Efficacy and safety of pocket-creation method for early gastric cancers

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the standard endoscopic treatment for early gastric cancers (EGCs). However, obscured view and difficulty in submucosal lifting during ESD have been demonstrated. Additionally, ESD is time-consuming and poses a high risk of perforation and bleeding when performed in challenging locations. The pocket-creation method (PCM) is a newly developed strategy for colorectal tumors, while the outcomes of application in the treatment of EGCs are rarely reported. In the present study, we aimed to compare the technical efficacy and safety of PCM-ESD and the conventional ESD (c-ESD) technique for the treatment of EGCs.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective study consisting of 162 patients with EGCs who underwent ESD between February 2019 and February 2021. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. In addition, clinicopathological characteristics and treatment outcomes were also compared.

RESULTS

PCM-ESD was more likely to be used in patients with larger lesions than c-ESD with/without traction. In addition, the resection speed for lesions of the PCM-ESD was faster compared with c-ESD without traction (median dissection speed: 19.6 mm²/min vs. 15 mm²/min; p < 0.001) and c-ESD with traction (median dissection speed after PSM: 19.9 mm²/min vs. 15 mm²/min; p = 0.001). In multiple linear regression analysis, significant factors related to a higher dissection speed were the treatment method of PCM-ESD (p = 0.034), the long diameter of the resected lesion (p = 0.001), and lesion location (p = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

Collectively, PCM-ESD appeared to be a safer and more effective treatment for EGCs than c-ESD. In addition, PCM-ESD could significantly improve the speed of tumor resection.

Outcomes of the Conventional versus Pocket-Creation Method for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Gastric Body Tumors Using a Dual Knife: A Retrospective Study

Background/Aims

Various endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) methods for gastric tumors have been tried. However, no studies have yet compared results according to the ESD method for gastric body tumors using a dual knife. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of two ESD methods for gastric body tumors: the pocket-creation method and conventional method.

Methods

Patients who underwent ESD for a gastric body tumor were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the ESD method: the conventional method (group I) and pocket-creation method (group II). Characteristics of patients and tumors, hospitalization period, incidence of complications, resection margin status, incidence of surgical operation, procedure time, and laboratory findings were investigated.

Results

Of the total of 100 patients, 52 belonged to group I and 48 to group II. All tumors were successfully resected en bloc. Resection margin involvement was found in six (11.5%) of group I and six (12.5%) of group II. Complications were observed in seven (13.5%; major complication five, minor two) of group I and eight (16.7%; major two, minor six) of group II. There were no significant differences in ESD outcomes such as hospitalization period, incidence of complications, resection margin status, incidence of surgical operation, procedure time, or inflammatory response after ESD between the two groups.

Conclusions

Both methods are suitable for treating gastric body tumors with adequate treatment success rates and comparable complication rates.

Efficacy of the pocket-creation method with a traction device in endoscopic submucosal dissection for residual or recurrent colorectal lesions

Background/Aims

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for residual or recurrent colorectal lesions after incomplete resection is challenging because of severe fibrosis. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of the pocket-creation method (PCM) with a traction device (TD) with that of conventional ESD for residual or recurrent colorectal lesions.

Methods

We retrospectively studied 72 patients with residual or recurrent colorectal lesions resected using ESD. Overall, 31 and 41 lesions were resected using PCM with TD and conventional ESD methods, respectively. We compared patient background and treatment outcomes between the PCM with TD and conventional ESD groups, respectively. The primary endpoints were en bloc resection and R0 resection rates. The secondary endpoints were the dissection speed and incidence of adverse events.

Results

En bloc resection was feasible in all cases with PCM with TD, but failed in 22% of cases of conventional ESD. The R0 resection rates for PCM with TD and conventional ESD were 97% and 66%, respectively. Dissection was significantly faster in the PCM with TD group (13.0 vs. 7.9 mm²/min). Perforation and postoperative bleeding were observed in one patient in each group.

Conclusions

PCM with TD is an effective method for treating residual or recurrent colorectal lesions after incomplete resection.

Clinical utility of the pocket-creation method with a traction device for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is technically demanding while ensuring safety, especially in cases with fibrosis and/or poor maneuverability. To overcome such difficulties, we developed a novel method called the pocket-creation method with a traction device (PCM with TD). We then evaluated the effectiveness and safety of PCM with TD in colorectal ESD compared to other conventional methods.

METHODS

In total, 324 colorectal lesions treated with ESD from July 2018 to June 2019 were included. The following three treatment strategies were used: conventional ESD (CE), CE with TD, and PCM with TD. Patient backgrounds and treatment outcomes were retrospectively compared and analyzed.

RESULTS

As ESD methods, CE, CE with TD, and PCM with TD account for 58% (187/324), 24% (78/324), and 18% (59/324), respectively. No significant difference was observed among the three groups in en bloc and R0 resection rates or adverse events. The rate of lesions with fibrosis and poor maneuverability was significantly higher in the PCM with TD group (CE group vs CE with TD group vs PCM with TD group: fibrosis, 24% vs 47% vs 64%, p < 0.001; poor maneuverability, 5.3% vs 13% vs 20%, p = 0.002). Dissection speed was significantly higher in the PCM with TD than in the CE with TD group (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

PCM with TD can achieve a stable en bloc resection rate and R0 dissection rate without adverse events even in the hands of trainees, irrespective of the size and location of the lesion, presence of fibrosis, and under poor maneuverability conditions.