Efficacy and safety of endoscopic full-thickness resection in the colon and rectum using an over-the-scope device: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2021;35:249-259. [PMID: 31953724 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-020-07387-w]

Device-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection in colorectum: Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is emerging as an effective modality for mucosal and submucosal lesions in the colorectum. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to analyze the success and safety of device-assisted EFTR in the colon and rectum.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in the Embase, PubMed, and Medline databases for studies evaluating device-assisted EFTR between inception to October 2022. The primary outcome of the study was clinical success (R0 resection) with EFTR. Secondary outcomes included technical success, procedure duration, and adverse events.

RESULTS

In all, 29 studies with 3467 patients (59% male patients, 3492 lesions) were included in the analysis. The lesions were located in right colon (47.5%), left colon (28.6%), and rectum (24.3%). EFTR was performed for subepithelial lesions in 7.2% patients. The pooled mean size of the lesions was 16.6 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.9-18.2, I2 98%). Technical success was achieved in 87.1% (95% CI 85.1-88.9%, I2 39%) procedures. The pooled rate of en bloc resection was 88.1% (95% CI 86-90%, I2 47%) and R0 resection was 81.8% (95% CI 79-84.3%, I2 56%). In subepithelial lesions, the pooled rate of R0 resection was 94.3% (95% CI 89.7-96.9%, I2 0%). The pooled rate of adverse events was 11.9% (95% CI 10.2-13.9%, I2 43%) and major adverse events requiring surgery was 2.5% (95% CI 2.0-3.1%, I2 0%).

CONCLUSION

Device-assisted EFTR is a safe and effective treatment modality in cases with adenomatous and subepithelial colorectal lesions. Comparative studies are required with conventional resection techniques, including endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection.

Management after non-curative endoscopic resection of T1 rectal cancer

Since the introduction of population-based screening, increasing numbers of T1 rectal cancers are detected and removed by local endoscopic resection. Patients can be cured with endoscopic resection alone, but there is a possibility of residual tumor cells remaining after the initial resection. These can be located intraluminally at the resection site or extraluminally in the form of (lymph node) metastases. To decrease the risk of residual cells progressing towards more advanced disease, additional treatment is usually needed. However, with the currently available risk stratification models, it remains challenging to determine who should and should not be further treated after non-curative endoscopic resection. In this review, the different management strategies for patients with non-curatively treated T1 rectal cancers are discussed, along with the available evidence for each strategy and relevant considerations for clinical decision making. Furthermore, we provide practical guidance on the management and surveillance following non-curative endoscopic resection of T1 rectal cancer.

Outcomes of endoscopic full thickness resection in the colon rectum at an Italian tertiary center

PURPOSE

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is an innovative technique for the treatment of colonic lesions not feasible by conventional endoscopic resection. Here, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a Full-Thickness Resection Device (FTRD) for colonic lesions in a high-volume tertiary referral center.

METHODS

A review of a prospectively collected database on patients that underwent EFTR with FTRD for colonic lesions from June 2016 to January 2021 at our institution was performed. Data regarding the clinical history, previous endoscopic treatments, pathological examination, technical and histological success, and follow-up were evaluated.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients (26 males, median age 69 years) underwent FTRD for colonic lesion. Eighteen lesions were in the left colon, three in the transverse, and 12 in the right colon. The median size of the lesions was 13 (range 10-40) mm. Resection was technically successful in 94% of patients. The mean hospital stay was 3.2 (SD ± 1.2) days. Adverse events were reported in four cases (11.4%). Histological complete resection (R0) was achieved in 93.9% of cases. Endoscopic follow-up was available in 96.8% of patients, at a median duration of 14.6 months (3-46 months). Recurrence was observed in 19.4% of cases at a median time of 3 months (3-7 months). Five patients had multiple FTRD performed, with R0 resection in three cases. In this subset, adverse events were observed in 40% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

FTRD is safe and feasible for standard indication. The non-negligible rate of recurrence observed suggests the need for close endoscopic follow-up in these patients. Multiple EFTR could help achieve complete resection in selected cases; however, in this setting, a higher risk of adverse events was observed.

Use of endoscopic submucosal dissection or full-thickness resection device to treat residual colorectal neoplasia after endoscopic resection: a multicenter historical cohort study

INTRODUCTION : Residual colorectal neoplasia (RCN) after previous endoscopic mucosal resection is a frequent challenge. Different management techniques are feasible including endoscopic full-thickness resection using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) system and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of these two techniques for the treatment of such lesions. METHODS : All consecutive patients with RCN treated either using the FTRD or by ESD were retrospectively included in this multicenter study. The primary outcome was the R0 resection rate, defined as an en bloc resection with histologically tumor-free lateral and deep margins. RESULTS : 275 patients (median age 70 years; 160 men) who underwent 177 ESD and 98 FTRD procedures for RCN were included. R0 resection was achieved in 83.3 % and 77.6 % for ESD and FTRD, respectively (P = 0.25). Lesions treated by ESD were however larger than those treated by FTRD (P < 0.001). The R0 rates for lesions of 20-30 mm were 83.9 % and 57.1 % in the ESD and FTRD groups, respectively, and for lesions of 30-40 mm were 93.6 % and 33.3 %, respectively. On multivariable analysis, ESD procedures were associated with statistically higher en bloc and R0 resection rates after adjustment for lesion size (P = 0.02 and P < 0.001, respectively). The adverse event rate was higher in the ESD group (16.3 % vs. 5.1 %), mostly owing to intraoperative perforations. CONCLUSION:  ESD is effective in achieving R0 resection for RCN whatever the size and location of the lesions. When residual lesions are smaller than 20 mm, the FTRD is an effective alternative.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection, indication, methods and perspectives

Minimally invasive surgery has emerged as the dominant theme of modern surgery, in which endoscopic surgery plays a key role. The technique of endoscopic surgery has evolved continuously with extensive research, improving the treatment modalities as well as expanding the indications for its use. As an active perforation endoscopic technique, endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is mainly used in the treatment of submucosal tumors (SMTs) of the gastrointestinal tract. With decades of evolution, EFTR has gradually developed into a mature endoscopic operation. Based on clinical experience and current research, indications, techniques, clinical outcomes and future perspectives for EFTR are discussed in this paper. We performed a bibliometric study on EFTR literature and showed robust data through a brief meta-analysis on the topic.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection for upper gastrointestinal tract lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is used to resect difficult superficial mucosal lesions and sub-epithelial lesions (SELs). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EFTR for upper gastrointestinal tract (GIT) lesions.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Scopus databases for studies published in the English language that addressed outcomes of EFTR for upper GIT lesions through November 2021. The weighted pooled rates with the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Cochran Q test and I statistics were used to calculate heterogeneity.

RESULTS

We identify 740 articles on the initial search and six studies met the inclusion criteria. 140 patients (45.7% females) with 142 lesions were analyzed. Four studies used the full-thickness resection device (FTRD®). EFTR was performed for 26 adenomas, 97 SELs, six adenocarcinomas, and ten full-thickness biopsies. The overall technical success rate was 86.9% (CI 79.8-94%, I 2 = 38.9%), R0 resection was 80% (CI 67.6-92.3%, I 2 = 75.6%), and the overall adverse events rate was 18.6% (9.8-27.2%, I 2 = 49.4%). Major adverse events included six episodes of major bleeding, three micro-perforations, one large duodenal perforation, and one case of mucosal damage from FTRD®. At 3-6 months follow-up, there were only two cases of recurrence (R0 was not achieved in both).

CONCLUSION

EFTR has a high technical and clinical success rate in managing upper GIT lesions with an acceptable safety profile. Large prospective studies comparing EFTR with conventional endoscopic resection techniques are needed.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) in colon and rectum: indications and outcomes in the first 37 cases in a single center

BACKGROUND

Segmental resection of the colon or rectum for cancer is major surgery with substantial procedure-related morbidity and mortality. A steep increase in the frequency of early cancer and advanced adenoma detection has been evident these late years. Introducing more minimal invasive resection techniques may decrease procedure-related complications and mortality. We aimed to describe the results from introducing endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) in a unit specialized in advanced endoscopic resection of colon neoplasias. Primary outcomes were R0 resection rate and complications.

METHODS

endoscopic full-thickness resection was introduced in our unit in 2017. Patients were referred for eFTR based on indications: (i) completion of resection after unexpected cancer, (ii) suspicion of or clinically confirmed early cancer (T1) without signs of dissemination, or (iii) adenomas not suitable for other endoscopic resection techniques due to difficult position or recurrence. Data on eFTR procedures and follow-up were retrieved from patient journals.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven eFTR procedures were commenced in the period of March 2017 until June 2020, and one of these was abandoned. The overall R0 resection rate was 83.3%. In subgroups of indications i-iii, it was 87.5, 80.0, and 80.0%, respectively. Three perforations and one case of late bleeding occurred. One patient died within 30 days due to late perforation. Six technical failures were evident including operator-induced failures. Five of the technical failures occurred in the first half of the procedures indicating the learning curve of the endoscopist.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of the eFTR procedure has been largely successful, especially in patients referred for completion of resection after unexpected cancer. Complication rates were acceptable, and the technique and quality increased significantly during the study. Careful selection of patients for eFTR is crucial for achieving successful resection. Size and position of lesion seem more important than indication. eFTR is not effective for lesions > 30 mm.

Safety and efficacy of over-the-scope clips versus standard therapy for high-risk nonvariceal upper GI bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Upper GI bleeding (UGIB) is a common condition associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic hemostasis remains the mainstay of therapy and is mainly aimed at effective hemostasis and prevention of rebleeding. Lesions with high-risk stigmata can have rebleeding rates of as high as 26.3%. Rebleeding is associated with increased mortality and reduced success rates of endoscopic retreatment. The over-the-scope-clip (OTSC) is a device with widespread endoscopic indications including hemostasis for nonvariceal UGIB (NVUGIB). The current study presents a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing OTSCs versus standard therapy (STD) for NVUGIB.

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched through April 2022 for studies comparing OTSCs and STD for NVUGIBs. Primary outcomes were clinical success rates, rebleeding rates, and procedure times, and secondary outcomes were mortality rates and length of hospitalization. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled odds ratios to compare outcomes between the OTSC and STD groups.

RESULTS

Ten studies, including 4 randomized controlled trials, with 914 patients were included in the final analysis. Of patients with NVUGIB, 431 were treated with OTSCs and 483 with STD. Patients treated with OTSCs had an overall lower risk of 7-day (risk ratio [RR], .41; 95% confidence interval [CI], .24-.68; I2 = 0%) and 30-day rebleeding (RR, .46; 95% CI, .31-.65; I2 = 0%). Clinical success rates were higher with OTSCs compared with STD (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.06-1.75). Mean procedure time was shorter in the OTSC group by 6.62 minutes (95% CI, 2.58-10.67) versus the STD group (I2 = 84%). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of mortality between the OTSC and STD groups (RR, .55; 95% CI, .24-1.24; I2 = 0%). Length of hospitalization was comparable between both groups, with a pooled mean difference for OTSCs versus STD of .87 days (95% CI, -1.62 to 3.36 days; I2 = 71%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although our study was limited to high-risk NVUGIB, our analysis showed that hemostasis with OTSCs is associated with a lower 7-day and 30-day rebleeding rates, higher clinical success rates, and shorter procedure time with similar mortality rates and length of hospital stay as compared with STD.

Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection for Colorectal Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) with an over-the-scope full-thickness resection device is a relatively new technique for the resection of colorectal lesions. Multiple centers have published the results of case series and observational cohorts regarding the use of this technique for managing difficult polyps. This study aims to aggregate the results of these studies to determine the effectiveness and safety of this technique in the resection of these technically challenging colonic lesions.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched. Articles were included if they reported technical success rate for EFTR of colonic lesions. The primary outcome was technical success rate and secondary outcomes included rate of R0 resection and overall 30-d morbidity. DerSimonian and Laird random-effects meta-analysis of proportions was used to generate effect sizes for pooled outcomes.

RESULTS

From 2211 citations, 21 studies with 1539 patients (mean age 67.2 y, 39.5% female) undergoing 1551 procedures were included. Difficult to resect benign lesions were the most commonly excised lesions (hyperplastic: 35.9%; adenomas: 30.2%), followed by T1 adenocarcinomas (25.6%) and neuroendocrine tumors (6.1%). Technical success rate was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI] 87-92), and R0 resection rate was 79% (95% CI 76-82). Mean procedure time was 53.5 min and mean specimen size was 17.5 mm. Overall 30-d morbidity was 11% (95% CI 7-13), and incidences of perforation and postpolypectomy bleeding were 2% (95% CI 1-2) and 5% (95% CI 3-7), respectively. Lesion recurrence at 3-mo follow-up was 8%.

CONCLUSIONS

EFTR requires further large sample size, comparative studies with reporting of long-term oncologic data. However, preliminary findings indicate that it is a safe and effective technique with high rates of technical success and acceptable rates of R0 resection when employed by experienced endoscopists for high-risk colonic lesions.

From advanced diagnosis to advanced resection in early neoplastic colorectal lesions: Never-ending and trending topics in the 2020s

Colonoscopy represents the most widespread and effective tool for the prevention and treatment of early stage preneoplastic and neoplastic lesions in the panorama of cancer screening. In the world there are different approaches to the topic of colorectal cancer prevention and screening: different starting ages (45-50 years); different initial screening tools such as fecal occult blood with immunohistochemical or immune-enzymatic tests; recto-sigmoidoscopy; and colonoscopy. The key aspects of this scenario are composed of a proper bowel preparation that ensures a valid diagnostic examination, experienced endoscopist in detection of preneoplastic and early neoplastic lesions and open-minded to upcoming artificial intelligence-aided examination, knowledge in the field of resection of these lesions (from cold-snaring, through endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection, up to advanced tools), and management of complications.

Colon Sparing Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection for Advanced Colorectal Lesions: Is It Time for Global Adoption?

The majority of colon lesions are <10 mm in size and are easily resected by endoscopists with appropriate basic training. Lesions ≥10 mm in size are difficult to remove technically and are associated with higher rates of incomplete resection. Currently, the main endoscopic approaches include endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for lesions without submucosal invasion, and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for relatively larger lesions involving the superficial submucosal layer. Both of these approaches have limitations, EMR cannot reliably ensure complete resection for larger tumors and recurrence is a key limitation. ESD reliably provides complete resection and an accurate pathological diagnosis but is associated with risk such as perforation or bleeding. In addition, both EMR and ESD may be ineffective in treating subepithelial lesions that extend beyond the submucosa. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is an emerging innovative endoscopic therapy which was developed to overcome the limitations of EMR and ESD. Advantages include enabling a transmural resection, complete resection of complex colorectal lesions involving the mucosa to the muscularis propria. Recent studies comparing EFTR with current resection techniques and radical surgery for relatively complicated and larger lesion have provided promising results. If the current trajectory of research and development is maintained, EFTR will likely to become a strong contender as an alternative standard of care for advanced colonic lesions. In the current study we aimed to address this need, and highlighted the areas of future research, while stressing the need for multinational collaboration provide the steppingstone(s) needed to bring EFTR to the mainstream.

Colon Polypectomy with Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection

Endoscopic resection has become the gold standard for the management of most of the large colorectal polyps. Various endoscopic resection techniques include endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR). ESD is a minimally invasive method for the resection of advanced lesions in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract to achieve en-bloc resection. While, EFTR is more commonly used in lesions with suspected deeper submucosal invasion, lesions originating from muscularis propria, or those with advanced fibrosis. This article reviews the indications, technique, and adverse events for use of ESD and EFTR in the colon.

Endoscopic management of difficult laterally spreading tumors in colorectum

Due to the advent of the screening programs for colorectal cancer and the era of quality assurance colonoscopy the number the polyps that can be considered difficult, including large (> 20 mm) laterally spreading tumors (LSTs), has increased in the last decade. All LSTs should be assessed carefully, looking for suspicious areas of submucosal invasion (SMI), such as nodules or depressed areas, describing the morphology according to the Paris classification, the pit pattern, and vascular pattern. The simplest, most appropriate and safest endoscopic treatment with curative intent should be selected. For LST-granular homogeneous type, piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection should be the first option due to its biological low risk of SMI. LST-nongranular pseudodepressed type has an increased risk of SMI, and en bloc resection should be mandatory. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection is useful in situations where submucosal injection alters the operative field, e.g., for the resection of scar lesions, with no lifting, adjacent tattoo, incomplete resection attempts, lesions into a colonic diverticulum, in ileocecal valve and lesions with intra-appendicular involvement. Endoscopic full thickness resection is very useful for the treatment of difficult to resect lesions of less than 20 up to 25 mm. Among the indications, we highlight the treatment of polyps with suspected malignancy because the acquired tissue allows an exact histologic risk stratification to assign patients individually to the best treatment and avoid surgery for low-risk lesions. Endoscopic submucosal dissection is the only endoscopic procedure that allows completes en bloc resection regardless of the size of the lesion. It should therefore be indicated in the treatment of lesions with risk of SMI.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of benign and malignant colon lesions with one-year follow up in a Danish cohort

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) has been shown to be a feasible and safe technique in several studies since the introduction of the full-thickness resection device (FTRD^®). This study aimed to describe our clinical experience and long-term follow up in in patients who underwent EFTR of benign and malignant colon lesions using FTRD.

METHODS

All patients with difficult adenomas or early adenocarcinomas referred for an EFTR to two centres in Denmark were included in this prospective consecutive study. The primary outcome was technical success with R0 resection and relapse-free follow up. The secondary outcome was procedure-related adverse events.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients were enrolled in the study. Technical success was achieved in 81% patients and R0 resection rate was 86%. Full-thickness resection was achieved in 86% patients. In 13 patients with malignant lesions, we obtained follow-up in 10 cases (two patients underwent surgery and one was non-compliant). Findings of the three-month follow up showed no residual tumour in all 10 cases. At the 12-month follow up, one patient had a late relapse. There were no residual or recurrent adenomas in the benign subgroup. Overall, adverse events were observed in 11.5% (3/26) patients with a perforation rate of 7.7%.

CONCLUSION

EFTR with FTRD proves to be an additional technique for the treatment of difficult non-lifting colorectal lesions. For malignant lesions, EFTR is technically safe and feasible and can potentially treat small early low-risk tumours; however, some cases may require subsequent surgery according to the histological staging observed in the resected specimen.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a novel endoscopic technique for the resection of GI lesions not amenable to standard endoscopic therapy. The primary aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate EFTR for the resection of colorectal lesions.

METHODS

Individualized searches were developed through October 2020 in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Random-effects models were used to determine pooled technical success, margin-negative (R₀) resection, adverse events, procedure duration, and rate of recurrence at follow-up. Subgroup analysis was used to assess the impact of specific procedure techniques and regression analyses to determine influence of lesion size. Heterogeneity was assessed with I² statistics and publication bias by funnel plots using Egger and Begg tests.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies (1936 subjects; 39.6% women) were included. Most EFTR lesions were located in the colon (75.8%) with the remaining in the rectum. Mean procedure duration was 45.4 ± 11.4 minutes. Pooled technical success was 87.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.1-89.8; I² = 33), R₀ resection rate was 78.8% (95% CI, 75.7-81.5; I² = 33), procedure-associated adverse events occurred in 12.2% (95% CI, 9.3-15.9; I² = 61), and recurrence rate was 12.6% (95% CI, 11.1-14.4; I² = 0) over an average weighted follow-up of 20.1 ± 3.8 weeks. Regression analyses revealed significantly lower R₀ resection (odds ratio, .3; 95% CI, .2-.6; I² = 61; P = .0003) and higher overall procedure-associated adverse event rates (odds ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.8-7.2; I² = 55; P = .0004) for lesions >20 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

EFTR overall appears to be an effective modality with high technical success and R₀ resection rate with a relatively low risk of adverse events and recurrence, with greatest success when lesions are <20 mm.

Endoscopic full-thickness dissection (EFTD) in the rectum: a case series

Background

Rectal endoscopic full- thickness dissection (EFTD) using a flexible colonoscope is an alternative to the well-established trans-anal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and the trans-anal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) techniques for resecting dysplastic or malignant rectal lesions. This study evaluated EFTD safety by analyzing outcomes of the first patients to undergo rectal EFTD at the University Hospital of North-Norway.

Methods

The first 10 patients to undergo rectal EFTD at the University Hospital of North-Norway April, 2016 and January, 2021, were included in the study. The procedural indications for EFTD were therapeutic resection of non-lifting adenoma, T1 adenocarcinoma (AC), recurrent neuroendocrine tumor (NET) and re-excision of a T1-2 AC.

Results

EFTD rectal specimen histopathology revealed three ACs, five adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (HGD), one NET and one benign lesion. Six procedures had negative lateral and vertical resection margins and in three cases lateral margins could not be evaluated due to piece-meal dissection or heat damaged tissue. Two patients experienced delayed post-procedural hemorrhage, one of whom also presented with a concurrent post-procedural infection. No serious complications occurred.

Conclusion

Preliminary results from this introductory trial indicate that EFTD in the rectum can be conducted with satisfactory perioperative results and low risk of serious complications.

Hybrid endoscopic mucosal resection and full-thickness resection for large colonic polyps harboring a small focus of invasive cancer: a case series

Endoscopic treatment of large laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) with a focus of submucosally invasive colorectal cancer (T1 CRC) can be challenging. We evaluated outcomes of a hybrid resection technique using piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (pEMR) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) in patients with large colonic LSTs containing suspected T1 CRC. Six hybrid pEMR-eFTR procedures for T1 CRCs were registered in a nationwide eFTR registry between July 2015 and December 2019. In all cases, the invasive part of the lesion was successfully isolated with eFTR; with eFTR, histologically complete resection of the invasive part was achieved in 5 /6 patients (83.3 %). No adverse events occurred during or after the procedure. The median follow-up time was 10 months (range 6-27), with all patients having undergone ≥ 1 surveillance colonoscopy. One patient had a small adenomatous recurrence, which was removed endoscopically. In conclusion, hybrid pEMR-eFTR is a promising noninvasive treatment modality that seems feasible for a selected group of patients with large LSTs containing a small focus of T1 CRC.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on effectiveness and safety of the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) in the colon

BACKGROUND

 Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) has expanded the possibilities of endoscopic resection. The full-thickness resection device (FTRD, Ovesco Endoscopy, Tübingen, Germany) combines a clip-based defect closure and snare resection in a single device.

METHODS

 Systematic review and meta-analysis on effectiveness and safety of the FTRD in the colon.

RESULTS

 A total of 26 studies (12 published as full-text articles and 14 conference papers) with 1538 FTRD procedures were included. The pooled estimate for reaching the target lesion was 96.1 % (95 % confidence interval [95 % CI]: 94.6-97.1) and 90.0 % (95 % CI: 87.0-92.3) for technically successful resection. Pooled estimate of histologically complete resection was 77.8 % (95 % CI: 74.7-80.6). Adverse events occurred at a pooled estimate rate of 8.0 % (95 % CI: 5.8-10.4). Pooled estimates for bleeding and perforation were 1.5 % (95 % CI: 0.3-3.3) and 0.3 % (95 % CI: 0.0-0.9), respectively. The rate for need of emergency surgery after FTRD was 1.0 % (95 % CI: 0.4-1.8).

CONCLUSION

 The use of the FTRD in the colon shows very high rates of technical success and complete resection (R0) as well as a low risk of adverse events. Emergency surgery after colonic FTRD resection is necessary in single cases only.

Current Status and Prospects of Endoscopic Resection Technique for Colorectal Tumors

Currently, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a well-established and common treatment for intramucosal colorectal cancer in Japan. However, colorectal ESD is technically more difficult to perform than esophageal and gastric ESD, and some lesions, such as fibrotic lesions, are difficult to dissect by endoscopy. Several techniques, such as the pocket-creation method and laparoscopically assisted endoscopic polypectomy, have been utilized for challenging targets. In recent years, endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) using full-thickness resection devices have mainly been performed in Western countries. We have used laparoscopy and endoscopy cooperative surgery for colorectal tumors (LECS-CR) since 2011 for the challenging treatment of colorectal ESD. Improvements in ESD techniques have resulted in an increase in the literature on EFTR, and LECS-CR may be considered an effective endoscopic technique for colorectal ESD in the future.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection using an over-the-scope device: A prospective study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection to treat mucosal and submucosal lesions sometimes results in low rates of microscopically margin-negative (R0) resection. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) has a high R0 resection rate and allows for the definitive diagnosis and treatment of selected mucosal and submucosal lesions that are not suitable for conventional resection techniques.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of EFTR using an over-the-scope clip (OTSC).

METHODS

This prospective, single-center, non-randomized clinical trial was conducted at the endoscopy center of Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University. The study included patients aged 18-70 years who had gastric or colorectal submucosal tumors (SMTs) (≤ 20 mm in diameter) originating from the muscularis propria based on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and patients who had early-stage gastric or colorectal cancer (≤ 20 mm in diameter) based on EUS and computed tomography. All lesions were treated by EFTR combined with an OTSC for wound closure between November 2014 and October 2016. We analyzed patient demographics, lesion features, histopathological diagnoses, R0 resection (negative margins) status, adverse events, and follow-up results.

RESULTS

A total of 68 patients (17 men and 51 women) with an average age of 52.0 ± 10.5 years (32-71 years) were enrolled in this study, which included 66 gastric or colorectal SMTs and 2 early-stage colorectal cancers. The mean tumor diameter was 12.6 ± 4.3 mm. The EFTR procedure was successful in all cases. The mean EFTR procedure time was 39.6 ± 38.0 min. The mean OTSC defect closure time was 5.0 ± 3.8 min, and the success rate of closure for defects was 100%. Histologically complete resection (R0) was achieved in 67 (98.5%) patients. Procedure-related adverse events were observed in 11 (16.2%) patients. The average post-procedure length of follow-up was 48.2 ± 15.7 mo. There was no recurrence during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

EFTR combined with an OTSC is an effective and safe technique for the removal of select subepithelial and epithelial lesions that are not amenable to conventional endoscopic resection techniques.