Resectability of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for duodenal tumor: A single-center, retrospective pilot study

Resectability of Small Duodenal Tumors: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Cold Snare Polypectomy

INTRODUCTION

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) and cold snare polypectomy (CSP) are novel endoscopic procedures for superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADET). However, consensus on how to use both procedures appropriately has not been established. In this study, we evaluated treatment outcomes of both procedures, including resectability.

METHODS

In this single-center randomized controlled study conducted between January 2020 and June 2022, patients with SNADET ≤12 mm were randomly allocated to UEMR and CSP groups. The primary end point was sufficient vertical R0 resection (SVR0), which was defined as R0 resection including a sufficient submucosal layer. We compared treatment outcomes including SVR0 rate between groups.

RESULTS

The SVR0 rate was significantly higher in the UEMR group than in the CSP group (65.6% vs 41.5%, P = 0.01). By contrast, the R0 resection rate was not significantly different between study groups (70.3% vs 61.5%, P = 0.29). The submucosal layer thickness was significantly greater in the UEMR group than in the CSP group (median 546 [range, 309-833] μm vs 69 [0-295] μm, P < 0.01). CSP had a shorter total procedure time (median 12 [range, 8-16] min vs 1 [1-3] min, P < 0.01) and fewer total bleeding events (9.4% vs 1.5%, P = 0.06).

DISCUSSION

UEMR has superior vertical resectability compared with CSP, but CSP has a shorter procedure time and fewer bleeding events. Although CSP is preferable for most small SNADET, UEMR should be selected for lesions that cannot be definitively diagnosed as mucosal low-grade neoplasias.

Can underwater endoscopic mucosal resection be an alternative to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors?

Objectives

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a simpler procedure for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADET) than conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (cEMR). This study aimed to evaluate whether cEMR can be substituted by UEMR for SNADET in terms of effectiveness, safety, and learning curve.

Methods

A total of 157 consecutive patients with 203 SNADETs ≤20 mm in diameter, including 107 lesions resected by cEMR and 96 lesions resected by UEMR, between January 2019 and May 2023, were retrospectively recruited. The treatment outcomes were compared between the cEMR and UEMR groups. The risk factors for incomplete resection by UEMR were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses. Lesions in the UEMR group were divided chronologically into five periods; thereafter, the en bloc resection rate and procedure time were compared.

Results

No significant differences existed between the cEMR and UEMR groups in the mean procedure time (3.9 min vs. 3.6 min, p = 0.1380) or en bloc resection rate (91% vs. 94%, p = 0.4138). No perforation was observed in either group. Tumor size was an independent risk factor for incomplete resection using UEMR (p < 0.01). The history of biopsy was not associated with incomplete resection using UEMR. The en bloc resection rate of UEMR was 100% (20/20) in the first period and ranged from 90% to 100% over all periods.

Conclusion

UEMR is safe and effective for SNADET ≤20 mm, regardless of a history of biopsy, and is easy to learn. Thus, UEMR can serve as an alternative to cEMR.

Conventional versus underwater endoscopic resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Several endoscopic resection methods have been developed as less invasive treatments for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours. This study aimed to compare outcomes of conventional endoscopic mucosal resection and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours, including resection depth and rate of the muscularis mucosa contained under the lesion.

METHODS

This single-centre retrospective cohort study conducted from January 2009 to December 2021 enrolled patients who underwent conventional endoscopic mucosal resection and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours and investigated their clinicopathological outcomes using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Of the 285 superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours, 98 conventional endoscopic mucosal resections and 187 underwater endoscopic mucosal resections were included. After propensity score matching, 64 conventional endoscopic mucosal resections and 64 underwater endoscopic mucosal resections were analysed. The R0 resection rate was significantly higher in underwater endoscopic mucosal resection cases than in conventional endoscopic mucosal resection cases (70.3% vs. 50.0%; P = 0.030). In the multivariate analysis, a lesion diameter > 10 mm (odds ratio 7.246; P = 0.001), being in the 1st-50th treatment period (odds ratio 3.405; P = 0.008), and undergoing conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio 3.617; P = 0.016) were associated with RX/R1 resection. Furthermore, in underwater endoscopic mucosal resection cases, the R0 rate was significantly higher for lesions diameter ≤10 mm than >10 mm, and was significantly higher in the 51st-treatment period than in the 1st-50th period. Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection cases showed no significant difference in resection depth and muscularis mucosa containing rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection may be more acceptable than conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours ≤ 10 mm. A steep early learning curve may be acquired for underwater endoscopic mucosal resection. Large multicentre prospective studies need to be conducted to confirm the effectiveness of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection.

Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Versus Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Superficial Non-ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors ≤20 mm: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is increasingly applied in the treatment of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of UEMR for SNADETs ≤20 mm in comparison with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR).

METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched from 2012 until November 20, 2021: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science databases, and Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes were the rates of en bloc resection and complete (R0) resection, and the secondary outcomes were procedure time, adverse events (delayed bleeding and delayed perforation), and recurrence rate.

RESULTS

A total of 6 studies with 679 lesions (331 underwent UEMR and 348 CEMR) were included in this study. The pooled analysis showed that UMER achieves a similar en bloc resection rate (87.6 vs. 89.9%; odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 3.73; P =0.64; I2 =74%), a similar R0 resection rate (67.3 vs. 73.6%; OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.55 to 2.23; P =0.78; I2 =59%), a shorter procedure time (min) (mean difference [MD], -4.05, 95% CI: -6.40 to -1.71; P =0.0007; I2 =70%) compared with CEMR. There were no significant differences in the rates of delayed bleeding, delayed perforation, and recurrence (2.4 vs. 1.7%, 0 vs. 0.6%, 2.2 vs. 4.4%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that UEMR appears to be an effective and safe alternative to CEMR for SNADETs ≤20 mm.

Current status and perspectives for endoscopic diagnosis of superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors

In recent years, there have been significant advances in the endoscopic resection (ER) procedures of superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). A preoperative endoscopic diagnosis is thus deemed necessary in determining the indication for subsequent ER. For the histologic and endoscopic diagnosis of SNADETs, understanding the mucin phenotype is inevitable. Recently, two diagnostic algorithms for the differential diagnosis of SNADETs from nonneoplastic lesions under magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging have been proposed. In addition, various endoscopic approaches have been proposed to differentiate low- and high-grade adenomas/carcinomas, including white light endoscopy, magnifying image-enhanced endoscopy, and endocytoscopy. These methods, however, have not been standardized with respect to the classification of their findings and the validation of their diagnostic accuracy. Moreover, there are still concerns with respect to the histologic criteria required to establish a SNADETs diagnosis. Standardization in the histologic and endoscopic diagnosis of SNADETs is needed.

Efficacy and safety of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for ≤20 mm superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and aims

Superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) as a rare disease have gradually increased in recent years. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has emerged as a newly available option for the endoscopic resection of SNADETs. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UEMR for ≤20 mm SNADETs.

Methods

A literature search was performed across multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Clinical trials for studies containing tumors ≤20 mm published from January 1, 2012, to August 8, 2022. Outcomes examined were the pooled rates of en bloc resection, R0 resection, adverse events, and recurrence. Subgroup analyses of the resection rate were conducted stratified by sample size and polyp size.

Results

A total of 10 studies with UEMR performed in a total of 648 tumors were included for analysis. The pooled rate of en bloc resection and R0 resection was 88.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 82.1-93.2) and 69.1% (95% CI: 62.2-76.1), respectively. The results showed pooled rate of intraoperative bleeding rate was 2.9% (95% CI: 0-9.0), delayed bleeding rate was 0.9% (95% CI: 0.1-2), recurrence rate was 1.5% (95% CI: 0-4.9). In the subgroup analysis, R0 and en-bloc resection rates were significantly higher in <10 mm than 10-20 mm SNADETs subgroups (R0 resection rate 83.1 vs. 48.6%; en bloc resection rate 100.0 vs. 84.0%, P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection was an effective and safe technique for the optional treatment for ≤20 mm SNADETs, especially of <10 mm.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022340578.

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.

Research trends on endoscopic mucosal resection: A bibliometric analysis from 1991 to 2021

Background

In recent years, the rapid development of digestive endoscopy technology has brought revolutionary changes to endoscopic therapy. A growing number of articles have been published annually. We aimed to explore global scientific outputs and hotspots of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) published by different countries, organizations, and authors.

Methods

We extracted relevant publications from the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) on June 23, 2022. We examined the retrieved data by bibliometric analysis (e.g., cocited and cluster analysis, keyword co-occurrence) using the software CiteSpace and VOSviewer to analyze and predict the trends and hot spots in this field.

Results

A total of 2,695 papers were finally identified. The results showed that the number of articles fluctuated with the year and reached its peak in 2021. NATIONAL CANCER CENTER JAPAN was the most influential institution. MICHAEL J BOURKE and YUTAKA SAITO are two of the most prolific scholars. ENDOSCOPY and GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY were the most productive journals. “Early gastric cancer” and “Barrett's esophagus” were the focus of EMR research. “Adverse events”, “cold snare polypectomy” and “outcomes” have become increasingly popular in recent years and could become hot spots in the future.

Conclusion

In this study, we summarized the characteristics of the publications; identified the most influential countries, institutions, and journals; and identified the leading topics in the EMR field.

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors ≤20mm: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is an emerging technique for endoscopic resection of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). However, compared to conventional EMR, its efficacy and safety has not been widely explored.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search using the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies comparing the efficacy and safety of UEMR versus EMR for SNADETs. The main outcomes examined included en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, recurrence rate, procedure time, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 5 studies comprising 635 patients were included. All the literature included duodenal lesions smaller than 20 mm. The pooled analysis showed that UEMR could achieve a higher en bloc resection rate (OR 1.78, 95%CI: 1.17 to 2.71, P = 0.007) and shorter procedure time (MD -4.08, 95%CI: -6.44 to -1.73, P = 0.0007) than EMR. However, the pooled results did not support a superiority of UEMR over EMR for R0 resection rate (OR 1.27; 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.81, P = 0.18) or recurrence rate (OR 0.49; 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.67, P = 0.26). The occurrence of adverse events, including postoperative bleeding, intraoperative perforation, and delayed perforation, was very low in included studies.

CONCLUSION

Compared to EMR, UEMR is an effective and safe technique for SNADETs ≤20 mm.

Gel Immersion Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) for Superficial Nonampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors May Reduce Procedure Time Compared with Underwater EMR (with Video)

Materials and Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in two municipal hospitals. We identified 24 patients with SNADETs of 3–18 mm in diameter who underwent UEMR or GIEMR. One lesion was excluded from the analysis because it was found to be in the stomach after surgery. The primary outcome was procedure time.

Results

GIEMR significantly reduced the procedure time compared with UEMR (5 min vs. 10 min, P = 0.016). There was no significant difference between the UEMR and GIEMR groups for en bloc resection rate (93% vs. 100%, P = 1.0) and R0 resection rate (57% vs. 80%, P = 0.39). No serious complications were observed in either group.

Conclusions

GIEMR of SNADET has the potential to reduce procedure time compared with UEMR and may be particularly effective in areas where immersion in water is difficult.