Duodenal ESD: conquering difficulties

Endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors: A review

The surface of the small bowel mucosa is covered more than any other section of the digestive canal; however, the overall prevalence of small bowel tumors of the whole gastrointestinal tract is evidently low. Owing to the improvement in endoscopic techniques, the prevalence of small bowel tumors has increased across multiple countries, which is mainly due to an increase in duodenal tumors. Superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) are defined as tumors originating from the non-ampullary region in the duodenum that share similarities and discrepancies with their gastric and colorectal counterparts in the pathogenesis and clinicopathologic characteristics. To date, white light endoscopy (WLE) remains the cornerstone of endoscopic diagnosis for SNADETs. Besides, narrow-band imaging (NBI) techniques and magnifying endoscopy (ME) have been widely used in the clinic and endorsed by multiple guidelines and consensuses for SNADETs' evaluation. Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE), endocytoscopy (ECS), and artificial intelligence (AI) are also up-and-coming methods, showing an exceptional value in the diagnosis of SNADETs. Similar to the endoscopic treatment for colorectal polyps, the choices for SNADETs mainly include cold snare polypectomy (CSP), endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS). However, owing to the narrow lumen, rich vascularity, weak muscle layer, abundant Brunner's gland, and the hardship of endoscope control, the duodenum ranks as one of the most dangerous operating areas in the digestive tract. Therefore, endoscopists must anticipate the difficulties in endoscopic maneuverability, remain aware of the increased risk of complications, and then select the appropriate treatment according to the advantages and disadvantages of each method.

Underwater Versus Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Superficial Non-ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Duodenal underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has been suggested as a feasible treatment option for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). However, its efficacy and safety have not been fully established yet. Thus, the objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy and safety of UEMR as compared with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) in the treatment of SNADETs.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library. Studies comparing CEMR and UEMR for the resection of SNADET were included. Outcomes included en-bloc and complete resection rates, adverse events, and procedure time.

RESULTS

A total of six studies with 2454 lesions were included in the quantitative synthesis. En-bloc and complete resection rates were not significantly different between UEMR and CEMR (OR for en-bloc resection: 0.997 [95% CI 0.439-2.266]; OR for complete resection: 0.960 [95% CI 0.628-1.468]). There was no significant risk difference for perforation (risk difference: - 0.002; 95% CI - 0.009 to 0.005) or delayed bleeding (risk difference: - 0.001; 95% CI - 0.014 to 0.011). Procedure time was significantly shorter in the UEMR (standardized mean difference: - 1.294; 95% CI - 2.461 to - 0.127). The risk of recurrence was not significantly different between UEMR and CEMR (risk difference: 0.001; 95% CI - 0.041 to 0.044).

CONCLUSION

Although our results did not show any superiority of UEMR over CEMR in the treatment of SNADETs, UEMR showed equivalent efficacy and safety as compared with CEMR and was associated with a shorter procedure time.

Endoscopic resection via antral submucosal tunneling for en bloc removal of tumors in the duodenal bulb

To overcome difficulties in the removal of duodenal bulb lesions, especially those in anatomically challenging locations, we developed the endoscopic resection via antral submucosal tunneling (ERAST) technique. In this study, we evaluated the feasibility and safety of ERAST for the removal of superficial and subepithelial lesions in the duodenal bulb. This was a single-center retrospective study of 10 patients with lesions in the bulb. Submucosal tunneling from the gastric antrum to the duodenum was performed to facilitate en bloc tumor resection in the bulb. The en bloc resection rate, postoperative bleeding, and perforation were the primary endpoints. Ten lesions (four superficial and six subepithelial), with an average size of 19.1 ± 9.2 mm, were resected en bloc by ERAST. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy follow-up after 2 months indicated complete wound healing in all patients. In our primary experience, ERAST was found to be a feasible and safe endoscopic resection technique for the removal of lesions in the duodenal bulb, especially those that are difficult to access.

Outcomes of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Duodenal Neuroendocrine Tumors

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic resection is recommended for small duodenal neuroendocrine tumors DNETs. However, there is limited data on the outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in DNETs. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the outcomes of ESD in DNETs.

METHODS

Data of consecutive patients who underwent ESD for DNETs from January 2018 to December 2019 were analyzed, retrospectively. All the cases of ESD were performed with or without traction using rubber band and two endoclips. En-bloc resection, complete endoscopic resection (C-ER), complete pathological resection (C-PR), adverse events, and recurrence were evaluated.

RESULTS

Twenty patients (19 males, 57.50 ± 9.32 years) underwent ESD for DNETs. DNETs measured ≤ 10 mm (7), 10-15 mm (12), and > 15 mm (1). ESD was performed with and without traction in 10 cases each. Mean operating time was 61 ± 17.38 min. En-bloc resection, C-ER, and C-PR were recorded in 90%, 95%, and 75%, respectively. Vertical margins were positive in five patients. Adverse events included perforations in 4 (20%) cases and major bleeding in one case. There was no recurrence at a mean follow-up of 17.20 ± 7.37 months.

CONCLUSION

ESD is feasible and effective for the management of DNETs. However, caution is advised due to a high risk of adverse events and pathologically incomplete resection.

Endoscopic resection in combination with ligation for the treatment of duodenal subepithelial lesions: a single-center experience

Duodenal subepithelial lesions (SELs) are increasingly detected during an endoscopic examination. However, no feasible and safe methods are available for removing duodenal SELs. In the present study, we aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of endoscopic resection in combination with ligation (ER-L) in removing the duodenal SELs. A total of 101 patients with duodenal SELs received ER-L from February 2010 to February 2020. The primary outcomes were complete resection, en bloc resection, and R0 resection. The secondary outcomes included procedure duration, bleeding, perforation, and residual lesions. A total of 101 patients with 101 duodenal SELs (ranged from 8.4 mm to 20.2 mm in size) were included in this study. Most of the SELs (95.1%) originated from the submucosal layer and were successfully removed using ER-L. The rates of complete resection, en bloc resection, and R0 resection were 100%, 96.0%, and 88.1%, respectively. The median procedure duration was 8 min. There was no severe complication, except for four patients who developed post-procedure bleeding (4.0%) and recovered after conservative treatment. Furthermore, no residual lesions were detected during the follow-up period (median of 36 months). Indeed, logistic regression analysis showed that the size of duodenal SELs was an independent factor for R0 resection during the ER-L procedure. Conclusively, ER-L was feasible and safe to remove the duodenal SELs that originated from the submucosal layer and were less than 20 mm. However, the feasibility and safety of the ER-L should be further confirmed when removing the duodenal SELs that originated from the muscularis propria (MP) layer and were larger than 20 mm in diameter.

Current status of endoscopic diagnosis and treatment for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors

Though superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) have been traditionally considered rare, there is a growing detection under the development and widespread of endoscopic techniques in recent times. Many case studies have revealed early manifestations of lesions through advanced endoscopic technology, however, because of the low incidence of duodenal tumors and challenges in diagnosing, the preoperative diagnosis criteria have not been established so far. In spite of this, recently the increasing detection rate of early duodenal epithelial lesions enhances the demand for minimally invasive treatment as well. The most suitable therapeutic endoscopic modality to remove duodenal lesions should be selected according to the size, location and histological invasive depth of duodenal lesions. Nevertheless, due to the special anatomical structure of the duodenum, the incidence of complications is much higher than in any other part of the digestive tract. To prevent these adverse events prophylactically, a few novel strategies have been applied effectively after resection. This review describes the current status of preoperative endoscopic diagnosis and endoscopic resection approaches, as well as countermeasures for avoiding procedure-related complications.

Current Challenge: Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Superficial Non-ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors

With the widespread use of esophagogastroduodenoscopy in recent years, the detection rate of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) is increasing. Most SNADETs are early-stage adenocarcinoma or benign conditions, including adenoma. Therefore, endoscopic resection is desirable from the perspective of quality of life. However, endoscopic resection for SNADETs has not yet been established. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the most promising method for the treatment of SNADETs, because ESD provides a high rate of en bloc resection and a low rate of recurrence regardless of the tumor size. However, the difficulty of the procedure and a high rate of severe adverse events including perforation and bleeding have become major problems. Various preventive countermeasures for adverse events, such as use of specific devices, endoscope stabilization methods, and endoscopic closure of the post-ESD ulcer using clips, are reported to reduce the risk of the adverse events of ESD for SNADETs. This article reviews and highlights the current state of ESD for SNADETs and new challenges towards safe and effective ESD.

Life on a knife edge: the optimal approach to the management of perforations during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a well-established procedure that can provide curative resection of malignant and premalignant lesions endoscopically, thereby offering patients an effective non-operative option. Though ESD is safe and highly effective when performed in appropriately selected patients by an experienced ESD expert, it carries risks including intraprocedural and delayed perforation.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides a practical approach to the initial management of perforation to minimize subsequent complications. The importance of prompt recognition of perforation and early intervention cannot be overstated. This review summarizes indications for closure, anatomic considerations impacting closure, and closure techniques. This article also highlights the do's and don'ts of various closure devices, focusing particularly on advanced closure methods, the-over-the-scope clips (OTSCs) and endoscopic suturing.

EXPERT OPINION

As ESD offers surgery-sparing alternatives to patients, advanced closure techniques allow endoscopists to effectively and promptly manage associated complications, improving the possibility of the widespread implementation of ESD in the US. With continued improvements in OTSCs and endoscopic suturing, ESD will become a stalwart of endoscopic management of malignant and premalignant gastrointestinal lesions.

Resection of a Nonampullary Adenoma with the New Gastroduodenal Full-Thickness Resection Device

Introduction Surgical resection of adenomas or subepithelial tumors in the duodenum has a high morbidity compared with endoscopic resection which also has a significant risk of complication. Endoscopic full-thickness resection has shown its feasibility and safety in the colorectum and in the upper gastrointestinal tract.

Patient and Methods We present the new gastroduodenal full-thickness resection device (FTRD) for full-thickness resection in a patient with a recurrent nonlifting adenoma in the nonampullary duodenum.

Results The procedure was successful with R0 resection without major complications. A control gastroscopy showed no recurrence of the adenoma.

Conclusion The gastroduodenal FTRD seems to be a promising new technique for resecting nonlifting adenomas in the nonampullary duodenum.

Repeat full-thickness resection device use for recurrent duodenal adenoma: A case report

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of adenomas or subepithelial tumors is a novel and promising endoscopic technique. There have been several recent studies of full-thickness resection device (FTRD) use in the colon, but data regarding its use and efficacy in the duodenum are still limited.

CASE SUMMARY

A 64-year-old female underwent resection of a recurrent adenoma of 7 mm in size in the duodenum after FTRD use for an adenoma eight months prior. The biopsies revealed a low-grade adenoma. The adenoma was removed using the gastroduodenal FTRD, and the pathology results revealed clear margins. Except for minor bleeding that was treated by argon plasma coagulation, no further complications occurred.

CONCLUSION

Repeat use of the FTRD appears to be a safe and efficacious approach for the treatment of recurrent duodenal lesions. Further prospective studies are needed to investigate the long-term safety and utility of repeat FTRD use after Endoscopic full-thickness resection.

Endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of superficial non-ampullary duodenal tumors

The diagnostic and treatment guidelines of superficial non-ampullary duodenal tumors have not been standardized due to their low prevalence. Previous reports suggested that a superficial adenocarcinoma (SAC) should be treated via local resection because of its low risk of lymph node metastasis, whereas a high-grade adenoma (HGA) should be resected because of its high risk of progression to adenocarcinoma. Therefore, pretreatment diagnosis of SAC or HGA is important to determine the appropriate treatment strategy. There are certain endoscopic features known to be associated with SAC or HGA, and current practice prioritizes the endoscopic and biopsy diagnosis of these conditions. Surgical treatment of these duodenal lesions is often related to high risk of morbidity, and therefore endoscopic resection has become increasingly common in recent years. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are the commonly performed endoscopic resection methods. EMR is preferred due to its lower risk of adverse events; however, it has a higher risk of recurrence than ESD. Recently, a new and safer endoscopic procedure that reduces adverse events from EMR or ESD has been reported.

ESD versus EMR in non-ampullary superficial duodenal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been developed as an option for treatment of esophageal, gastric and colorectal lesions. However, there is no consensus on the role of ESD in duodenal tumors.

METHODS

 This systematic review and meta-analysis compared ESD and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in sporadic non-ampullary superficial duodenal tumors (NASDTs), including local experience. We conducted a search in PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane library up to August 2017 to identify studies that compared both techniques reporting at least one main outcome (en-bloc/complete resection, local recurrence). Pooled outcomes were calculated under fixed and random-effect models. Subgroup analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

 A total of 753 patients presenting with 784 NASDTs (242 ESD, 542 EMR) in 14 studies were included. Tumor size (MD: 5.88, [CI95 %: 2.15, 9.62], P  = 0.002, I 2  = 79 %) and procedure time (MD: 65.65, [CI95 %: 40.39, 90.92], P  < 0.00001, I 2  = 88 %) were greater in the ESD group. En-bloc resection rate was significantly higher in Asian studies (OR: 2.16 [CI95 %: 1.15, 4.08], P  = 0.02, I 2 : 46 %). ESD provided a higher complete resection rate (OR: 1.63 [I95 %: 1.06, 2.50], P  = 0.03, I 2 : 59 %), but there was no risk difference in the risk of local recurrence (RD: - 0.03 [CI95 %: - 0.07, 0.01], P  = 0.15, I 2 : 0 %) or delayed bleeding. ESD was associated with an increased number of intraoperative perforations [RD: 0.12 (CI95 %: 0.04, 0.20), P  = 0.002, I 2 : 56 %] and emergency surgery for delayed perforations. The inclusion of eligible studies was limited to retrospective series with inequalities in comparative groups.

CONCLUSIONS

 Duodenal ESD for NASDTs may achieve higher en-bloc and complete resections at the expense of a greater perforation rate compared to EMR. The impact on local recurrence remains uncertain.

Endoscopic and surgical management of nonampullary duodenal neoplasms

BACKGROUND

Sporadic nonampullary duodenal neoplasms (SNADN) can have malignant potential for which endoscopic and surgical resections are offered. We report combined gastroenterologic and surgical experience for treatment of SNADN, including endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and pancreas-preserving partial duodenectomy (PPPD).

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 121 consecutive patients, who underwent 30 PPPDs and 91 EMRs for mucosal and submucosal SNADN. Decision to undergo EMR or surgical resection was based on expert endoscopist and surgeon discretion including multidisciplinary tumor board review. Main outcomes were recurrence rate of neoplasia and adverse events requiring hospital admission or prolonged care. EMRs were performed with submucosal lifting followed by snare resection. PPPD included total duodenectomy, supra-ampullary PPPD for neoplasms proximal to the ampulla, and infra-ampullary PPPD for lesions distal to the ampulla. Follow-up data were available for 65% of EMR and 73% of surgical patients.

RESULTS

Surgically resected neoplasia was larger with more advanced neoplasia and submucosal lesions. En bloc resection was achieved in all surgical resections and in 53% of EMRs. Post-EMR, mucosal and submucosal neoplasia recurred in 32 and 0%, respectively, including five neoplasms (26%) after an initial negative esophagogastroduodenoscopy. All recurrences were treated endoscopically. Complications occurred in 14 endoscopically and eight surgically treated patients, none requiring surgical intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-EMR patients had higher recurrence of mucosal neoplasia, whereas submucosal neoplasms, mainly carcinoid, did not recur. Polyp size and positive resection margin were not associated with neoplasia recurrence. Patients with SNADN could benefit from a multidisciplinary approach to stratify the optimal treatment based on local expertise.

Two cases of laparoscopic direct spiral closure of large defects in the second portion of the duodenum after laparoscopic endoscopic co-operative surgery

Curative endoscopic resection of non-ampullary duodenal lesions, although possible, is challenging. In recent years, although a novel surgical technique named laparoscopic-endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS), which combines laparoscopic and endoscopic techniques, has made the resection of nonampullary duodenal lesions relatively easier, closure of the defect is still controversial. We report two cases of the duodenal lesion which were closed using a novel technique for primary closure utilising the free wall of the duodenum. Two cases of the duodenal lesion in the second portion of the duodenum were undergone full thickness resection using the LECS technique. The defect is designed spirally to ensure maximum use of the free wall of the duodenum. The mucosal layer is closed using a running suture, and the seromuscular layer is closed using interrupted sutures. The suture line is then reinforced with omentum. There were no intraoperative complications and had uneventful post-operative courses with no leakage, stenosis, or relapse.

Handling and Pathology Reporting of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a non-invasive alternative to surgery that is now frequently used for resection of early lesions in both upper and lower parts of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. One of the main advantages of these techniques is providing tissue for histopathological examination. Pathological examination of endoscopically resected specimens of GI tract is a crucial component of these procedures and is useful for prediction of both the risk of metastasis and lymph node involvement.

As the first step, it is very important for the pathologist to handle the EMR gross specimen in the correct way: it should be oriented, and then the margins should be labeled and inked accurately before fixation.

In the second step, the EMR pathological report should include all the detailed information about the diagnosis, grading, depth of invasion (mucosa only or submucosal involvement), status of the margins, and the presence or absence of lymphovascular invasion.

The current literature (PubMed and Google Scholar) was searched for the words "endoscopic mucosal resection" to find all relevant publications about this technique with emphasis on the pathologist responsibilities.

Management of a large mucosal defect after duodenal endoscopic resection

Duodenal endoscopic resection is the most difficult type of endoscopic treatment in the gastrointestinal tract (GI) and is technically challenging because of anatomical specificities. In addition to these technical difficulties, this procedure is associated with a significantly higher rate of complication than endoscopic treatment in other parts of the GI tract. Postoperative delayed perforation and bleeding are hazardous complications, and emergency surgical intervention is sometimes required. Therefore, it is urgently necessary to establish a management protocol for preventing serious complications. For instance, the prophylactic closure of large mucosal defects after endoscopic resection may reduce the risk of hazardous complications. However, the size of mucosal defects after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is relatively large compared with the size after endoscopic mucosal resection, making it impossible to achieve complete closure using only conventional clips. The over-the-scope clip and polyglycolic acid sheets with fibrin gel make it possible to close large mucosal defects after duodenal ESD. In addition to the combination of laparoscopic surgery and endoscopic resection, endoscopic full-thickness resection holds therapeutic potential for difficult duodenal lesions and may overcome the disadvantages of endoscopic resection in the near future. This review aims to summarize the complications and closure techniques of large mucosal defects and to highlight some directions for management after duodenal endoscopic treatment.

Suitable closure for post-duodenal endoscopic resection taking medical costs into consideration

AIM: To compare closure methods, closure times and medical costs between two groups of patients who had post-endoscopic resection (ER) artificial ulcer floor closures.

METHODS: Nineteen patients with duodenal adenoma, early duodenal cancer, and subepithelial tumors that received ER between September 2009 and September 2014 at Kagawa University Hospital and Ehime Rosai Hospital, an affiliated hospital of Kagawa University, were included in the study. We retrospectively compared two groups of patients who received post-ER artificial ulcer floor closure: the conventional clip group vs the over-the-scope clip (OTSC) group. Delayed bleeding, procedure time of closure, delayed perforation, total number of conventional clips and OTSCs and medical costs were analyzed.

RESULTS: Although we observed delayed bleeding in three patients in the conventional clip group, we observed no delayed bleeding in the OTSC group (P = 0.049). We did not observe perforation in either group. The mean procedure times for ulcer closure were 33.26 ± 12.57 min and 9.71 ± 2.92 min, respectively (P = 0.0001). The resection diameters were 18.8 ± 1.30 mm and 22.9 ± 1.21 mm for the conventional clip group and the OTSC group, respectively, with significant difference (P = 0.039). As for medical costs, the costs of all conventional clips were USD $1257 and the costs of OTSCs were $7850 (P = 0.005). If the post-ER ulcer is under 20 mm in diameter, a conventional clip closure may be more suitable with regard to the prevention of delayed perforation and to medical costs.

CONCLUSION: If the post-ER ulcer is over 20 mm, the OTSC closure should be selected with regard to safety and reliable closure even if there are high medical costs.

Future directions of duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Endoscopic therapies for lesions of the duodenum are technically more difficult than those for lesions of the other parts of the gastrointestinal tract due to the anatomical features of the duodenum, and the incidence rate of complications such as perforation and bleeding is also higher. These aforementioned trends were especially noticeable for the case of duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The indication for ESD of duodenal tumors should be determined by assessment of the histopathology, macroscopic morphology, and diameter of the tumors. The three types of candidate lesions for endoscopic therapy are adenoma, carcinoma, and neuroendocrine tumors. For applying endoscopic therapies to duodenal lesions, accurate preoperative histopathological diagnosis is necessary. The most important technical issue in duodenal ESD is the submucosal dissection process. In duodenal ESD, a short needle-type knife is suitable for the mucosal incision and submucosal dissection processes, and the Small-caliber-tip Transparent hood is an important tool. After endoscopic therapies, the wound should be closed by clipping in order to prevent complications such as secondary hemorrhage and delayed perforation. At present, the criteria for selection between ESD and EMR vary among institutions. The indications for ESD should be carefully considered. Duodenal ESD should have limitations, such as the need for its being performed by experts with abundant experience in performing the procedure.