealed a low-grade adenoma. The adenoma was removed using the gastroduodenal FTRD, and the pathology results revealed clear margins. Except for minor bleeding that was treated by argon plasma coagulation, no further complications occurred.

CONCLUSION

Repeat use of the FTRD appears to be a safe and efficacious approach for the treatment of recurrent duodenal lesions. Further prospective studies are needed to investigate the long-term safety and utility of repeat FTRD use after Endoscopic full-thickness resection.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of early colorectal neoplasms using an endoscopic submucosal dissection knife: a retrospective multicenter study

Background and study aims  Endoscopic full-thickness resection allows resection of early gastrointestinal neoplasms not amenable to conventional endoscopic resection techniques, due to their location, presence of submucosal fibrosis, or suspected deep mural invasion. It is typically achieved using a dedicated over-the-scope device (full-thickness resection device or FTRD). The aim of our study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes of endoscopic full-thickness resection using an endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) knife. Patients and methods  Consecutive patients who underwent full-thickness endoscopic resection at six tertiary care centers from August 2010 to June 2017 were retrospectively included. We conducted a comparative analysis of patient characteristics, technical success, adverse events, and time to discharge between patients treated by a full-thickness resection using an ESD knife. Results  Twenty-one procedures were performed using an ESD knife. En-bloc resection and R0 resection rates were 95.2 % and 65 %, respectively. Clinical symptoms of perforation occurred in 66.7 %. There was no need for surgery or additional endoscopic procedures. Conclusion  Endoscopic full-thickness resection of early colorectal neoplasms using an ESD knife might be feasible and safe. It allows complete resection of lesions with no limitation in size. The technique may be preferable to an other-the-scope resection device in lesions larger than 20 mm, and to surgery in selected cases of low-risk T1 colorectal carcinomas, non-lifting adenomas, submucosal tumors, or technically challenging lesion locations.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection using a clip non-exposed method for gastrointestinal tract lesions: a meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) allows for treatment of epithelial and sub-epithelial lesions (SELs) unsuitable to conventional resection techniques. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of clip-assisted method for non-exposed EFTR using FTRD or over-the-scope clip of gastrointestinal tumors. Methods  A comprehensive literature search was performed. The primary outcome of interest was the rate of histologic complete resection (R0). Secondary outcomes of interest were the rate of enbloc resection, FTR, adverse events, and post-EFTR surgery. Random-effects model was used to calculate pooled estimates and generate forest plots. Results  Eighteen studies with 730 patients and 733 lesions were included in the analyses. Indications for EFTR were difficult/residual colorectal adenoma, adenoma at a diverticulum or appendiceal orifice and early cancer (n = 634), colorectal SELs (n = 42), and upper gastrointestinal lesions (n = 51), other colonic lesions (n = 6). Median size of lesions was 13.5 mm. There were 22 failed EFTR attempts. Pooled overall R0 resection rate was 82 % (95 % CI: 75, 89). The pooled overall FTR rate was 83 % (95 % CI: 77, 89). The pooled overall enbloc resection rate was 95 (95 % CI: 92, 96). The pooled estimates for perforation and bleeding were < 0.1 % and 2 %, respectively. Following EFTR, a total of 110 patients underwent surgery for any reason [pooled rate 7 % (95 % 2, 14). The pooled rates for post-EFTR surgery due to invasive cancer, for non-curative endoscopic resection and for adverse events were 4 %, < 0.1 % and < 0.1 %, respectively. No mortality related to EFTR was noted. Conclusions  EFTR appears to be safe and effective for gastrointestinal lesions that are not amenable to conventional endoscopic resection. This technique should be considered as an alternative to surgery in selected cases.

Overcoming the Challenge of Full-Thickness Resection of Gastric Lesions Using a Colonic Full-Thickness Resection Device

Endoscopic full-thickness resection device (FTRD) is a new and promising device for endoscopic full-thickness resection of gastrointestinal lesions. Limited data is available regarding its role in endoscopic full-thickness resection of upper gastrointestinal lesions compared with its well-studied role in colorectal lesions. Colonic FTRD is a preloaded device with a large cap which limits peroral insertion. A 49-year-old woman was referred to us for submucosal gastric lesion resection. Gradual dilatation of the upper esophagus was performed before successful advancement of the endoscope mounted with a FTRD system into the stomach. The lesion was successfully resected with no complications.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of duodenal lesions (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The endoscopic treatment of non-lifting or submucosal duodenal lesions is associated with a high risk of incomplete resection and adverse events. Clip-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a new approach for en bloc removal of neoplastic lesions in the GI tract. The aim of this study was to investigate its efficacy and safety in the duodenum.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively collected all consecutive patients with duodenal lesions who underwent EFTR with OTSC (Ovesco Endoscopy, Tübingen, Germany) or the new full-thickness resection device (FTRD; Ovesco Endoscopy, Tübingen, Germany). Complete resection rate was defined as histologically-verified R0 resection. Main endoscopic and clinical outcomes (technical success, rate of EFTR, adverse events) were systematically assessed at 3 and 6 months.

RESULTS

Between May 2017 and January 2019, 10 patients with duodenal lesions underwent EFTR (5 non-lifting adenomas, 2 adenomas recurrence/relapse and 3 subepithelial tumours). Technical success was overall achieved in 8/10 cases (80%). The two FTRD failed cases were completed with snare resection. The complete full-thickness resection rate was achieved in 8/10 (80%), while in two cases it was limited to mucosal or submucosal layer. R0 resection rate was achieved in 8/10 (80%) patients. The mean procedure time was 75 min (range 53-120 min). There were no major adverse events. At 3 and 6-month follow-up, no recurrence was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Clip-assisted EFTR is a feasible and effective technique for en bloc resection of "difficult" superficial neoplasia and submucosal lesions in the duodenum, representing another technique that must be part of the endoscopist's armamentarium.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection using an over-the-scope device for treatment of recurrent / residual colorectal neoplasia: a single-center case series

Background

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in piecemeal technique is the treatment standard for larger flat or sessile colorectal lesions. The method is burdened by a high recurrence rate mostly presenting as difficult to resect lesions. In these situations, endoscopic full thickness resection (EFTR) with an over-the-scope device offers the option of complete resection despite scar formation.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective case review of 30 consecutive EFTR interventions on small (< 20 mm), difficult to resect recurrent / residual colorectal neoplastic lesions treated by EFTR.

Results

EFTR was technically feasible in 28/30 (93,3%) of the cases with an R0 resection in 24/30 (80%) and a median procedure time (marking to full thickness resection) of 34,5 min (11–120). After the first 15 procedures, the per-protocol rate increased from 13/15 to 15/15 and the R0 resection rate increased from 9/15 (69,2%) to 15/15 (100,0%; p < 0.01). One patient suffered from a delayed perforation the day after the procedure and needed emergency surgery (3,6%). Minor bleeding occurred in 3/28 patients (10,7%) and post-interventional fever in one patient (3,6%). The 30-day mortality rate was 0%.

Conclusions

EFTR with an over-the-scope device is a useful method for endoscopic resection of difficult to treat recurrent or residual colorectal neoplasia after previous endoscopic therapy. High R0 resection rates were observed after a relatively short learning curve. The complication rate in this series seems acceptable given the complexity of the resected lesions.

Endoscopic full thickness resection versus submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection for removal of submucosal tumors: a review article

Submucosal tumors (SMT) are protuberant lesions with intact mucosa that have a wide differential. These lesions may be removed by standard polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), or surgically. However, in lesions that arise from the muscularis propria, full thickness resection is recommended. This can be completed using either endoscopic full thickness resection (EFTR) or submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER). EFTR can be accomplished by completing a full thickness resection followed by defect closure or by securing gastrointestinal wall patency before resection. STER is an option that first creates a mucosal dissection proximal to the lesion to allow a submucosal tunnel to be created. Using this tunnel, the lesion may be resected. When comparing STER to EFTR, there was no significant difference when evaluating tumor size, operation time, rate of complications, or en bloc resection rate. However, suture time, amount of clips used, and overall hospital stay were decreased in STER. With these differences, EFTR may be more efficacious in certain parts of the gastrointestinal tract where a submucosal tunnel is harder to accomplish.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of colorectal lesions with the full-thickness resection device: clinical experience from two referral centers in Greece

Background:

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD^®) is an invasive treatment for colorectal lesions not resectable by conventional endoscopic techniques. This study presents the first Greek experience of the FTRD^® procedure, assessing the efficacy and safety of EFTR.

Methods:

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 17 consecutive patients treated with the FTRD^® at 2 referral centers from October 2015 through December 2018. The indications included difficult adenomas (non-lifting and/or at difficult locations), early adenocarcinomas and subepithelial tumors. Primary endpoints were technical success and R0 resection.

Results:

Technical success and R0 resection were achieved in 82.3% procedures (14/17) and in 87.5% of those with difficult adenomas (8 patients). In the subgroup with carcinomas (n=3), the rate of technical success and R0 resection was 66.6%, while in the subgroup with subepithelial tumors (n=6) the rate was 83.3%. Technical success and R0 resection were significantly lower for lesions >20 mm vs. ≤20 mm (P=0.0429). In the 17 patients a total of 3 adverse events occurred (17.6%) and one of the patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy because of EFTR around the appendix.

Conclusions:

Our study showed favorable results concerning EFTR feasibility, efficacy and safety, especially for lesions ≤20 mm, non-lifting adenomas, and subepithelial tumors. Technical success, R0 resection, and adverse events rates were comparable with previously published data. Larger randomized studies are needed to better define the clinical benefit and long-term outcomes of EFTR in selected patients.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection for early colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Current international guidelines recommend endoscopic resection for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) with low-risk histology features and oncologic resection for those at high risk of lymphatic metastasis. Exact risk stratification is therefore crucial to avoid under-treatment as well as over-treatment. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) has shown to be effective for treatment of non-lifting benign lesions. In this multicenter, retrospective study we aimed to evaluate efficacy, safety, and clinical value of EFTR for early CRC.

METHODS

Records of 1234 patients undergoing EFTR for various indications at 96 centers were screened for eligibility. A total of 156 patients with histologic evidence of adenocarcinoma were identified. This cohort included 64 cases undergoing EFTR after incomplete resection of a malignant polyp (group 1) and 92 non-lifting lesions (group 2). Endpoints of the study were: technical success, R0-resection, adverse events, and successful discrimination of high-risk versus low-risk tumors.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in 144 out of 156 (92.3%). Mean procedural time was 42 minutes. R0 resection was achieved in 112 of 156 (71.8%). Subgroup analysis showed a R0 resection rate of 87.5% in Group 1 and 60.9% in Group 2 (P < .001). Severe procedure-related adverse events were recorded in 3.9% of patients. Discrimination between high-risk versus low-risk tumor was successful in 155 of 156 cases (99.3%). In Group 1, 84.1% were identified as low-risk lesions, whereas 16.3% in group 2 had low-risk features. In total, 53 patients (34%) underwent oncologic resection due to high-risk features whereas 98 patients (62%) were followed endoscopically.

CONCLUSIONS

In early colorectal cancer, EFTR is technically feasible and safe. It allows exact histological risk stratification and can avoid surgery for low-risk lesions. Prospective studies are required to further define indications for EFTR in malignant colorectal lesions and to evaluate long-term outcome.

Endoscopic resection for subepithelial lesions-pure endoscopic full-thickness resection and submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) and submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) are the frontier of therapeutic endoscopic. These two methods rely on the skillset and equipment of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) while going beyond the boundaries of the gastrointestinal lumen. They are both representatives of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, with STER being a direct off-shoot of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). Both techniques are designed for the removal of gastrointestinal tumors originating from the muscularis propria but tend to be used in different organs and come with respective challenges. In this review we will go over the history, indication, technique and literature of these two techniques.

Comparison of two methods for endoscopic full-thickness resection of gastrointestinal lesions using OTSC

Background and aims: The aim of this study was to compare and analyze the feasibility and safety of two methods of endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) for the management of challenging epithelial and subepithelial neoplasms that are not amenable to resection techniques.Material and methods: This was a retrospective case series study of patients who underwent one of two methods of EFTR, resection using ESD knives and post-resection closure with OTSC (Group 1), or closure with OTSC and secondary EFTR with snare (Group 2).Results: Of 11 patients, six were in Group 1 and five in Group 2. The mean time of the EFTR procedure was 76.83 ± 34.97 min in Group 1 which is significantly longer than that of Group 2 (p = .0128). The mean time of OSTC closure and length of hospital stay of Group 1 were also longer compared to Group 2, but the difference was not significant. Complete resection (R0) and technical success rates of Group 1 and Group 2 were 83.3% and 100% (p = .338), respectively. VAS scores of Group 1 immediately after the operation and after 24 h are significantly higher than those of Group 2 (p = .047 and p = .009, respectively). In Group 1, one patient had delayed perforation which led to fever and pneumoperitoneum, and one patient developed abdominal pain. No complications associated with the endoscopic procedure were observed in Group 2.Conclusion: EFTR of pre-resection closure are potentially faster compared with the concept of applying closure after EFTR. Larger prospective controlled studies comparing these two techniques are warranted in the future.

Colo-rectal endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) with the over-the-scope device (FTRD®): A multicenter Italian experience

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic full-thickness resection(EFTR) with FTRD^® in colo-rectum may be useful for several indications.The aim was to assess its efficacy and safety.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this retrospective multicenter study 114 patients were screened; 110 (61M/49F, mean age 68 ± 11 years, range 20-90) underwent EFTR using FTRD^®. Indications were:residual/recurrent adenoma (39), incomplete resection at histology (R1 resection) (26), non-lifting lesion (12), adenoma involving the appendix (2) or diverticulum (2), subepithelial lesions(10), suspected T1 carcinoma (16), diagnostic resection (3). Technical success (TS: lesion reached and resected), R0 resection (negative lateral and deep margins),EFTR rate(all layers documented in the specimen) and safety have been evaluated.

RESULTS

TS was achieved in 94.4% of cases. EFTR was achieved in 91% with lateral and deep R0 resection in 90% and 92%. Mean size of specimens was 20 mm (range 6-42). In residual/recurrent adenomas, final analysis revealed: low-risk T1 (11), adenoma with low-grade dysplasia (LGD) (24) and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) (3), scar tissue (1). Histology reports of R1 resections were: adenoma with LGD (6), with HGD (1), low-risk (6) and high-risk (1) T1, scar tissue (12). Non-lifting lesions were diagnosed as: adenoma with HGD (3), low-risk (7) and high risk (2) T1. Adverse clinical events occurred in 12 patients (11%),while adverse technical events in11%. Three-months follow-up was available in 100 cases and residual disease was evident in only seven patients.

CONCLUSIONS

EFTR using FTRD^® seems to be a feasible, effective and safe technique for treating selected colo-rectal lesions. Comparative prospective studies are needed to confirm these promising results.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: is it feasible?

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a new technique for the resection of colonic lesions with limitations for other techniques such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) due to fibrosis, the location of the lesion or invasion depth. In addition, techniques such as ESD require a long learning curve and unfortunately they are not fully implemented in Western countries. EFTR has numerous indications, which are expanding daily. The Full-Thickness Resection Device® (FTRD) is a promising tool, although it has many limitations and is associated with some risks. One of the main limitations of this resection device is the size of the lesion and it is not recommended for the resection of lesions > 30 mm. Furthermore, tumor size is directly related to the "en bloc" resection rate. On the one hand, this case report suggests that neoadjuvant chemotherapy can modify the lesion size and larger lesions become candidates for EFTR in a second attempt. On the other hand, the concomitant use of systemic anticancer therapy could be a contraindication for the use of FTRD® as it may be associated with late perforations. It is necessary to establish the time between the use of chemotherapy and the use of FTRD® in order to avoid complications. These considerations must be analyzed in future prospective studies.

Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection of Colorectal Lesions with the New FTRD System: Single-Center Experience

Background and Aims

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is an emerging technique for the treatment of various conditions for which classic endoscopic resection techniques have failed or were considered to be at high risk for perforation. The full-thickness resection device (FTRD) is an over-the-scope system which allows a single-step EFTR. The aim of our study is to describe our experience in EFTR of colorectal lesions using the FTRD.

Methods

Nine patients (10 colorectal lesions) were proposed for EFTR. Safety, R0 resection and endoscopic treatment success were evaluated.

Results

Reasons for referral included nonlifting adenomas (n = 4), nonlifting adenoma recurrence (n = 5), and submucosal lesion (n = 1). EFTR was technically successful in all patients. The mean duration of the procedure was 55 min. R0 resection was obtained in all patients. No major complications were detected. All lesions were successfully treated by the endoscopic technique and no patient was referred for surgery. In patients with available follow-up (n = 6), no recurrence was detected.

Conclusions

EFTR is a feasible, reasonable time-consuming, safe, and promising endoscopic resection technique.

Key Messages

FTRD is an additional tool for difficult-to-treat colorectal lesions.

Laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) to overcome the limitations of endoscopic resection for colorectal tumors

Background and study aims  We developed a laparoscopy endoscopy cooperative surgery (LECS) to overcome the limitations of endoscopic resection for colorectal tumors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of LECS, which combines endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and laparoscopic partial colectomy. Patients and methods  We performed LECS for 17 colorectal tumors in 17 patients (male:female 10:7; mean age, 66.5 years). The clinicopathological outcomes of these 17 cases and the feasibility of LECS were evaluated retrospectively. Indications for LECS were as follows: 1) intramucosal cancer and adenoma accompanied by wide and severe fibrosis; 2) intramucosal cancer and adenoma involving the diverticulum or appendix; and 3) submucosal tumors. Results  We successfully performed LECS procedures in 17 cases (intramucosal cancer [n = 6], adenoma [n = 9], schwannoma [n = 1], and gastro-intestinal stromal tumour [GIST] [n = 1]. Mean tumor diameter was 22.4 mm (range, 8 - 41 mm). LECS was successfully performed in all 17 cases without conversion to open surgery; the R0 rate was 100 %. LECS was applied to the following situations: involving the appendix (n = 6), tumor accompanied by severe fibrosis (n = 5), involving the diverticulum (n = 3), submucosal tumor (n = 2), and poor endoscopic operability (n = 1). We experienced no adverse events (e. g., leakage or anastomotic stricture) and the median hospital stay was 6.4 dayus (range, 4 to 12). All 17 patients who were followed for ≥ 3 months (median, 30.8 months; range, 3 - 72 months) showed no residual/local recurrence. Conclusion  LECS was a safe, feasible, minimally invasive procedure that achieved full-thickness resection of colorectal tumors and showed excellent clinical outcomes.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection in the colorectum: a single-center case series evaluating indication, efficacy and safety

Background and study aims  Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) allows en-bloc and transmural resection of colorectal lesions for which other advanced endoscopic techniques are unsuitable. We present our experience with a novel "clip first, cut later" eFTR-device and evaluate its indications, efficacy and safety. Patients and methods  From July 2015 through October 2017, 51 eFTR-procedures were performed in 48 patients. Technical success and R0-resection rates were prospectively recorded and retrospectively analyzed. Results  Indications for eFTR were non-lifting adenoma (n = 19), primary resection of malignant lesion (n = 2), resection of scar tissue after incomplete endoscopic resection of low-risk T1 colorectal carcinoma (n = 26), adenoma involving a diverticulum (n = 2) and neuroendocrine tumor (n = 2). Two lesions were treated by combining endoscopic mucosal resection and eFTR. Technical success was achieved in 45 of 51 procedures (88 %). Histopathology confirmed full-thickness resection in 43 of 50 specimens (86 %) and radical resection (R0) in 40 procedures (80 %). eFTR-specimens, obtained for indeterminate previous T1 colorectal carcinoma resection, were free of residual carcinoma in 25 of 26 cases (96 %). In six patients (13 %) a total of eight adverse events occurred within 30 days after eFTR. One perforation occurred, which was corrected endoscopically. No emergency surgery was necessary. Conclusion  In this study eFTR appears to be safe and effective for the resection of colorectal lesions. Technical success, R0-resection and major adverse events rate were reasonable and comparable with eFTR data reported elsewhere. Mean specimen diameter (23 mm) limits its use to relatively small lesions. A clinical algorithm for eFTR case selection is proposed. eFTR ensured local radical excision where other endoscopic techniques did not suffice and reduced the need for surgery in selected cases.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of polyps involving the appendiceal orifice: a prospective observational case study

Background and study aims  Colorectal polyps involving the appendiceal orifice (AO) are difficult to resect with conventional polypectomy techniques and therefore often require surgical intervention. These appendiceal polyps could potentially be removed with endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) performed with a full-thickness resection device (FTRD). The aim of this prospective observational case study was to evaluate feasibility, technical success and safety of eFTR procedures involving the AO. Patients and methods  This study was performed between November 2016 and December 2017 in a tertiary referral center by two experienced endoscopists. All patients referred for eFTR with a polyp involving the AO that could not be resected by EMR due to more than 50 % circumferential involvement of the AO or deep extension into the AO were included. The only exclusion criterion was lesion diameter > 20 mm. Results  Seven patients underwent eFTR for a polyp involving the AO. All target lesions could be reached with the FTRD and retracted into the device. Technical success with an endoscopic radical en-bloc and full-thickness resection was achieved in all cases. Histopathological R0 resection was achieved in 85.7 % of patients (6/7). One patient who previously underwent an appendectomy developed a small abscess adjacent to the resection site, which was treated conservatively. Another patient developed secondary appendicitis followed by a laparoscopic appendectomy. Conclusion  This small exploratory study suggests that eFTR of appendiceal polyps is feasible and can offer a minimally invasive approach for radical resection of these lesions. However, more safety and long-term follow-up data are needed to evaluate this evolving technique.

Advances in CRC Prevention: Screening and Surveillance

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most commonly diagnosed cancers and causes of death from cancer across the world. CRC can, however, be detected in asymptomatic patients at a curable stage, and several studies have shown lower mortality among patients who undergo screening compared with those who do not. Using colonoscopy in CRC screening also results in the detection of precancerous polyps that can be directly removed during the procedure, thereby reducing the incidence of cancer. In the past decade, convincing evidence has appeared that the effectiveness of colonoscopy as CRC prevention tool is associated with the quality of the procedure. This review aims to provide an up-to-date overview of recent efforts to improve colonoscopy effectiveness by enhancing detection and improving the completeness and safety of resection of colorectal lesions.

Short-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial cecal tumors: a comparison between extension and nonextension into the appendiceal orifice

BACKGROUND

Few studies have investigated the use of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for cecal tumors extending into the appendiceal orifice. Herein, we assessed the feasibility and safety of ESD for cecal tumors extending into the appendiceal orifice.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined the outcomes of ESD for 78 patients with 78 cecal tumors (male/female ratio, 40/38; mean [standard deviation, SD] age, 67 [9] years; mean [SD] tumor size, 32 [15] mm), who underwent ESD at the Hiroshima University Hospital between October 2008 and March 2016. The indication for ESD in cecal tumors extending into the appendiceal orifice was recognition of the distal edge of the lesion in the appendix. They were classified into two groups: patients with cecal tumors extending (Group A: 29 patients, 29 tumors) and not extending (Group B: 49 patients, 49 tumors) into the appendiceal orifice. We compared the outcomes of ESD between both groups.

RESULTS

No significant differences in clinicopathological characteristics were observed between both groups. The rate of severe submucosal fibrosis in Group A (48%) was significantly higher than that in Group B (24%) (p < 0.05). The mean (SD) procedure speed in Group A (14 [10] mm²/min) was significantly slower than that in Group B (23 [16] mm²/min) (p < 0.01). The en bloc resection rates in Groups A and B were 90% and 96%, respectively. There were no significant differences in adverse events reported between both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD for cecal tumors with extension into the appendiceal orifice is effective and safe.

Current status and future perspectives of endoscopic full-thickness resection

Flexible endoscopy has developed from a diagnostic tool for tissue biopsy sampling to a treatment tool for endoscopic resection of neoplasms in the digestive tract. In the near future, one of the advanced endoscopic techniques, endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR), is expected to be a feasible endoscopic procedure. In the present review, systematic review of conventional exposed EFTR was carried out. Search queries were (endoscopic full-thickness resection or EFTR) (over-the-scope clip or OTSC) (Overstitch System) from 2015 to 2017. Four retrospective, single-center studies with regard to conventional EFTR were identified. With regard to indication for conventional exposed EFTR, gastrointestinal stromal tumor was a good indication for EFTR. Mean tumor size of all four studies was 20.71 mm. In two studies, endoclips were used to close the resected opening without any complications, but the other two studies reported complications such as delayed perforation even using OTSC. Procedure times were reported from a minimum of 40 min to a maximum of 105 min. We also refer to introduction of a newly developed procedure of EFTR (non-exposed EFTR), and development of a new suturing device in Japan.