Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors

Is underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of colon polyps superior to conventional techniques? A network analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection

Background and study aims  Evidence from recent trials comparing conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to underwater EMR (UEMR) have matured. However, studies comparing UEMR to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are lacking. Hence, we sought to conduct a comprehensive network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of UEMR, ESD, and EMR. Methods  Embase and Medline databases were searched from inception to December 2020 for articles comparing UEMR with EMR and ESD. Outcomes of interest included rates of en bloc and complete polyp resection, risk of perforation and bleeding, and local recurrence. A network meta-analysis comparing all three approaches was conducted. In addition, a conventional comparative meta-analysis comparing UEMR to EMR was performed. Analysis was stratified according to polyp sizes (< 10 mm, ≥ 10 mm, and ≥ 20 mm). Results  Twenty-two articles were included in this study. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, UEMR was inferior to ESD in achieving en bloc resection ( P  = 0.02). However, UEMR had shorter operating time for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P  < 0.001), and ≥20 mm ( P  = 0.019) with reduced perforation risk for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P  = 0.05) compared to ESD. In addition, en bloc resection rates were similar between UEMR and EMR, although UEMR had reduced recurrence for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P  = 0.013) and ≥ 20 mm ( P  = 0.014). UEMR also had shorter mean operating than EMR for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P  < 0.001) and ≥ 20 mm ( P  < 0.001). Risk of bleeding and perforation with UEMR and EMR were similar for polyp of all sizes. Conclusions  UEMR has demonstrated technical and oncological outcomes comparable to ESD and EMR, along with a desirable safety profile. UEMR appears to be a safe and effective alternative to conventional methods for resection of polyps ≥ 10 mm.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis and meta-regression with single arm analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has shown to be effective in management of colorectal neoplasm in the Asian countries, while its implementation in Western countries where endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is preferred is still debatable.

AIM

To compare the surgical, histological, and oncological outcomes between ESD and EMR in the treatment of colorectal polyps, with subgroup analysis comparing the efficacy of ESD and EMR between Japan and the rest of the world.

METHODS

Embase and Medline databases were searched from inception to October 2020 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines for studies comparing en bloc, complete resection, margin involvement, resection time, need for additional surgery, complications, and recurrence rate of ESD with EMR.

RESULTS

Of 281344 colorectal polyps from 21 studies were included. When compared to EMR, the pooled analysis revealed ESD was associated with higher en bloc and complete resection rate, and lower lateral margin involvement and recurrence. ESD led to increased procedural time, need for additional surgery, and perforation risk. No significant difference in bleeding risk was found between the two groups. Meta-regression analysis suggested only right colonic polyps correlated with an increased perforation risk in ESD. Confounders including polyp size and invasion depth did not significantly influence the en bloc and complete resection rate, bleeding risk and recurrence. In subgroup analysis, Japan performed better than the rest of the world in both ESD and EMR with perforation risk of 4% and 0.0002%, respectively, as compared to perforation risk of 8% and 1%, respectively, in reports coming from rest of the world.

CONCLUSION

ESD resulted in better resection outcomes and lower recurrence compared to EMR. With appropriate training, ESD is preferred over EMR as the first-line therapy for resection of colorectal polyps, without restricting to lesions greater than 20 mm and those with high suspicion of submucosal invasion.

An endoscopic treatment strategy for superficial tumors in patients with ulcerative colitis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic resection is feasible for superficial tumors in patients with ulcerative colitis; however, endoscopic resection options have not been evaluated comprehensively. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection, and decision making regarding endoscopic resection options for patients with ulcerative colitis.

METHODS

Endoscopically treated tumors from patients with ulcerative colitis were analyzed retrospectively. We evaluated en bloc and R0 resection, adverse events, local tumor recurrence, and metachronous lesion occurrence rates.

RESULTS

We examined 102 tumors (mean size, 12 mm; non-polypoid, 55 tumors) from 74 patients with ulcerative colitis, of whom, 39 and 63 underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection, respectively. The R0 resection rate was significantly higher for endoscopic submucosal dissection (97%) than for endoscopic mucosal resection (80%) (P = 0.0015). For 11-20-mm tumors, the R0 resection rate was significantly higher for endoscopic submucosal dissection (94%) than for endoscopic mucosal resection (55%) (P = 0.0027); the endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection R0 rates did not differ for ≤ 10-mm tumors. The non-polypoid tumor R0 resection rates were significantly higher for endoscopic submucosal dissection (100%) than for endoscopic mucosal resection (65%) (P < 0.001) and did not differ regarding the polypoid tumor R0 resection rates (75% vs 86%, P = 0.49). Four patients experienced intraoperative perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection. No local recurrences occurred. Metachronous high-grade dysplasia occurred in three patients during surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ulcerative colitis, endoscopic submucosal dissection is suitable for ≥ 11-mm and non-polypoid tumors, whereas endoscopic mucosal resection is acceptable for ≤ 10-mm tumors.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare early (resection quality, complication rate, surgery time) and long-term (recurrence rate) outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Data were analyzed using the Rewiew Manager 5.3 software.

RESULTS

The study included 8 manuscripts including 6 retrospective trials, 1 case-control and only 1 prospective study. These studies comprised the results of endoscopic resection of 1989 colonic tumors (EMR - 748, ESD - 1241). ESD is associated with higher incidence of en-bloc resection (OR 0.13; 95% CI 0.03 0.49; p=0.003) and R0 resection (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.05 1.02; p=0.05) compared to EMR. Local recurrence rate is 13 times higher after EMR compared to ESD (OR 13.94; 95% CI 6.3 30.8; p=0.00001). However, ESD is followed by 4 times higher risk of colon wall perforation (OR 0.25; 95% CI 0.08 0.81; p=0.02).

CONCLUSION

ESD is more advisable regarding resection quality compared to EMR. However, higher incidence of perforations, surgery time and technical features of ESD do not allow us to unambiguously interpret the results of our meta-analysis and determine the optimal surgical approach.

Predicting and managing complications following colonoscopy: risk factors and management of advanced interventional endoscopy with a focus on colorectal ESD

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been introduced widely in Western and Asian countries. The management of the perforation during ESD is crucial.

AREAS COVERED

The rate of intraprocedural perforation, risk factors, prevention, and management of perforation during ESD and EMR were discussed in this review. The perforation rate in ESD and EMR depending on the lesion size is also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

The knowledge regarding the risk factor and techniques to manage perforation is important during colorectal ESD and EMR. The development of novel suturing techniques devices is key for colorectal ESD in the future.

Bipolar-current needle-knife with a water jet function (Jet B-knife) shortens the procedure time of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technically difficult and time-consuming procedure for the treatment of large colorectal tumors. In Japan, the ball-tip bipolar-current needle-knife (BB-knife) has been used in ESD as a safe device that minimizes the damage to deeper tissues of colorectal neoplasms. In May 2012, a BB-knife combined with a water jet function (Jet B-knife) was newly developed.

METHODS

This retrospective study was aimed at examining the effectiveness and safety of the Jet B-knife. The BB-knife was used in 276 lesions (BB-knife group), while the Jet B-knife was used in 245 lesions (Jet B-knife group). We evaluated tumor characteristics and the results of the ESD procedures, including the size of the resected tumor, histological diagnosis, time required for resection, frequency of using other electrical devices, en bloc resection rate, and incidence rate of associated complications. Then, the data obtained were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The histological evaluation of the resected tumors revealed that the incidence of cancer was not significantly different between the two groups. The median time required for resection was 103 min (45-255) in the BB-knife group and 51 min (28-210) in the Jet B-knife group. The difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the median tumor diameters were 23.1 mm (18-50) and 26.2 mm (20-60) in the BB-knife and Jet B-knife groups, respectively, demonstrating a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that short resection time (p < 0.001) and reduced use of hemostatic devices (p < 0.01) were independent favorable features of Jet B-knife. The en bloc resection rate and the perforation rate were not statistically significant between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the Jet B-knife may contribute to the development of a time-saving, cost-effective, and safe procedure for ESD of colorectal tumors.

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.

Fecal incontinence after transanal endoscopic microsurgery

PURPOSE

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) procedure could potentially influence the development of fecal incontinence later in life. The aim of our study was to assess long-term functional outcomes after TEM and to determine possible variables related to incontinence.

METHODS

Patients, enrolled in a prospectively collected TEM operation database, were interviewed using a postal questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of EuroQol (EQ)-5D-5L quality of life questionnaire, Wexner fecal incontinence grading scale, and additional questions about other perianal operations and obstetric history for women. We divided patients into two groups: no or minor fecal incontinence (Wexner score of 2 and less) and non-minor incontinence (Wexner score of 3 or more).

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-two patients were included in the study. Patients' median follow-up time was 96 (12-168) months from their operation. Thirty-eight patients (28.8%) reported Wexner score of 3 or more, and they reported significantly worse quality of life in all tested life spheres. They were older at the time of the operation (63 (18-82) vs. 68 (50-89) years; p = 0.004), underwent longer operations (50 (10-140) vs. 60 (15-210) min; p = 0.017), and more often were operated for malignant lesions (17 (18.3%) vs. 14 (36.8%); p = 0.040). Older age at the time of operation was an independent risk factor in multivariate model (OR 1.057, 95% CI 1.010-1.106; p = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

Fecal incontinence after TEM is more common than thought previously, resulting in significantly impaired quality of life. Older age at the time of operation was an independent risk factor for developing significant fecal incontinence.

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.

Current practices in endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasms: a survey of indications among Korean endoscopists

Background/Aims

The indications for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) vary in clinical practice. To establish colorectal ESD as a standard treatment, standard indications are essential. For establishing standard indications for colorectal ESD, we surveyed the preferences and criteria of endoscopists for colorectal ESD in their practices.

Methods

A multiple-choice questionnaire was sent to 27 members of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy/ESD group. The indications of endoscopists for selecting ESD as a treatment for colorectal tumors ≥2 cm in diameter were surveyed.

Results

On the basis of the preprocedural assessment of histology, adenoma with high-grade dysplasia, mucosal cancer, and shallow submucosa invasive cancer were included in the indication for ESD. Based on gross morphology, laterally spreading tumor (LST) granular nodular mixed type, LST-nongranular (LST-NG) flat elevated type, and LST-NG pseudodepressed type were included. On the basis of the pit pattern by Kudo classification, types III, IV, and V-I were included. Based on the narrow band imaging pattern by Sano classification, types II and III-a were included. Other lesions, such as sporadic localized tumors in chronic inflammation and local residual early carcinoma after endoscopic resection, were also included in the indication for ESD.

Conclusions

The indications of Korean endoscopists for colorectal ESD are broader than those in recent guidelines, and tend to include more benign-looking tumors. To find the appropriate indications for colorectal ESD, systematic data collection and analysis are required to reach a consensus in a timely manner.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps.

DESIGN

Relevant publications were identified in MEDLINE/EMBASE/Cochrane Central Register for the period 1966-2014. Studies in which ≥20 mm colorectal neoplastic lesions were treated with endoscopic resection were included. Rates of postendoscopic resection surgery due to non-curative resection or adverse events, as well as the rates of complete endoscopic removal, invasive cancer, adverse events, recurrence and mortality, were extracted. Study quality was ascertained according to Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Forest plot was produced based on random effect models. I2 statistic was used to describe the variation across studies due to heterogeneity. Meta-regression analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

50 studies including 6442 patients and 6779 large polyps were included in the analyses. Overall, 503 out of 6442 patients (pooled rate: 8%, 95% CI 7% to 10%, I2=78.6%) underwent surgery due to non-curative endoscopic resection, and 31/6442 (pooled rate: 1%, 95% CI 0.7% to 1.4%, I2=0%) to adverse events. Invasive cancer at histology, non-curative endoscopic resection, synchronous lesions and recurrence accounted for 58%, 28%, 2.2% and 5.9% of all the surgeries, respectively. Endoscopic perforation occurred in 96/6595 (1.5%, 95% CI 1.2% to 1.7%) polyps, while bleeding in 423/6474 (6.5%, 95% CI 5.9% to 7.1%). Overall, 5334 patients entered in surveillance, 502/5836 (8.6%, 95% CI 7.9% to 9.3%) being lost at follow-up. Endoscopic recurrence was detected in 735/5334 patients (13.8%, 95% CI 12.9% to 14.7%), being an invasive cancer in 14/5334 (0.3%, 95% CI 0.1% to 0.4%). Endoscopic treatment was successful in 664/735 cases (90.3%, 95% CI 88.2% to 92.5%). Mortality related with management of large polyps was reported in 5/6278 cases (0.08%, 95% CI 0.01% to 0.15%).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic resection of large polyps appeared to be an extremely effective and safe intervention. However, an adequate endoscopic surveillance is necessary for its long-term efficacy.

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection from a Western perspective: Today’s promises and future challenges

Over the last few years, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has shown to be effective in the management of early colorectal neoplasms, particularly in Asian countries where the technique was born. In the Western world, its implementation has been slow and laborious. In this paper, the indications for ESD, its learning model, the available methods to predict the presence of deep submucosal invasion before the procedure and the published outcomes from Asia and Europe will be reviewed. Since ESD has several limitations in terms of learning achievement in the West, and completion of the procedure for the first cases is difficult in our part of the world, a short review on colorectal assisted ESD has been included. Finally, other endoscopic and surgical treatment modalities that are in competition with colorectal ESD will be summarized.

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: Recent technical advances for safe and successful procedures

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is very useful in en bloc resection of large superficial colorectal tumors but is a technically difficult procedure because the colonic wall is thin and endoscopic maneuverability is poor because of colonic flexure and extensibility. A high risk of perforation has been reported in colorectal ESD. To prevent complications such as perforation and unexpected bleeding, it is crucial to ensure good visualization of the submucosal layer by creating a mucosal flap, which is an exfoliated mucosa for inserting the tip of the endoscope under it. The creation of a mucosal flap is often technically difficult; however, various types of equipment, appropriate strategy, and novel procedures including our clip-flap method, appear to facilitate mucosal flap creation, improving the safety and success rate of ESD. Favorable treatment outcomes with colorectal ESD have already been reported in many advanced institutions, and appropriate understanding of techniques and development of training systems are required for world-wide standardization of colorectal ESD. Here, we describe recent technical advances for safe and successful colorectal ESD.

Non-polypoid colorectal neoplasms: Classification, therapy and follow-up

In the last years, an increasing interest has been raised on non-polypoid colorectal tumors (NPT) and in particular on large flat neoplastic lesions beyond 10 mm tending to grow laterally, called laterally spreading tumors (LST). LSTs and large sessile polyps have a greater frequency of high-grade dysplasia and local invasiveness as compared to pedunculated lesions of the same size and usually represent a technical challenge for the endoscopist in terms of either diagnosis and resection. According to the Paris classification, NPTs are distinguished in slightly elevated (0-IIa, less than 2.5 mm), flat (0-IIb) or slightly depressed (0-IIc). NPTs are usually flat or slightly elevated and tend to spread laterally while in case of depressed lesions, cell proliferation growth progresses in depth in the colonic wall, thus leading to an increased risk of submucosal invasion (SMI) even for smaller neoplasms. NPTs may be frequently missed by inexperienced endoscopists, thus a careful training and precise assessment of all suspected mucosal areas should be performed. Chromoendoscopy or, if possible, narrow-band imaging technique should be considered for the estimation of SMI risk of NPTs, and the characterization of pit pattern and vascular pattern may be useful to predict the risk of SMI and, therefore, to guide the therapeutic decision. Lesions suitable to endoscopic resection are those confined to the mucosa (or superficial layer of submucosa in selected cases) whereas deeper invasion makes endoscopic therapy infeasible. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR, piecemeal for LSTs > 20 mm, en bloc for smaller neoplasms) remains the first-line therapy for NPTs, whereas endoscopic submucosal dissection in high-volume centers or surgery should be considered for large LSTs for which en bloc resection is mandatory and cannot be achieved by means of EMR. After piecemeal EMR, follow-up colonoscopy should be performed at 3 mo to assess resection completeness. In case of en bloc resection, surveillance colonoscopy should be scheduled at 3 years for adenomatous lesions ≥ 1 cm, or in presence of villous features or high-grade dysplasia patients (regardless of the size), while less intensive surveillance (colonoscopy at 5-10 years) is needed in case of single (or two) NPT < 1 cm presenting tubular features or low-grade dysplasia at histology.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in the treatment of flat and sessile colorectal lesions >20 mm preoperatively assessed as noninvasive.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature published between January 2000 and March 2014. Pooled estimates of the proportion of patients with en bloc, R0 resection, complications, recurrence, and need for further treatment were compared in a meta-analysis using fixed and random effects.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies and 4678 patients were included. The en bloc resection rate was 89.9% for ESD vs 34.9% for EMR patients (RR 1.93 p < 0.001). The R0 resection rate was 79.6% for ESD vs 36.2% for EMR patients (RR 2.01 p < 0.001). The rate of perforation was 4.9% for the ESD group and 0.9% for EMR (RR 3.19, p < 0.001), while the rate of bleeding was 1.9% for ESD and 2.9% for EMR (RR 0.68, p = 0.070). Therefore, the overall need for further surgery, including surgery for oncologic reasons and surgery for complications, was 7.8% for ESD and 3.0% for EMR (RR 2.40, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

ESD achieves a higher rate of en bloc and R0 resection compared to EMR, at the cost of a higher risk of complications. This, added to an increased need for surgery for oncologic reasons for a plausible tendency to extend indication for endoscopic excision, increases the risk of further surgery after ESD.

Efficacy and adverse events of EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of colon neoplasms: a meta-analysis of studies comparing EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are used frequently to remove colon neoplasms. However, the predominance of these procedures has not yet been thoroughly explored.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and adverse events related to EMR with those related to ESD for colon neoplasms.

DESIGN

A meta-analysis of 8 studies published between 2005 and 2013.

SETTING

Multicenter review.

PATIENTS

Patients from 8 studies yielding 2299 lesions.

INTERVENTIONS

EMR or ESD.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

En bloc resection, curative resection, recurrence, and adverse events.

RESULTS

The pooled odds ratios (OR) (OR [95% confidence interval]) for the tumor size, length of the procedure, en bloc resection, curative resection, recurrence, additional surgery, delayed bleeding, and perforation by ESD versus EMR were 7.38 (6.42-8.34), 58.07 (36.27-79.88), 6.84 (3.30-14.18), 4.26 (3.77-6.57), 0.08 (0.04-0.17), 2.16 (1.16-4.03), 0.85 (0.45-1.60), and 4.96 (2.79-8.85), respectively.

LIMITATIONS

This analysis included only nonrandomized studies.

CONCLUSION

The size of the tumor and rate of en bloc resection and curative resection were higher, and the rate of recurrence was lower in the ESD group versus the EMR group. However, in the ESD group, the procedure was longer, and the rate of additional surgery and perforation was higher, suggesting that the indications for ESD should therefore be rigorously determined in order to avoid such problems.

Current innovations in endoscopic therapy for the management of colorectal cancer: from endoscopic submucosal dissection to endoscopic full-thickness resection

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is accepted as a minimally invasive treatment for colorectal cancer. However, due to technical difficulties and an increased rate of complications, ESD is not widely used in the colorectum. In some cases, endoscopic treatment alone is insufficient for disease control, and laparoscopic surgery is required. The combination of laparoscopic surgery and endoscopic resection represents a new frontier in cancer treatment. Recent developments in advanced polypectomy and minimally invasive surgical techniques will enable surgeons and endoscopists to challenge current practice in colorectal cancer treatment. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) of the colon offers the potential to decrease the postoperative morbidity and mortality associated with segmental colectomy while enhancing the diagnostic yield compared to current endoscopic techniques. However, closure is necessary after EFTR and natural transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES). Innovative methods and new devices for EFTR and suturing are being developed and may potentially change traditional paradigms to achieve minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer. The present paper aims to discuss the complementary role of ESD and the future development of EFTR. We focus on the possibility of achieving EFTR using the ESD method and closing devices.

Predictors of incomplete resection and perforation associated with endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is technically challenging. Our aim was to identify predictors of incomplete resection and perforation in colorectal ESD.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Academic Japanese endoscopy unit.

PATIENTS AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

A total of 267 consecutive cases of colorectal tumors treated by ESD from May 2010 to February 2013 were analyzed. Predictors of incomplete resection and perforation, including lesion size, growth type, pathological diagnosis, use of hemostatic forceps, degree of fibrosis, history of biopsy, history of local endoscopic treatment, and endoscopic operability.

RESULTS

The incomplete resection rate was 4.1%. The perforation rate was 5.6%. Univariate analysis identified severe fibrosis (P = .032), submucosal (SM) deep (>1000 μm) invasion (P = .033) and poor endoscopic operability (P = .030) as predictors of incomplete resection, and severe fibrosis (P = .038), postendoscopic treatment (P = .016), and poor endoscopic operability (P = .012) as predictors of perforation. Multivariate analysis identified poor endoscopic operability and SM deep invasion as independent predictors of incomplete resection, and poor endoscopic operability and severe fibrosis as independent predictors of perforation. There was no adjustment of P values for multiple testing.

LIMITATION

A single-center study by a single colonoscopist. All statistical results should be taken as descriptive only.

CONCLUSIONS

Poor endoscopic operability and SM deep invasion were significant independent predictors of incomplete resections. Poor endoscopic operability and severe fibrosis were significant independent predictors of perforation. These features may provide helpful information when planning colorectal ESD.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus transanal endoscopic microsurgery for large noninvasive rectal lesions

BACKGROUND

For almost 30 years, transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) has been the mainstay treatment for large rectal lesions. With the advent of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), flexible endoscopy has aimed at en bloc R0 resection of superficial lesions of the digestive tract. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the safety and effectiveness of ESD and full-thickness rectal wall excision by TEM in the treatment of large nonpedunculated rectal lesions preoperatively assessed as noninvasive.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature published between 1984 and 2010 was conducted (Registration no. CRD42012001882). Data were integrated with those from the original databases requested from the study authors when needed. Pooled estimates of the proportions of patients with en bloc R0 resection, complications, recurrence, and need for further treatment in the ESD and TEM series were compared using random-effects single-arm meta-analysis.

RESULTS

This review included 11 ESD and 10 TEM series (2,077 patients). The en bloc resection rate was 87.8 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 84.3-90.6) for the ESD patients versus 98.7 % (95 % CI 97.4-99.3 %) for the TEM patients (P < 0.001). The R0 resection rate was 74.6 % (95 % CI 70.4-78.4 %) for the ESD patients versus 88.5 % (95 % CI 85.9-90.6 %) for the TEM patients (P < 0.001). The postoperative complications rate was 8.0 % (95 %, CI 5.4-11.8 %) for the ESD patients versus 8.4 % (95 % CI 5.2-13.4 %) for the TEM patients (P = 0.874). The recurrence rate was 2.6 % (95 % CI 1.3-5.2 %) for the ESD patients versus 5.2 % (95 % CI 4.0-6.9 %) for the TEM patients (P < 0.001). Nevertheless, the rate for the overall need of further abdominal treatment, defined as any type of surgery performed through an abdominal access, including both complications and pathology indications, was 8.4 % (95 % CI 4.9-13.9 %) for the ESD patients versus 1.8 % (95 % CI 0.8-3.7 %) for the TEM patients (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The ESD procedure appears to be a safe technique, but TEM achieves a higher R0 resection rate when performed in full-thickness fashion, significantly reducing the need for further abdominal treatment.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus transanal endoscopic microsurgery for large noninvasive rectal lesions

BACKGROUND

For almost 30 years, transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) has been the mainstay treatment for large rectal lesions. With the advent of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), flexible endoscopy has aimed at en bloc R0 resection of superficial lesions of the digestive tract. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the safety and effectiveness of ESD and full-thickness rectal wall excision by TEM in the treatment of large nonpedunculated rectal lesions preoperatively assessed as noninvasive.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature published between 1984 and 2010 was conducted (Registration no. CRD42012001882). Data were integrated with those from the original databases requested from the study authors when needed. Pooled estimates of the proportions of patients with en bloc R0 resection, complications, recurrence, and need for further treatment in the ESD and TEM series were compared using random-effects single-arm meta-analysis.

RESULTS

This review included 11 ESD and 10 TEM series (2,077 patients). The en bloc resection rate was 87.8 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 84.3-90.6) for the ESD patients versus 98.7 % (95 % CI 97.4-99.3 %) for the TEM patients (P < 0.001). The R0 resection rate was 74.6 % (95 % CI 70.4-78.4 %) for the ESD patients versus 88.5 % (95 % CI 85.9-90.6 %) for the TEM patients (P < 0.001). The postoperative complications rate was 8.0 % (95 %, CI 5.4-11.8 %) for the ESD patients versus 8.4 % (95 % CI 5.2-13.4 %) for the TEM patients (P = 0.874). The recurrence rate was 2.6 % (95 % CI 1.3-5.2 %) for the ESD patients versus 5.2 % (95 % CI 4.0-6.9 %) for the TEM patients (P < 0.001). Nevertheless, the rate for the overall need of further abdominal treatment, defined as any type of surgery performed through an abdominal access, including both complications and pathology indications, was 8.4 % (95 % CI 4.9-13.9 %) for the ESD patients versus 1.8 % (95 % CI 0.8-3.7 %) for the TEM patients (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The ESD procedure appears to be a safe technique, but TEM achieves a higher R0 resection rate when performed in full-thickness fashion, significantly reducing the need for further abdominal treatment.

Risk factors for vertical incomplete resection in endoscopic submucosal dissection as total excisional biopsy for submucosal invasive colorectal carcinoma

PURPOSE

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal tumor is a minimally invasive treatment. Histologic information obtained from the entire ESD specimen is important for therapy selection in submucosal invasive colorectal carcinoma (SMca). This study aimed to identify risk factors for vertical incomplete resection (vertical margin-positive [VM+]) when ESD was performed as total excisional biopsy for SMca.

METHODS

From June 2003 through December 2011, 78 SMca cases were resected by ESD at Hiroshima University Hospital. Patient and tumor characteristics, intraoperative variables, and histopathology were compared between the VM+ group and the vertical complete resection (vertical margin-negative) group. The ability of magnifying endoscopy (ME) and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) to predict VM+ was assessed.

RESULTS

ESD resulted in VM+ in eight cases (10.3 %), with a greater percentage invading to a depth of ≥2,000 vs. <2,000 μm (P = 0.047). Severe submucosal fibrosis was found in five of the eight cases (62.5 %, P = 0.017). Poor differentiation was seen at the deepest invasive portion in six cases (75.0 %), and two of six cases had an invasion depth <2,000 μm. Of 39 EUS cases, 36 not showing deep invasion close to the muscularis propria were completely resected by ESD.

CONCLUSIONS

Submucosal fibrosis and poor differentiation at the deepest invasive portion may be risk factors for VM+ in colorectal ESD for tumors with submucosal deep invasion. ME plus EUS is more likely to help determine whether ESD is indicated as complete total excisional biopsy for SMca.

Warning for unprincipled colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: accurate diagnosis and reasonable treatment strategy

Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is generally indicated for laterally spreading tumors (LST) >2 cm in diameter. However, the segmentation of adenomatous parts does not affect the histopathological diagnosis and completeness of cure. Thus, possible indications for piecemeal EMR are both adenomatous homogenous-type granular-type LST (LST-G) and LST-G as carcinoma in adenoma without segmentalizing the carcinomatous part. Diagnosis of the pit pattern using magnifying endoscopy is essential for determining the correct treatment and setting segmentation borders. In contrast, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is indicated for lesions requiring endoscopic en bloc excision, as it is difficult to use the snare technique for en bloc excisions such as in non-granular-type LST (LST-NG), especially for the pseudodepressed type, tumors with a type VI pit pattern, shallow invasive submucosal carcinoma, largedepressed tumors and large elevated lesions, which are often malignant (e.g. nodular mixed-type LST-G). Other lesions, such as intramucosal tumor accompanied by submucosal fibrosis, induced by biopsy or peristalsis of the lesion; sporadic localized tumors that occur due to chronic inflammation, including ulcerative colitis; and local residual early carcinoma after endoscopic treatment, are also indications for ESD. In clinical practice, an efficient endoscopic treatment with segregation of ESD from piecemeal EMR should be carried out after a comprehensive evaluation of the completeness of cure, safety, clinical simplicity, and cost-benefit, based on an accurate preoperative diagnosis.

Can endoscopic submucosal dissection be safely performed in a smaller specialized clinic?

AIM: To investigate whether endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can be safely performed at small clinics, such as the Shirakawa Clinic.

METHODS: One thousand forty-seven ESDs to treat gastrointestinal tumors were performed at the Shirakawa Clinic from April 2006 to March 2011. The efficacy, technical feasibility and associated complications of the procedures were assessed. The ESD procedures were performed by five endoscopists. Sedation was induced with propofol for esophagogastorduodenal ESD.

RESULTS: One thousand forty-seven ESDs were performed to treat 64 patients with esophageal cancer (E), 850 patients with gastric tumors (G: 764 patients with cancer, 82 patients with adenomas and four others), four patients with duodenal cancer (D) and 129 patients with colorectal tumors (C: 94 patients with cancer, 21 patients with adenomas and 14 others). The en bloc resection rate was 94.3% (E: 96.9%, G: 95.8%, D: 100%, C: 79.8%). The median operation time was 46 min (range: 4-360 min) and the mean size of the resected specimens was 18 mm (range: 2-150 mm). No mortal complications were observed in association with the ESD procedures. Perforation occurred in 12 cases (1.1%, E: 1 case, G: 9 cases, D: 1 case, C: 1 case) and postoperative bleeding occurred in 53 cases (5.1%, G: 51 cases, D: 1 case, C: 1 case); however, no case required either emergency surgery or blood transfusion. All of the perforations and postperative bleedings were resolved by endoscopic clipping or hemostasis. The other problematic complication observed was pneumonia, which was treated with conservative therapy.

CONCLUSION: ESD can be safely performed in a clinic with established therapeutic methods and medical services to address potential complications.

High efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal laterally spreading tumors larger than 3 cm

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was recently developed to allow en bloc resection of early neoplasia of the GI tract, including colorectal neoplasia. The endoscopic technique is technically demanding and not yet standardized, and new devices are needed.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new device that combines the functions of injection and cutting.

DESIGN

Prospective, pilot, single-arm study.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with rectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) 3 cm or larger unsuitable for en bloc resection were enrolled. ESD was performed with a new device that allows cutting and coagulation as well as a needleless, tissue-selective mucosal and submucosal elevation through an axial water-jet channel.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT

The primary endpoint of the study was the en bloc resection rate achieved with ESD in a Western hospital setting.

RESULTS

Overall, ESD was attempted in 40 consecutive patients (27 male, mean age 65.3 years) with rectal LSTs larger than 3 cm (72.5% LSTs, nongranular type, 5% depressed type, 22.5% protruding type). The mean lesion size was 46.8 ± 10.9 mm (range 33-80 mm). The mean procedure time was 86.1 ± 35.5 minutes (range 40-190 minutes). The en bloc resection rate was 90% (36/40). In the remaining patients, resection was completed with a piecemeal approach. The rate of curative resection (R0) was 32 of 40 LSTs (80%). Two patients with submucosal invasion were referred for surgery. Perforation occurred in 1 patient (2.5%), which was managed conservatively. Postoperative bleeding occurred in 2 patients (5%) and was treated by endoscopic hemostasis.

LIMITATIONS

Single-center study with a relatively small number of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD is a safe and effective method to provide en bloc and curative resection of large rectal LSTs. The operating time and adverse event rate were comparable to those of previously published data from Japanese experts.

Current status and future perspectives of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) allows for en bloc tumor resection irrespective of the size of the lesion. In Japan, ESD has been established as a standard method for endoscopic ablation of malignant tumors in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Although the use of colorectal ESD has been gradually spreading with the development of numerous devices, ESD has not yet been fully established as a standard therapeutic method for colorectal lesions. Currently, colorectal ESD is performed as an 'advanced medical treatment' without national health insurance coverage. With the recent accumulation of numerous cases, the safety and simplicity of colorectal ESD have improved remarkably. Currently in Japan, a prospective multicenter cohort study organized by the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society is ongoing to clarify the safety and efficacy of colorectal ESD to obtain remuneration from national health insurance. In this report, we showed the outcome regarding safety and efficacy of colorectal ESD through a review of the published work. Of 2719 cases with colorectal ESD at 13 institutions, the complete en bloc resection and perforation rates were 82.8% (61-98.2%, 2082/2516) and 4.7% (1.4-8.2%, 127/2719), respectively. Additional surgery for perforation was very rare because perforations were tiny enough to be closed endoscopically by clips in most of the cases and treated conservatively. In the near future, colorectal ESD will be a common therapeutic method for early colorectal carcinoma.

Long-term functional results and quality of life after transanal endoscopic microsurgery

BACKGROUND

Of the few studies that have investigated quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes after transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), the majority have reported only short-term follow-up data. This study assessed long-term clinical and instrumental outcomes (QoL, sexual, urinary and sphincter function) after TEM for extraperitoneal rectal cancer.

METHODS

Preoperative and postoperative anorectal function was assessed in consecutive patients with benign rectal lesions or early rectal cancer, based on clinical scores and anorectal manometry.

RESULTS

Between January 2000 and July 2005, 93 patients undergoing TEM completed the 60-month study protocol. The mean Wexner continence score increased from baseline at 3 months, began to decline within 12 months, and had returned to the preoperative value at 60 months. Urgency was reported by 65·0, 30·0 and 5 per cent of patients at 3, 12 and 60 months respectively (P < 0·050). A significant improvement was noted in various clinical and QoL scores at 12 and 60 months. Postoperative manometry values at 3 months were significantly lower than at baseline (P < 0·050), but had returned to preoperative values at 12 months. Tumour size of 4 cm or above was the only factor that significantly (P = 0·008) affected the rectal sensitivity threshold, the urge to defaecate threshold and the maximum tolerated volume at 3 months after TEM.

CONCLUSION

TEM had no long-term effect on anorectal function or QoL. Lower anal resting pressure at early follow-up was not associated with defaecation problems in patients who were continent before surgery.

A novel flexible endoluminal stapling device for use in NOTES colotomy closure: a feasibility study using an ex vivo porcine model

BACKGROUND

With advances in endoscopic diagnosis of early-stage gastrointestinal pathology, the need to offer minimally invasive treatment is attracting significant interest. It is essential that secure and consistent closure of full-thickness colonic resections and colotomy access be provided in natural orifice translumenal surgery (NOTES). This ex vivo porcine study aimed to evaluate a novel prototype flexible endoscopic stapler device for use in closure of full-thickness colonic defects.

METHODS

A feasibility study using ex vivo porcine colon was undertaken to explore the potential of the prototype stapler to close and seal a colotomy. A standardized linear colotomy was created in 30 colons. The novel flexible endostapler was used to close 20, interrupted hand-sewn sutures to close 5, and a well-validated linear stapler to close 5 of these colotomies. The colons were subsequently subjected to leak pressure testing.

RESULTS

The colotomy closure using the prototype stapler endoluminally required a median time of 280 s. No statistically significant difference in leak pressures between the stapler and the other techniques was described. Although the endostapler without any colotomy was found to have the highest median leak pressures and the interrupted sutures the lowest pressures, no significant difference could be demonstrated (p = 0.52). Furthermore, no significant difference was demonstrated when the closure integrity created by the flexible stapler was compared with that created by the well-validated linear stapler.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that the flexible endoscopic stapler is an effective device for the safe closure of a visceral defect, which in this feasibility study was equivalent to other well-established techniques. Further studies will focus on in vivo application of the prototype stapling device in the setting of full-thickness colonic resection.

Endoscopic colorectal imaging and therapy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Colorectal cancer screening and prevention is a pivotal element in every gastroenterologist practice. Recent advances in imaging technology and treatment opened the field for endoscopic management of large flat colorectal polyps and early cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

High-definition white light colonoscopy allowed for better characterization of colon polyps, particularly flat lesions. Chromoendoscopy facilitated the identification of colon polyps as well as better endoscopic polyp characterization, with strong correlation with final pathological diagnosis, opening the field of 'virtual' biopsy. One particular technology, confocal endomicroscopy can magnify an image approximately 1000 times resembling optical microscopy with very good correlation with histology. Endoscopic mucosal resection has gained great acceptance to manage flat colorectal polyps with the two major complications being bleeding and perforation, both now under 5% in experienced hands. Endoscopic submucosal resection was developed to increase en-bloc resection (less residual disease) of a flat colorectal lesion but one has to accept a higher perforation rate around 10%.

SUMMARY

Current technology allows for better polyp identification and characterization, which can be managed endoscopically.