Endoluminal resection for sessile neoplasia in the GI tract is associated with a low recurrence rate and a high 5-year survival rate

Effects of endoscopic therapy and surgical resection on long-term survival outcomes in patients with duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a surveillance, epidemiology, and end result program analysis

BACKGROUND

With the rapid development of endoscopic technology, endoscopic therapy (ET) has gradually become a new treatment choice for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). However, due to the low incidence of duodenal GIST and the difficulty of ET, there is a lack of data to compare the long-term results of ET and surgical resection.

METHODS

Duodenal GIST patients from 2004 to 2015 were selected from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end result (SEER) database. We used the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test to describe the 5- and 10-year survival differences between the ET and the surgery groups. The multivariate Cox proportional hazard model was used for analyzing the risk factors influencing the prognosis of patients. We used a 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) to reduce confounding factors, and then we compared survival differences between the two groups again.

RESULTS

A total of 294 patients with duodenal GIST were enrolled, including 41 (13.9%) patients with ET and 253 (86.1%) patients with surgical resection. Before PSM, the long-term survival of patients with duodenal GIST after ET and surgical resection was similar [5-year overall survival (OS) (79.7 vs. 79.3%, p = 0.876), 10-year OS (66.5 vs. 68.1%, p = 0.876)]. After adjusting the relevant variables using multivariate Cox analysis, we found that the ET and surgery groups were comparable in OS and cancer-specific survival (CSS). After PSM, there was also no significant difference between ET and surgical resection for long-term OS and CSS.

CONCLUSION

Our study found no significant difference in long-term survival between ET and surgical resection in patients with duodenal GIST. However, to obtain high-quality evidence, more extensive sample size studies are needed in the future to evaluate the long-term effects of ET on patients.

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection is associated with fewer recurrences and earlier curative resections compared to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND

Studies comparing the efficacy and safety of conventional saline-assisted piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to underwater EMR (UEMR) without submucosal lifting of colorectal polyps are lacking. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of EMR to UEMR of large colorectal polyps.

METHODS

Two hundred eighty-nine colorectal polyps were removed by a single endoscopist from 7/2007 to 2/2015 using EMR or UEMR. 135 polyps (EMR: 62, UEMR: 73) that measured ≥15 mm and had not undergone prior attempted polypectomy were evaluated for rates of complete macroscopic resection and adverse events. 101 of these polyps (EMR: 46, UEMR: 55) had at least 1 follow-up colonoscopy and were studied for rates of recurrence and the number of procedures required to achieve curative resection.

RESULTS

The rate of complete macroscopic resection was higher following UEMR compared to EMR (98.6 vs. 87.1%, p = 0.012). UEMR had a lower recurrence rate at the first follow-up colonoscopy compared to EMR (7.3 vs. 28.3%, OR 5.0 for post-EMR recurrence, 95% CI: [1.5, 16.5], p = 0.008). UEMR required fewer procedures to reach curative resection than EMR (mean of 1.0 vs. 1.3, p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in rates of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

UEMR appears superior to EMR for the removal of large colorectal polyps in terms of rates of complete macroscopic resection and recurrent (or residual) abnormal tissue. Compared to conventional EMR, UEMR may offer increased procedural effectiveness without compromising safety in the removal of large colorectal polyps without prior attempted resection.

Endoscopic mucosal resection: learning curve for large nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasia

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal EMR for nonpolypoid neoplasia achieves better outcomes when performed by expert endoscopists. The time point at which the endoscopist achieves expert level remains to be defined. The objective of this study was to establish a learning curve of colorectal EMR for nonpolypoid neoplasia based on residual tissue on surveillance colonoscopy and adverse event rate.

METHODS

Five hundred seventy-eight consecutive patients underwent EMR of colorectal neoplasia by 1 of 3 primary endoscopists between December 2004 and September 2013 in a tertiary academic center. Primary analyses focused on the largest lesion for patients with more than 1 lesion (median age, 69 years; median polyp size, 30 mm; 51% en bloc resection). Data on surveillance colonoscopy were available for 74%. Learning curves were calculated for each of the 3 main outcome measurements: the presence of residual neoplasia on surveillance colonoscopy, endoscopic assessment of incomplete EMR, and the occurrence of an immediate bleeding adverse event.

RESULTS

Residual neoplasia on surveillance colonoscopy was present for 23.2% of patients, the rate of endoscopist-assessed incomplete EMR was 27.6%, and immediate bleeding adverse events occurred in 6.9% of patients. Although there was between-endoscopist variability, the overall rates of residual neoplasia and incomplete EMR decreased to below 20% to 25% after 100 EMRs; initial decreases in both rates were observed for earlier EMRs. Immediate bleeding adverse events occurred at a low frequency for each endoscopist across all EMRs. Perforation requiring surgical intervention occurred in 1 patient (0.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that an unexpectedly high number of 100 colorectal EMR procedures for large nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasia are required to achieve a plateau phase for crucial outcomes.

Endoluminal Therapy in Colorectal Cancer

Appropriate endoscopic resection for colorectal polyps can present a challenge to endoscopists, as these lesions may harbor malignancy. With recent advances in endoscopy, however, we are now entering an exciting frontier of endoscopic therapy for gastrointestinal lesions. These techniques include endoluminal mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection, which may be utilized on several colonic lesions. This article will discuss these principle endoscopic techniques, their outcomes, and briefly highlight their influence on endoscopic interventions, including transanal endoscopic microsurgery and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery.

Management of colorectal T1 carcinoma treated by endoscopic resection from the Western perspective

Detection of early colorectal cancer is expected to rise in light of national colorectal cancer screening programs. This The present review article delineates current endoscopic risk assessments, differentiating invasive from non-invasive neoplasia, for high likelihood of lymph node metastasis in early colorectal cancer, also termed high-risk early colorectal cancer, and endoscopic and surgical resection methods from a Western hemisphere perspective.

Approach to the endoscopic resection of duodenal lesions

Duodenal polyps or lesions are uncommonly found on upper endoscopy. Duodenal lesions can be categorized as subepithelial or mucosally-based, and the type of lesion often dictates the work-up and possible therapeutic options. Subepithelial lesions that can arise in the duodenum include lipomas, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, and carcinoids. Endoscopic ultrasonography with fine needle aspiration is useful in the characterization and diagnosis of subepithelial lesions. Duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors and large or multifocal carcinoids are best managed by surgical resection. Brunner's gland tumors, solitary Peutz-Jeghers polyps, and non-ampullary and ampullary adenomas are mucosally-based duodenal lesions, which can require removal and are typically amenable to endoscopic resection. Several anatomic characteristics of the duodenum make endoscopic resection of duodenal lesions challenging. However, advanced endoscopic techniques exist that enable the resection of large mucosally-based duodenal lesions. Endoscopic papillectomy is not without risk, but this procedure can effectively resect ampullary adenomas and allows patients to avoid surgery, which typically involves pancreaticoduodenectomy. Endoscopic mucosal resection and its variations (such as cap-assisted, cap-band-assisted, and underwater techniques) enable the safe and effective resection of most duodenal adenomas. Endoscopic submucosal dissection is possible but very difficult to safely perform in the duodenum.

Underwater colorectal EMR: remodeling endoscopic mucosal resection

BACKGROUND

Underwater EMR (UEMR) has been reported as a new technique for the removal of large sessile colorectal polyps without need for submucosal injection.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate (1) outcomes of UEMR, (2) whether UEMR can be easily performed by an endoscopist skilled in traditional EMR without specific dedicated training in UEMR, and (3) whether EUS is required before UEMR.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational study.

SETTING

Single, tertiary-care referral center.

INTERVENTION

Underwater EMR.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Complete resection and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 72 consecutive patients underwent UEMR of 81 sessile colorectal polyps. EUS was performed before UEMR in 9 cases (11.1%) with a suspicious mucosal/vascular pattern. The mean polyp size was 18.7 mm (range 10-50 mm); the mean UEMR time was 11.8 minutes. Fifty-five polyps (68%) were removed en bloc, and 26 (32%) were removed with a piecemeal technique. Histopathology consisted of tubular adenomas (25.9%), tubulovillous adenomas (5%), adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (42%), serrated polyps (4.9%), carcinoma in situ (13.6%), and hyperplastic polyps (8.6%). Surveillance colonoscopy was scheduled at 3 months. Complete resection was successful in all patients. No adverse events or recurrence was recorded in any of the patients.

LIMITATIONS

Limited follow-up; single-center, uncontrolled study.

CONCLUSION

Interventional endoscopists skilled in conventional EMR performed UEMR without specific dedicated training. EUS may not be required for lesions with no invasive features on high-definition narrow-band imaging. UEMR appears to be an effective and safe alternative to traditional EMR and could eventually improve the way in which we can effectively and safely treat colorectal lesions.

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of colorectal neoplasia is easily learned, efficacious, and safe

BACKGROUND

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) without submucosal injection is a novel endoscopic procedure. It is not known if UEMR can be easily taught and learned, and the efficacy and safety of UEMR has not been demonstrated at multiple medical centers. Our aims were to demonstrate that (1) UEMR is a technique that can be easily learned by an endoscopist trained in traditional EMR, (2) endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) may not be required before UEMR, and (3) UEMR is an efficacious and safe method for resection of large or flat neoplastic colorectal lesions.

METHODS

An experienced interventional endoscopist began performing UEMR after observing UEMR procedures. Colorectal UEMR was performed using a pediatric colonoscope with a cap, a waterjet, and a ‘duck-bill’ snare using blended current. Submucosal injection was not used. Patient data were collected prospectively.

RESULTS

A total of 21 patients (17 men, mean age 64.9 years, range 51-83) referred for polypectomy of large colorectal lesions underwent UEMR. A total of 43 colorectal lesions with a mean size of 20 mm (range 8-50) were resected by UEMR. Lesions were found in the right colon (N = 16), transverse colon (N = 5), left colon (N = 19), and rectum (N = 3). Pathology demonstrated tubular adenoma (N = 29), tubulovillous adenoma (N = 5), high-grade dysplasia (N = 3), serrated sessile adenoma without dysplasia (N = 3), and non-neoplastic tissue (N = 3). EUS was used in only two cases of rectal neoplasia (4.7 %). Of the UEMRs, 97.7 % were successful with complete resection of colorectal polyps. The only adverse event was one case (2.3 %) of delayed post-UEMR bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

UEMR was easily learned by an endoscopist already skilled in conventional EMR. EUS may not be required prior to most UEMR procedures. UEMR appears to be an efficacious and safe alternative to traditional EMR or ESD for large or flat colorectal neoplasms.

Videoendoscopic surgery for the treatment of esophagus' leiomyoma

INTRODUCTION

Leiomyomas are the commonest benign esophageal neoplasms. Surgical treatment is the therapy of choice for such tumors. Open enucleation via thoracotomy has long been the standard procedure. With the emergence of thoracoscopic and laparoscopic approaches, minimally invasive surgery represent interesting alternatives to open surgical procedures.

AIM

To propose endoscopic technique for the treatment of these myomas avoiding thoracotomy.

TECHNIQUE

Enucleation of leiomyoma by: A) thoracoscopy, for thoracic esophageal tumors, or B) laparoscopy to the ones located in abdominal esophagus. A) The operations are performed under general anesthesia with selective intubation of the left lung. Patients are placed in the left lateral decubitus position and mild dorsiflexion. Four work trocars are used, two of 11 mm and two of 5 mm. One of the 11 mm is put in the 6(th) intercostal space in the posterior axillary line to use the 30° endoscope; another, at the same hemi-clavicular line, to take the lung away off surgical site. Other two trocars of 5 mm are installed for working tools of the surgeon, one in the 4(th) space in the posterior axillary line, and another in the 7(th), also in the posterior axillary line. Operations are always initiated by opening the mediastinal pleura, dissection of the tumor with opening the muscle of the esophageal wall, simple enucleation of the tumor and closure of esophageal parietal muscular layer. B) The interventions are done with patients undergoing general anesthesia and placed in the French position. The approach is the same performed to correct the hiatal hernia, and enucleation is done without difficulty.

CONCLUSION

Videosurgery for leiomyomas resection is safe and feasible and provides results similar to open procedure, but with a significant reduction in morbidity.