Risk factors for unsuccessful colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison of traction vs. snare as rescue methods for challenging colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: Propensity score-matched study

Background and study aims

To address the challenges of difficult colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), conversion to snare resection (rescue-snare ESD: rSnare), a variant of hybrid ESD, is commonly proposed. However, rSnare is associated with a lower en bloc resection rate compared with conventional ESD. Traction-assisted ESD has emerged as a technique to facilitate dissection, but its effectiveness as a rescue method remains unclear. This study was the first to compare the effectiveness of rSnare and rescue-traction-assisted ESD (rTraction).

Patients and methods

This retrospective study involved 1464 consecutive lesions from 1372 patients with superficial colorectal neoplasms across eight institutions. Among these, 162 lesions required rescue methods of rSnare or rTraction. After propensity score matching, 88 lesions treated with either rSnare or rTraction were analyzed.

Results

The rTraction group exhibited significantly higher en bloc resection and R0 resection rates (93.2% and 77.3%, respectively) compared with the rSnare group (45.5% and 38.6%, respectively). However, average procedure time was significantly longer in the rTraction group (122.3 ± 72.5 min) compared with the rSnare group (92.2 ± 54.2 min). In the rTraction group, univariable and multivariable analyses identified traction initiation time > 75 minutes as the only independent predictor of procedure durations exceeding 120 minutes.

Conclusions

Utilizing a traction device as a rescue technique in difficult colorectal ESD resulted in higher en bloc and R0 resection rates compared with conversion to snare resection. Initiating traction within 75 minutes may contribute to reducing overall procedure time for challenging colorectal ESD cases.

Prevalence of Endoscopically Curable Low-Risk Cancer Among Large (≥20 mm) Nonpedunculated Polyps in the Right Colon

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection is increasingly promoted for the treatment of all large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) to cure potential low-risk cancers (superficial submucosal invasion without additional high-risk histopathologic features). The effect of a universal en bloc strategy on oncologic outcomes for the treatment of LNPCPs in the right colon is unknown. We evaluated this in a large Western population.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of patients referred for endoscopic resection (ER) of LNPCPs was analyzed. Patients found to have cancer after ER and those referred directly to surgery were included. The primary outcome was to determine the proportion of right colon LNPCPs with low-risk cancer.

RESULTS

Over 180 months until June 2023, 3294 sporadic right colon LNPCPs in 2956 patients were referred for ER at 7 sites (median size 30 [interquartile range 22.5-37.5] mm). A total of 63 (2.1%) patients were referred directly to surgery, and cancer was proven in 56 (88.9%). A total of 2851 (96.4%) of 2956 LNPCPs underwent ER (median size 35 [interquartile range 25-45] mm), of which 75 (2.6%) were cancers. The overall prevalence of cancer in the right colon was 4.4% (n = 131 of 2956). Detailed histopathologic analysis was possible in 115 (88%) of 131 cancers (71 after ER, 44 direct to surgery). After excluding missing histopathologic data, 23 (0.78%) of 2940 sporadic right colon LNPCPs were low-risk cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of right colon LNPCPs referred for ER containing low-risk cancer amenable to endoscopic cure was <1%, in a large, multicenter Western cohort. A universal endoscopic submucosal dissection strategy for the management of right colon LNPCPs is unlikely to yield improved patient outcomes given the minimal impact on oncologic outcomes.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, Numbers: NCT01368289, NCT02000141.

Resection of Early Colorectal Neoplasms Using Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study

Background: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a reliable method that can replace surgery in the treatment of early colorectal cancer under certain conditions. Aim: The aim of the study was to analyze factors influencing the ESD procedure in early colorectal cancer, with the intention of improving its effectiveness. Patients and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study on 214 patients who underwent ESD procedures for early colorectal cancer from January 2016 to October 2023. Results:En bloc resection was achieved in 197 (92.1%) of ESD procedures, R0 resection in 149 (69.6%), and curative resection in 54 (40.9%). The submucosal invasion was classified as level 1 (SM1) in 96 cases (45.3%), level 2 (SM2) in 61 cases (28.8%), and level 3 (SM3) in 36 cases (17%). R0 resection was achieved more often in the rectum-92 (81.4%), compared to the right-24 (64.9%) and left colon-33 (61.1%), p = 0.009. In rectal tumors, R0 resection was achieved in 51 (98.1%) SM1 invasion, 27 (73%) SM2 invasion, and 13 (65%) SM3 invasion (p < 0.001). Lateral and vertical resection margins were positive in 12 (7.7%) and 52 (25.2%) cases, respectively. Vertical resection margins were statistically more often positive in lesions located in the right colon-11 cases (28.9%) and left colon-21 cases (38.9%), than in rectum-20 cases (17.5%); p = 0.010. Complications were found in 32 (15%) cases of ESD procedure-perforation in 12 cases (5.6%) and delayed bleeding in four cases (1.9%). Procedures performed in the right colon were associated with a significantly higher risk of any complications (30%) and perforations (15%) than those performed in the rectum (10.3% and 2.6%) or the left colon (13.8% and 5.2%; p = 0.016; p = 0.015), respectively. Conclusions: ESD for early colon cancer is a viable strategy due to its effectiveness and low complication rate. The ESD technique performed in the rectum yields the best results; however, in the right colon, it still requires careful attention.