Endoscopic submucosal resection with double ligation technique for treatment of small rectal carcinoid tumors

Double Band Ligation-Assisted Endoscopic Submucosal Resection for Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors: Comparison With Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection With Ligation (With Video)

INTRODUCTION

Based on endoscopic mucosal resection with ligation (EMR-L), we developed double band ligation-assisted endoscopic submucosal resection (ESR) for complete resection of small submucosal rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). Both procedures use a multiband device to perform resection, with the only difference being that ESR adds an additional band to obtain deeper resection margin. The aim of this retrospective study was to validate its feasibility, safety, and effectiveness compared with EMR-L.

METHODS

This retrospective study included consecutive patients with small (≤10 mm) suspected submucosal rectal NETs who underwent ESR (n = 45) or EMR-L (n = 26) between June 2018 and October 2023 at West China Hospital. En bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, procedure time, margin distance, and adverse events were compared between 2 groups.

RESULTS

En bloc resections were achieved in all patients. The complete resection rate of ESR was higher than EMR-L (100% vs 88.5%, P = 0.045). The vertical margin distance and lateral margin distance were significantly longer in ESR group than EMR-L group (vertical margin distance 782.31 ± 359.45 μm vs 363.84 ± 222.78 μm, P < 0.001; and lateral margin distance 4,205.75 ± 2,167.43 μm vs 3,162.94 ± 1,419.22 μm, P = 0.008, respectively). There were no significant differences in procedure time, adverse events, postprocedural hospital stay, or medical cost between 2 groups. In addition, there was no evidence of recurrence or metastasis during the follow-up.

DISCUSSION

ESR seems to be safe and effective for complete resection of small submucosal rectal NETs. Larger, multicenter, prospective studies are needed to further assess this technique.

Endoscopic mucosal resection using anchored snare Tip-in versus precut technique for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Small rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) can be treated with modified endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). However, an optimal EMR method remains to be established. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of Tip-in EMR versus precut EMR (EMR-P) for treating rectal NETs.

METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial enrolled patients with rectal NETs of < 10 mm in diameter. The patients were randomly assigned to EMR-P and Tip-in EMR groups in a 1:1 ratio. Primary outcome was margin-negative (R0) resection rate between the two methods, with a noninferiority margin of 10%.

RESULTS

Seventy-five NETs in 73 patients, including 64 eligible lesions (32 lesions in each, EMR-P and Tip-in EMR groups), were evaluated. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, R0 resection rates of the EMR-P and Tip-in EMR groups were 96.9% and 90.6%, respectively, which did not demonstrate non-inferiority (risk difference, -6.3 [95% confidence interval: -18.0 to 5.5]). Resection time in the EMR-P group was longer than that in the Tip-in EMR group (p < 0.001). One case of intraprocedural bleeding was reported in each group.

CONCLUSION

We did not demonstrate the non-inferiority of Tip-in EMR compared to EMR-P for treating small rectal NETs. However, the R0 resection rates for both techniques were high enough for clinical application.

Comparison of conventional and modified endoscopic mucosal resection methods for the treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors

BACKGROUND/AIM

Small rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) confined to the submucosa are endoscopically resectable. Because most rectal NETs are submucosal tumors, conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (cEMR) may not result in a complete resection. This study investigated whether modified EMRs, namely endoscopic submucosal resection with ligation (ESMR-L), EMR with precutting (EMR-P), and strip biopsy are superior to cEMR for achieving histologically complete resection (HCR) of rectal NETs.

METHODS

Medical records of 215 patients who were treated with endoscopic resections for rectal NETs between January 2011 and July 2019 were retrospectively enrolled. Of the patients, 110, 33, 29, and 43 underwent cEMR, ESMR-L, EMR-P, and strip biopsy, respectively. For each method, HCR and en bloc resection rates, procedure times, and complication rates were measured.

RESULTS

HCR was achieved with cEMR, EMR-P, ESMR-L, and strip biopsies for 74.5%, 90.9%, 93.1%, and 90.7% of cases, respectively. The HCR rate for cEMR was inferior to those of the modified EMRs (p = 0.045 for cEMR vs. EMR-P; p = 0.031 for cEMR vs. ESMR-L; p = 0.027 for cEMR vs. strip biopsy). Among the three modified EMRs, there was no significant difference in achieving HCR (p = 1.000). En bloc resection (p = 0.096) and complication rates (p = 0.071) were not significantly different among the four EMR methods, although EMR-P required the longest procedure time (p = 0.000).

CONCLUSIONS

All three modified EMRs are superior to cEMR and are equally effective for achieving HCR of rectal NETs.

Comparison of different endoscopic resection techniques for submucosal tumors originating from muscularis propria at the esophagogastric junction

Background

To compare the outcomes of submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) and submucosal excavation (ESE) for the treatment of submucosal tumors (SMTs) arising from the muscularis propria (MP) at the esophagogastric junction (EGJ).

Methods

A retrospective analysis of patients with SMTs at EGJ who underwent STER and ESE from October 2011 to October 2017 was performed. The outcomes evaluated were operation time, complete resection rate, adverse events, and tumor recurrence.

Results

Ninety patients were included in this study. Complete resection rates in the STER group were higher than those of the ESE group (100 vs. 92%, p < 0.05). For tumors ≤15 mm, both techniques achieved 100% complete resection rate; but for tumors > 15 mm, complete resection rate was higher in the STER group than the ESE group (100% vs. 77.8%, p < 0.05). Subgroup analyses revealed that the operation time of STER for in cardiac-gastric group was longer than that for ESE (145.14 ± 42.43 min vs. 70.32 ± 39.84 min, p <  0.05). The air leakage symptoms were more frequent in STER group (90.9% vs. 50.0%, p < 0.05). No tumor recurrence occurred in both the STER and ESE groups.

Conclusions

For SMTs ≤15 mm, both STER and ESE have similar satisfactory therapeutic outcomes. However, in the cardiac-gastric subgroup, STER had a longer operative time compared to the ESE procedure. For SMTs > 15 mm, STER is the preferred choice due to its higher complete resection rate.

Endoloop ligation after endoscopic mucosal resection using a transparent cap: A novel method to treat small rectal carcinoid tumors

BACKGROUND

Local endoscopic resection is an effective method for the treatment of small rectal carcinoid tumors, but remnant tumor at the margin after resection remains to be an issue.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of resection of small rectal carcinoid tumors by endoloop ligation after cap-endoscopic mucosal resection (LC-EMR) using a transparent cap.

METHODS

Thirty-four patients with rectal carcinoid tumors of less than 10 mm in diameter were treated by LC-EMR (n = 22) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) (n = 12) between January 2016 and December 2017. Demographic data, complete resection rates, pathologically complete resection rates, operation duration, and postoperative complications were collected. All cases were followed for 6 to 30 mo.

RESULTS

A total of 22 LC-EMR cases and 12 ESD cases were enrolled. The average age was 48.18 ± 12.31 and 46.17 ± 12.57 years old, and the tumor size was 7.23 ± 1.63 mm and 7.50 ± 1.38 mm, respectively, for the LC-EMR and ESD groups. Resection time in the ESD group was longer than that in the LC-EMR group (15.67 ± 2.15 min vs 5.91 ± 0.87 min; P < 0.001). All lesions were completely resected at one time. No perforation or delayed bleeding was observed in either group. Pathologically complete resection (P-CR) rate was 86.36% (19/22) and 91.67% (11/12) in the LC-EMR and ESD groups (P = 0.646), respectively. Two of the three cases with a positive margin in the LC-EMR group received transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and tumor cells were not identified in the postoperative specimens. The other case with a positive margin chose follow-up without further operation. One case with remnant tumor after ESD received further local ligation treatment. Neither local recurrence nor lymph node metastasis was found during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

LC-EMR appears to be an efficient and simple method for the treatment of small rectal carcinoid tumors, which can effectively avoid margin remnant tumors.

Usefulness of endoscopic resection using the band ligation method for rectal neuroendocrine tumors

Background/Aims

Rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are among the most common of gastrointestinal NETs. Due to recent advances in endoscopy, various methods of complete endoscopic resection have been introduced for small (≤10 mm) rectal NETs. However, there is a debate about the optimal treatment for rectal NETs. In our study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of endoscopic resection using pneumoband and elastic band (ER-BL) for rectal NETs smaller than 10 mm in diameter.

Methods

A total of 55 patients who were diagnosed with rectal NET from January 2004 to December 2011 at Gil Medical Center were analyzed retrospectively. Sixteen patients underwent ER-BL. For comparison, 39 patients underwent conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).

Results

There was a markedly lower deep margin positive rate for ER-BL than for conventional EMR (6% [1/16] vs. 46% [18/39], P=0.029). Four patients who underwent conventional EMR experienced perforation or bleeding. However, they recovered within a few days. On the other hand, patients whounderwent endoscopic resection using a pneumoband did not experience any complications. In multivariate analysis, ER-BL (P=0.021) was independently associated with complete resection.

Conclusions

ER-BL is an effective endoscopic treatment with regards to deep margin resection for rectal NET smaller than 10 mm.

Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection for tumors of the esophagogastric junction

BACKGROUND

For submucosal tumors (SMTs) originating from the muscularis propria (MP) layer of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ), submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) is now widely used, and it shows promise in overcoming the limitations of endoscopic submucosal dissection.

AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the STER technique for treating SMTs of the EGJ originating from the MP layer.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From October 2011 to February 2014, 20 patients were enrolled for STER surgery.

RESULTS

The patients were categorized into three groups according to the tumor location. The esophagocardiac group had a lower complication rate (0/7) compared with the cardiac group (3/6) and the gastrocardiac group (3/7). The mean operation time in the esophagocardiac (83 ± 24 min) and cardiac (83 ± 55 min) groups was significantly shorter than that of the gastrocardiac group (145 ± 44 min) (P < 0.05). The en bloc resection rate was 100%, with no severe complications and no recurrence during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

The STER technique appears to be a feasible and safe minimally invasive approach for SMTs originating from the MP layer of the EGJ, with satisfying en bloc resection, a short operation time, and low rates of severe complications.

Circumferential submucosal incision prior to endoscopic mucosal resection provides comparable clinical outcomes to submucosal dissection for well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors of the rectum

BACKGROUND

Small rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) can be treated with endoscopic resection. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been accepted as a reliable technique, but it is difficult. We evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of precut and endoscopic mucosal resection (CSI-EMR) for rectal NETs compared to ESD.

METHODS

Patients with rectal NETs were enrolled consecutively. ESD or CSI-EMR was performed at operator's discretion. Histological and clinical outcomes were measured and compared between the two treatment modalities.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients were enrolled in the study. Seventeen NETs were treated by the ESD method and 16 were treated by CSI-EMR. Both groups had similar mean tumor diameters (ESD 7.53 ± 1.94 vs. CSI-EMR 6.63 ± 1.99 mm; p = 0.197). En bloc resection was achieved in 100 % of ESD group and 87.5 % of CSI-EMR group. Lateral margin involvement occurred in one patient in ESD group and two in CSI-EMR group. The histologically complete resection rate was 88.2 % (15 of 17) in the ESD group and 81.2 % (13 of 16) in CSI-EMR group (p = 0.592). One case of perforation occurred in both groups. Delayed bleeding did not occur. None of the measured outcomes were different between the two groups. Operating time was significant shorter in CSI-EMR group than in ESD group (9.69 vs. 20.12 min, respectively; p value = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

CSI-EMR results in reliable clinical outcomes for small rectal NETs comparable to those of ESD. CSI-EMR is technically feasible and more time saving.

Endoscopic resection yields reliable outcomes for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors

BACKGROUND AND AIM

We analyzed the characteristics of gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors and examined the outcomes and safety of modalities in rectal neuroendocrine tumors.

METHODS

Between 2007 and 2011, a total of 91 patients with gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors were retrospectively reviewed in terms of the characteristics of tumors.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients had rectal neuroendocrine tumors and underwent endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR, n = 29), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD, n = 23), or transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM, n = 14). The complete resection rate was higher in the ESD group (82.7%) and in the TEM group (100%) compared to the EMR group (65.5%) (P < 0.046). The complication rate was higher in the ESD group (47.8%) than in the EMR group (18.5%) (P = 0.003). No local tumor recurrence was observed in all patients, regardless of the procedure, during the median follow-up period of 21.5 ± 13.5 months.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD achieved a higher complete resection rate than EMR and comparable to TEM. Tumor recurrence was not observed in the endoscopic resection and TEM groups, regardless of the completeness of resection. Small neuroendocrine tumors of the gastrointestinal tract can be managed reliably with both endoscopic resection and TEM.

Which endoscopic treatment is the best for small rectal carcinoid tumors?

The incidence of rectal carcinoids is rising because of the widespread use of screening colonoscopy. Rectal carcinoids detected incidentally are usually in earlier stages at diagnosis. Rectal carcinoids estimated endoscopically as < 10 mm in diameter without atypical features and confined to the submucosal layer can be removed endoscopically. Here, we review the efficacy and safety of various endoscopic treatments for small rectal carcinoid tumors, including conventional polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), cap-assisted EMR (or aspiration lumpectomy), endoscopic submucosal resection with ligating device, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and transanal endoscopic microsurgery. It is necessary to carefully choose an effective and safe primary resection method for complete histological resection.

Usefulness of endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of rectal carcinoid tumors

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Various techniques of endoscopy have been developed to treat rectal carcinoids. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of rectal carcinoids smaller than 10 mm in diameter.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 18 consecutive patients were enrolled with 20 carcinoid tumors that had the following characteristics: the diagnosis of a rectal carcinoid smaller than 10 mm, no endoscopic evidence of muscularis propria invasion, and no evidence of lymph node or distant metastasis (11 men and seven women; median age, 69 years; median tumor size, 4 mm). Tumors were resected by endoscopic submucosal dissection with a needle knife and a hook knife. After marking, a one-third to one-half circumferential mucosal incision was made, and subsequently, the submucosa under the lesion was exfoliated. After the submucosa under the tumor was exfoliated, the residual mucosa was incised and the tumor was removed. Complete resection, complication rates, and operation time were evaluated.

RESULTS

Complete resection was achieved in all cases (100%) without complications. The mean operation time was 34.2 min, which was acceptable in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic submucosal dissection with the strategy described above is feasible and efficacious for selected patients with a rectal carcinoid smaller than 10 mm.

Endoscopic resection for rectal carcinoid tumors: comparison of polypectomy and endoscopic submucosal resection with band ligation

Background/Aims

Rectal carcinoid tumors, at diagnosis, are as small as 10 mm or less in about 80% of patients. These tumors are generally removed by endoscopic resection. The aim of this study was to compare treatment efficacy and safety between endoscopic submucosal resection with band ligation (ESMR-L) and conventional polypectomy.

Methods

Between January 2005 and September 2010, a total of 88 patients, who visited at Busan Paik Hospital and Kosin University Gospel Hospital for endoscopic resection of rectal carcinoid, were reviewed, retrospectively.

Results

Thirty-three cases were treated by ESMR-L, and 55 cases by conventional polypectomy. There were no significant difference in the size of tumor between ESMR-L group and polypectomy group (6.02±2.36 vs. 6.49±3.24 mm, p=0.474). The rate of positive resection margin was significantly lower in ESMR-L group (2/33, 6.1%) than in polypectomy group (19/55, 34.5%; p=0.002). The rate of positive vertical resection margin, among others, was markedly lower in ESMR-L group (1/33, 3.0%) compared to polypectomy group (19/55, 34.5%; p<0.001).

Conclusions

ESMR-L, rather than conventional polypectomy, is a useful treatment option for removal of rectal carcinoid tumors less than 10 mm in diameter.

Advantages of endoscopic submucosal dissection with needle-knife over endoscopic mucosal resection for small rectal carcinoid tumors: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a new, widely accepted method for the treatment of early gastric cancer and was developed to increase the en bloc resection rate. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ESD compared with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for small rectal carcinoid tumors.

METHODS

A retrospective study was carried out that included 43 patients with small rectal carcinoid tumors (< 10 mm). The cohort comprised two groups: Group A (N = 23) underwent conventional EMR from January 2004 to August 2005, while group B (N = 20) underwent ESD with needle-knife from September 2005 to December 2006. The rate of curative en bloc resection, the procedure time, and the incidence of complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

The en bloc resection rate and the rate of completeness of resection of group B were higher than those of group A (100 vs. 87%, 100 vs. 52.5%, respectively). The average operation time required for resection was significantly longer in group B (28.4 ± 17.2 min) compared with group A (12.3 ± 15.4 min) (p < 0.05). None of the patients had immediate or delayed bleeding during the procedure. Perforation occurred in one case of group B and the patient recovered after several days of conservative treatment. Three patients had local recurrence after EMR, while no patient experienced recurrence after ESD.

CONCLUSION

ESD, compared with conventional EMR, increased en bloc and histologically complete resection rates and may reduce local recurrence rate for small rectal carcinoid tumors. Increased operation time and complication risks with ESD remain problematic. Further technique and investigation are required to confirm the safety and to assess the long-term prognosis of ESD.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal carcinoid tumors

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has an advantage over endoscopic mucosa resection (EMR) by enabling removal of gastrointestinal neoplasms en bloc. The ESD procedure is the treatment of choice for rectal carcinoids that have classic histologic architecture with minimal cellular pleomorphism and sparse mitoses, but it has not been applied for such tumors.

METHODS

The ESD procedure was performed for patients with colorectal tumors that fulfilled the inclusion criteria specifying tumor with a diameter of 10 mm or less, no muscular layer invasion, and no metastases to the lymph nodes or distal organs. The ESD procedure was performed for patients with rectal carcinoids but no node or distal metastasis.

RESULTS

This study enrolled 20 rectal carcinoid tumors from 20 consecutive patients. The mean tumor size was 7.6 mm (range, 3-16 mm). En bloc removal was achieved for all the tumors, and the complete resection (en bloc with tumor-free lateral/basal margins) rate was 90% (18/20). The two cases in which the margins were not evaluable due to burn effects still are free of recurrence and metastasis at this writing. Perforation was seen in one case, which was managed nonsurgically.

CONCLUSIONS

Precise histolopathogic assessment of the specimens resected en bloc by ESD may reduce tumor recurrence and metastasis after ESD. As the treatment of choice for small rectal carcinoids, ESD is associated with nominal risks of metastatic disease.

Selection of cap size in endoscopic submucosal resection with cap aspiration for rectal carcinoid tumors

BACKGROUND

Small rectal carcinoid tumors (<or=1 cm in diameter) can be treated by endoscopic resection, but complete resection may be difficult if tumors are located in the deep submucosal layer. This study was performed to identify the clinicopathologic factors affecting the complete resection of small rectal carcinoid tumors, using the endoscopic submucosal resection with cap aspiration technique (ESMR-C).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-one consecutive patients with 42 rectal carcinoid tumors who underwent ESMR-C from October 2003 to November 2006 were assessed. Complete resection was defined as a clean margin that was free of tumor invasion at the lateral and inferior edges.

RESULTS

The rate of complete tumor removal by ESMR-C was 85.7% and no complications occurred. The tumor size, location, and method of resection did not significantly affect the completeness of resection. Univariate analysis showed that the rate of complete resection was significantly higher when using 19.2-mm, compared with 13.9-mm, caps (96.0 vs. 70.6%; P = 0.032). Multivariate analysis showed that the cap size was an independent factor predicting the completeness of resection.

CONCLUSION

The use of large-sized caps increases the completeness of the resection of rectal carcinoid tumors when using ESMR-C.

Successful outcomes of EMR-L with 3D-EUS for rectal carcinoids compared with historical controls

AIM: To assess the results of endoscopic mucosal resection with a ligation device (EMR-L) combined with three dimensional endoscopic ultrasonography (3D-EUS) using an ultrasonic probe for rectal carcinoids. In addition, diagnosis of the depth and size of lesions by EUS was evaluated.

METHODS: Between January 2003 and March 2007, 20 patients underwent EMR-L with 3D-EUS using an ultrasonic probe (group A). 3D-EUS was combined with EMR-L at the time of injection of sterile physiological saline into the submucosal layer. For comparison, 14 rectal carcinoids that had been treated by EMR-L without 3D-EUS between April 1998 and December 2002 were evaluated as historical controls (group B). EUS was conducted for all of the patients before treatment to evaluate tumor diameter and depth of invasion. The percentage of complete resection and the vertical resection margin were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: The depth of invasion upon histopathological examination was in complete agreement with the pre-operative findings by EUS. The tumor diameter determined by EUS approximated that found in the tissue samples. There were no significant differences in the gender, tumor sites or tumor diameters between the two groups. The rate of complete resection for groups A and B was 100% and 71%, respectively (P < 0.05). The vertical resection margin of group A was longer than that of group B.

CONCLUSION: EMR-L is effective as an endoscopic treatment for rectal carcinoids. In combination with 3D-EUS, safe and complete resection is further assured.

State of the art on endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) provide new alternatives for minimally invasive treatment of superficial gastrointestinal malignancies. Evidence suggests that these techniques can be performed safely and have comparable outcomes to surgery with less morbidity and better quality of life due to their tissue-sparing nature when compared with conventional surgery. Although the techniques and accessories have become standardized, there is room for improvement, and further research and development are required. Current challenges facing American gastroenterologists or endoscopic surgeons include access to training and lack of appropriate reimbursement for these heavy-weighted and technically demanding procedures. Nevertheless, EMR and ESD are here to stay and are only the first steps toward true radical endoluminal resection of GI malignancies.