Endoscopic submucosal dissection for laterally spreading tumors in the rectum ≥40 mm

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection for rectal laterally spreading tumors

BACKGROUND

Evidence that comprehensively compares the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for rectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) is limited.

METHODS

Between January 2009 and June 2018, 143 rectal LSTs in 143 patients who had undergone either ESD (n = 84) or ESTD (n = 59) were included in the study. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, and 50 pairs were selected. The data on patient demographics, treatment information, pathology reports, adverse events and follow-up were collected.

RESULTS

Before PSM, the median specimen area was significantly larger in the ESTD group than in the ESD group (12.56 cm2 vs. 6.32 cm2, respectively; p < 0.001). The median dissection speed was significantly higher in the ESTD group than in the ESD group (24.53 mm2/min vs. 15.16 mm2/min, respectively; p < 0.001). After PSM, the median dissection speed was significantly higher in the ESTD group than in the ESD group (23.80 mm2/min vs. 17.12 mm2/min, respectively; p < 0.001). In multiple linear regression analysis, significant factors related to a higher dissection speed were the treatment method of ESTD (p < 0.001) and larger specimen area (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

ESTD appears to be a safe and effective method to treat rectal LSTs. Compared with ESD, ESTD appears to achieve a higher dissection speed for rectal LSTs.

Management of colorectal laterally spreading tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective and study aims  To evaluate the efficacy and safety of different endoscopic resection techniques for laterally spreading colorectal tumors (LST). Methods  Relevant studies were identified in three electronic databases (PubMed, ISI and Cochrane Central Register). We considered all clinical studies in which colorectal LST were treated with endoscopic resection (endoscopic mucosal resection [EMR] and/or endoscopic submucosal dissection [ESD]) and/or transanal minimally invasive surgery (TEMS). Rates of en-bloc/piecemeal resection, complete endoscopic resection, R0 resection, curative resection, adverse events (AEs) or recurrence, were extracted. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and a meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Results  Forty-nine studies were included. Complete resection was similar between techniques (EMR 99.5 % [95 % CI 98.6 %-100 %] vs. ESD 97.9 % [95 % CI 96.1 - 99.2 %]), being curative in 1685/1895 (13 studies, pooled curative resection 90 %, 95 % CI 86.6 - 92.9 %, I ²  = 79 %) with non-significantly higher curative resection rates with ESD (93.6 %, 95 % CI 91.3 - 95.5 %, vs. 84 % 95 % CI 78.1 - 89.3 % with EMR). ESD was also associated with a significantly higher perforation risk (pooled incidence 5.9 %, 95 % CI 4.3 - 7.9 %, vs. EMR 1.2 %, 95 % CI 0.5 - 2.3 %) while bleeding was significantly more frequent with EMR (9.6 %, 95 % CI 6.5 - 13.2 %; vs. ESD 2.8 %, 95 % CI 1.9 - 4.0 %). Procedure-related mortality was 0.1 %. Recurrence occurred in 5.5 %, more often with EMR (12.6 %, 95 % CI 9.1 - 16.6 % vs. ESD 1.1 %, 95 % CI 0.3 - 2.5 %), with most amenable to successful endoscopic treatment (87.7 %, 95 % CI 81.1 - 93.1 %). Surgery was limited to 2.7 % of the lesions, 0.5 % due to AEs. No data of TEMS were available for LST. Conclusions  EMR and ESD are both effective and safe and are associated with a very low risk of procedure related mortality.

Why attempt en bloc resection of non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas? A systematic review of the prevalence of superficial submucosal invasive cancer after endoscopic submucosal dissection

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) aims to achieve en bloc resection of non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas which might be indicated in cases with superficial submucosal invasive cancers (SMIC), but the procedure is time consuming and complex. The prevalence of such cancers is not known but may determine the clinical necessity for ESD as opposed to the commonly used piecemeal mucosal resection (endoscopic mucosal resection) of colorectal adenomas. The main aim was to assess the prevalence of SMIC SM1 (ie, invasion ≤1000 µm or less than one-third of the submucosa) on colorectal lesions removed by ESD.

DESIGN

A literature review was conducted using electronic databases (up to March 2017) for colorectal ESD series reporting the histology of the dissected lesions.

RESULTS

51 studies with data on 11 260 colorectal dissected lesions were included. Most resected lesions (82.2%; 95% CI 78.8% to 85.3%) were adenomas (low- and high-grade dysplasia, 26.8% and 55.4%, respectively). Overall, 15.7% were submucosal cancers, but only slightly more than half (8.0%; 95% CI 6.1% to 10.3%) had an infiltration depth of ≤1000 µm, providing a number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid one surgery of 12.5. Estimating an oncologically curative (R0; G1/2; L0/V0) resection rate of 75.3% (95% CI 52.2% to 89.4%) for malignant lesions, the prevalence of curative resection lowered to 6% (95% CI 4.2% to 7.2%) with an NNT of 16.7.

CONCLUSION

The low prevalence of SMIC SM1 in lesions selected for ESD as well as the even lower rate of curative resection limits the clinical applicability of endoscopic en bloc resection. This calls for caution over an indiscriminate use of this technique in the resection of colorectal neoplasia.

Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for large colorectal laterally spreading tumors in older adults

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) remains technically challenging, especially for older patients who frequently encounter complex chronic diseases and have a loose colon. However, only limited number of studies are available for the safety of ESD in older patients with especially large laterally spreading tumors. Therefore, in this retrospective study, we compared the outcomes of ESD for laterally spreading tumors (LST) ≥3cm(cm) in older patients to that in younger patients.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with LSTs 3cm or larger were enrolled for from May 2010-2016. These patients were divided into two groups: the younger group (<65years) and the older group (≥65years). The clinicopathologic findings and the outcomes of ESD procedures were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 70 patients in the younger group and 73 patients in the older group were treated by ESD for colorectal LSTs larger than 3cm. No significant differences were observed in the gender ratio, tumor morphological type, tumor location, and tumor size between the two groups. The en bloc resection rates were 85.7 and 89.0%, respectively, without a significant difference. The procedural time was similar between the younger and older patients (71.8±34.7min vs. 70.6±29.5min). The duration of hospital stay was not significantly different between the two groups (4.1±2.2days vs. 4.4±2.5days). No significant differences were observed between the two groups with respect to ESD-related complications including delayed bleeding, perforation, and stricture.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD appears to be an effective and safe method for LSTs larger than 3cm in older patients.

Clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an endoscopic resection technique for lesions suspicious of superficial malignancy. It is performed using an ESD knife on its own (standard technique) or by the sequential use of a knife and a snare (hybrid technique). The experience with these techniques is different in Asian and non-Asian countries. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of available evidence on colorectal ESD.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched up to August 2016 for studies evaluating R0, en bloc resection, and adverse event rates of both techniques for the treatment of colorectal lesions. Proportions were pooled by a random effects model.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven studies (71 performed in Asia) evaluated the standard technique and 12 studies (7 in Asia) the hybrid technique. The R0 resection rate of the standard technique was 82.9%, and it was significantly lower in non-Asian versus Asian countries: 71.3% versus 85.6%. The en bloc resection rate was 91% and was significantly lower in non-Asian versus Asian countries (81.2% vs 93%, respectively). Surgery was needed in 1.1% of the ESD-related adverse events, with a significant difference between non-Asian and Asian countries (3.1% vs 0.8%). The R0 and en bloc resection rates with the hybrid technique were significantly lower than those achieved with the standard technique: 60.6% and 68.4%, respectively, with similar adverse event rates.

CONCLUSIONS

In non-Asian countries the standard ESD technique is still failing to achieve acceptable levels of performance. The hybrid technique showed low R0 resection rates and should not be considered as an adequate alternative to the standard technique.