Wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for laterally spreading colorectal lesions: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Endoscopic mucosal resection is effective for laterally spreading lesions at the anorectal junction

OBJECTIVE

The optimal approach for removing large laterally spreading lesions at the anorectal junction (ARJ-LSLs) is unknown. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a definitive therapy for colorectal LSLs. It is unclear whether it is an effective modality for ARJ-LSLs.

DESIGN

EMR outcomes for ARJ-LSLs (distal margin of ≤20 mm from the dentate line) in comparison with rectal LSLs (distal margin of >20 mm from the dentate line) were evaluated within a multicentre observational cohort of LSLs of ≥20 mm. Technical success was defined as the removal of all polypoid tissue during index EMR. Safety was evaluated by the frequencies of intraprocedural bleeding, delayed bleeding, deep mural injury (DMI) and delayed perforation. Long-term efficacy was evaluated by the absence of recurrence (either endoscopic or histologic) at surveillance colonoscopy (SC).

RESULTS

Between July 2008 and August 2019, 100 ARJ-LSLs and 313 rectal LSLs underwent EMR. ARJ-LSL median size was 40 mm (IQR 35-60 mm). Median follow-up at SC4 was 54 months (IQR 33-83 months). Technical success was 98%. Cancer was present in three (3%). Recurrence occurred in 15.4%, 6.8%, 3.7% and 0% at SC1-SC4, respectively. Among 30 ARJ-LSLs that received margin thermal ablation, no recurrence was identified at SC1 (0.0% vs 25.0%, p=0.002). Technical success, recurrence and adverse events were not different between groups, except for DMI (ARJ-LSLs 0% vs rectal LSLs 4.5%, p=0.027).

CONCLUSION

EMR is an effective technique for ARJ-LSLs and should be considered a first-line resection modality for the majority of these lesions.

Cap-fitted endoscopic mucosal resection of ≥ 20 mm colon flat lesions followed by argon plasma coagulation results in a low adenoma recurrence rate

Background and study aims  Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is increasingly used for the treatment of large colonic polyps (≥ 20 mm). A drawback of EMR is local adenoma recurrence. Therefore, we studied the impact of argon plasma coagulation (APC) of the EMR edge on local adenoma recurrence. Patients and methods  This was a retrospective study of patients with laterally spreading tumors (LST) ≥ 20 mm, who underwent EMR from January 2009 to August 2018 and follow-up endoscopic assessment. A cap-fitted endoscope was used to assess completeness of resection by systematically inspecting the EMR defect for any macroscopic disease. This was followed by forced APC of the resection edge followed by clip closure of the defect. Surveillance colonoscopy was performed at 6 months after resection to detect recurrence. Results  Two hundred forty-six patients met the inclusion criteria. Most were female (53 %) and white (80 %), with a Median age of 64 years. Median polyp size was 35 mm (interquartile range, 30-45 mm). Most polyps were located in the right colon (77 %) and were removed by piecemeal EMR (70 %). Eleven patients (5 %) had residual tumor at the resection site. Conclusions  We observed low adenoma recurrence after argon plasma coagulation of the EMR edge with a cap fitted colonoscope in patients with LST ≥ 20 mm of the colon, which requires further validation in a randomized controlled study.

Surgery Versus Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Large Polyps: Making Sense of When to Use Which Approach

Endoscopic resection for large colorectal lesion is effective and cost-saving than surgery. Piecemeal resections are often effective if applied meticulously but endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) allows meritorious removal of large lesions in one piece. For rectal lesions, transanal endoscopic microsurgery or transanal minimally invasive surgery offers more radical transmural resection but ESD is also effective for removal of complex rectal lesions. Surgical resection with lymph node dissection is the gold standard for invasive cancer; however, the management of low-risk early-stage colorectal cancer is worth debating. Treatment selection for large colorectal lesions is discussed based on lesion factor and treatment outcomes.

Over-the-scope clips are cost-effective in recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding

Background

A recent prospective randomised controlled trial ('STING') showed superiority of over-the-scope clips compared to standard treatment in recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding. Cost-effectiveness studies on haemostasis with over-the-scope clips have not been reported so far.

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate whether the higher efficacy of the over-the-scope clips treatment outweighs the higher costs of the device compared to standard clips.

Methods

For the analysis, the study population of the STING trial was used. Costs for the hospital stay in total as well as treatment-related costs were obtained. The average cost-effectiveness ratio, representing the mean costs per designated outcome, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, expressing the additional costs of a new treatment strategy per difference in outcome were calculated. The designated outcome was defined as successful haemostasis without rebleeding within seven days, which was the primary endpoint of the STING trial. Average cost-effectiveness ratio and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were calculated for total costs of the hospital stay as well as the haemostasis treatment alone. The cost-effectiveness analysis is taken from the perspective of the care provider.Results: Total costs and treatment-related costs per patient were 13,007.07 € in the standard group vs 12,808.56 € in the over-the-scope clip group (p = 0.812) and 2084.98 € vs 1984.71 € respectively (p = 0.663). The difference was not statistically significant. Total costs per successful haemostasis (average cost-effectiveness ratio) were 30,677.05 € vs 15,104.43 € and 4917.41 € vs 2340.46 € for the haemostasis treatment. The additional costs per successful haemostasis with over-the-scope clip treatment (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio) is -468.18 € for the whole treatment and -236.49€ for the haemostasis treatment.

Conclusions

Over-the-scope clip treatment is cost-effective in recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding.

High proficiency of colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection in Europe thanks to countertraction strategy using a double clip and rubber band

Background and study aims  ESD in the colon is more challenging technically than in other locations. Here, we report the first comparative case series of colon ESD using a systematic countertraction strategy using two clips and a rubber band. Patients and methods  Retrospective comparative study of classic versus countertraction colon ESD performed in colon ESD cases collected prospectively at Lyon Edouard Herriot Hospital and Limoges University Hospital from January 2016 until December 2017. Results  The study included 192 cases (control = 76, countertraction = 116). Countertraction using the double clip and rubber band technique versus the control group resulted in a significant decrease in the procedure time (94.7 vs . 117 min; P  = 0.004) and significant increases in procedure speed (28.2 vs . 16.7 mm ² /min; P  < 0.0001), en bloc resection rate (95.7 % vs . 76.3 %, P  < 0.0001), and R0 resection rate (78.5 % vs . 64.5 %, P  = 0.04). At an individual operator point of view, results varied between operators but the double clip countertraction strategy significantly increased the en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, and speed of dissection for each of the 4 operators. Conclusion  Systematic countertraction using a double clip and rubber band facilitates colon ESD. This strategy should become the standard for colon ESD.

Estimation of Invasion Depth: The First Key to Successful Colorectal ESD

Colorectal tumors with superficial submucosal invasion, which cannot be removed by snaring, are one of the most optimal indications for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Therefore, estimation of the invasion depth is the first key to successful colorectal ESD. Although estimation of the invasion depth based on the gross morphology may be useful in selected cases, its diagnostic accuracy could not reach the clinical requirement. The Japan Narrow-band Imaging (NBI) Expert Team (JNET) classification of NBI magnifying endoscopy findings is a useful method for histologic prediction and invasion depth estimation. However, magnifying chromoendoscopy is still necessary for JNET type 2B lesions to reach a satisfactory diagnostic accuracy. Endocytoscopy with artificial intelligence is a promising technology in invasion depth estimation; however, more data are needed for its clinical application.

Multicentre prospective evaluation of real-time optical diagnosis of T1 colorectal cancer in large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps using narrow band imaging (the OPTICAL study)

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the preresection accuracy of optical diagnosis of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) in large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs).

DESIGN

In this multicentre prospective study, endoscopists predicted the histology during colonoscopy in consecutive patients with LNPCPs using a standardised procedure for optical assessment. The presence of morphological features assessed with white light, and vascular and surface pattern with narrow-band imaging (NBI) were recorded, together with the optical diagnosis, the confidence level of prediction and the recommended treatment. A risk score chart was developed and validated using a multivariable mixed effects binary logistic least absolute shrinkage and selection (LASSO) model.

RESULTS

Among 343 LNPCPs, 47 cancers were found (36 T1 CRCs and 11 ≥T2 CRCs), of which 11 T1 CRCs were superficial invasive T1 CRCs (23.4% of all malignant polyps). Sensitivity and specificity for optical diagnosis of T1 CRC were 78.7% (95% CI 64.3 to 89.3) and 94.2% (95% CI 90.9 to 96.6), and 63.3% (95% CI 43.9 to 80.1) and 99.0% (95% CI 97.1 to 100.0) for optical diagnosis of endoscopically unresectable lesions (ie, ≥T1 CRC with deep invasion), respectively. A LASSO-derived model using white light and NBI features discriminated T1 CRCs from non-invasive polyps with a cross-validation area under the curve (AUC) of 0.85 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.90). This model was validated in a temporal validation set of 100 LNPCPs (AUC of 0.81; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96).

CONCLUSION

Our study provides insights in the preresection accuracy of optical diagnosis of T1 CRC. Sensitivity is still limited, so further studies will show how the risk score chart could be improved and finally used for clinical decision making with regard to the type of endoresection to be used and whether to proceed to surgery instead of endoscopy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR5561.

Endoscopic resection techniques for colorectal neoplasia: Current developments

Endoscopic polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are the established treatment standards for colorectal polyps. Current research aims at the reduction of both complication and recurrence rates as well as on shortening procedure times. Cold snare resection is the emerging standard for the treatment of smaller (< 5mm) polyps and is possibly also suitable for the removal of non-cancerous polyps up to 9 mm. The method avoids thermal damage, has reduced procedure times and probably also a lower risk for delayed bleeding. On the other end of the treatment spectrum, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) offers en bloc resection of larger flat or sessile lesions. The technique has obvious advantages in the treatment of high-grade dysplasia and early cancer. Due to its minimal recurrence rate, it may also be an alternative to fractionated EMR of larger flat or sessile lesions. However, ESD is technically demanding and burdened by longer procedure times and higher costs. It should therefore be restricted to lesions suspicious for high-grade dysplasia or early invasive cancer. The latest addition to endoscopic resection techniques is endoscopic full-thickness resection with specifically developed devices for flexible endoscopy. This method is very useful for the treatment of smaller difficult-to-resect lesions, e.g., recurrence with scar formation after previous endoscopic resections.

AGA Institute Clinical Practice Update: Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the United States

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an established endoscopic resection method in Asian countries, which is increasingly practiced in Europe and by early adopters in the United States for removal of early cancers and large lesions from the luminal gastrointestinal tract. The intent of this expert review is to provide an update regarding the clinical practice of ESD with a particular focus on its use in the United States. This review is framed around the 16 best practice advice points agreed upon by the authors, which reflect landmark and recent published articles in this field. This expert review also reflects our experience as advanced endoscopists with extensive experience in performing and teaching others to perform ESD in the United States. Best Practice Advice 1: Endoscopic submucosal dissection should be recognized as a mature endoscopic technique that enables complete removal of lesions that are too large for en bloc endoscopic mucosal resection or are at increased risk of containing cancer. Best Practice Advice 2: The safety and feasibility of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer is well established. The absolute indications for curative endoscopic resection include moderately and well-differentiated, nonulcerated, mucosal lesions that are ≤2 cm in size. Best Practice Advice 3: Other relative (expanded) indications for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection include moderately and well-differentiated superficial cancers that are >2 cm, lesions ≤3 cm with ulceration or that contain early submucosal invasion, and poorly differentiated superficial cancers ≤2 cm in size. The risk of lymph node metastasis when endoscopic submucosal dissection is performed for these indications is higher than when it is performed for absolute indications but remains acceptably low. Best Practice Advice 4: Endoscopic submucosal dissection may be considered in selected patients with Barrett's esophagus with the following features: large or bulky area of nodularity, lesions with a high likelihood of superficial submucosal invasion, recurrent dysplasia, endoscopic mucosal resection specimen showing invasive carcinoma with positive margins, equivocal preprocedural histology, and intramucosal carcinoma. Best Practice Advice 5: Endoscopic submucosal dissection is the primary modality for treatment of squamous cell dysplasia and cancer confined to the superficial esophageal mucosa. Any degree of submucosal invasion caries an increased risk of lymph node metastasis and alternative/additional therapy should be considered. Best Practice Advice 6: Duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection is associated with an increased risk of intraprocedural perforation and delayed adverse events. Duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection should be limited to endoscopists with extensive experience in performing endoscopic submucosal dissection in other locations. It is strongly suggested that endoscopists in the United States refrain from performing duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection during the early phase of their endoscopic submucosal dissection practice. Best Practice Advice 7: All colorectal lesions should be evaluated for suitability for endoscopic resection. Accumulating evidence has shown that the majority of colorectal neoplasms without signs of deep submucosal invasion or advanced cancer can be treated by advanced endoscopic resection techniques. Best Practice Advice 8: Colorectal neoplasms containing dysplasia confined to the mucosa have no risk for lymph node metastasis and endoscopic resection should be considered as the criterion standard. Best Practice Advice 9: Large (>2 cm) colorectal lesions frequently (>43%) require piecemeal removal when endoscopic mucosal resection is used, which is associated with increased (up to 20%) rates of recurrent neoplasia. Endoscopic submucosal dissection enables higher rates of en bloc resection and lower recurrence rates for these lesions. Patients with large complex colorectal polyps should be referred to a high-volume, specialized center for endoscopic removal by endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection. Best Practice Advice 10: Endoscopic resection for colorectal lesions offers significant cost benefit compared with surgery, and case-based endoscopic submucosal dissection selection for high-risk lesions could offer cost savings. Best Practice Advice 11: Endoscopists in the United States embarking on performing endoscopic submucosal dissection should be familiar with currently available endoscopic tissue closure devices. Both clip closure and endoscopic suturing techniques have been shown to be effective in managing intraprocedural perforation. Complete closure of a post-endoscopic submucosal dissection site may be considered in certain circumstances based on patient factors, procedural factors, and the location of the lesion. Best Practice Advice 12: Careful coagulation of exposed blood vessels in the resection site may reduce the risk of delayed bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection. The use of low-voltage coagulation current is recommended for this technique. Best Practice Advice 13: Endoscopists should affix the endoscopic submucosal dissection specimen to a flat surface (eg, pin the specimen to cork board) and immerse it in formalin. An expert gastrointestinal pathologist should evaluate the specimen for margin involvement, degree of differentiation, presence or absence of lymphovascular invasion, depth of submucosal invasion (if present), and tumor budding. Best Practice Advice 14: Acquiring high-level competency in endoscopic submucosal dissection is achievable in the United States. Alternative educational models should be used in the United States because of the limited number of experts and the differing prevalence of gastrointestinal luminal diseases as compared with Asia. Best Practice Advice 15: The endoscopic submucosal dissection educational model most suited for the current environment in the United States is a stepwise approach consisting of didactic self-study, attending training courses with increasing levels of complexity, self-practice on animal models, and observation of live cases performed by experts. Endoscopists should perform their initial endoscopic submucosal dissections on patients with lesions that have well-established indications for endoscopic submucosal dissection and are of the lowest technical complexity. Best Practice Advice 16: Endoscopists in the United States who perform endoluminal resection should educate referring physicians to avoid practices that may induce submucosal fibrosis hampering future endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection. These practices include tattooing in close proximity to or beneath a lesion for marking and partial snare resection of a portion of a lesion for histopathology.

What is the cost of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)? A medico-economic study

Introduction

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the gold-standard treatment for superficial lesions of the digestive tract. No medico-economic study has been conducted in Europe.

Material and methods

A monocentric study was conducted including all patients undergoing ESD between January 2015 and December 2017. The global cost of hospital stays was measured by microcosting, and revenue was based on the diagnosis-related group (DRG) system. The primary objective was to assess the cost/revenue balance. A medico-economic comparison with surgery was performed as a secondary outcome.

Results

A total of 193 patients were prospectively included. The cost per procedure was €3463.79, subtracted from a €2726.84 revenue, with a deficit of -€736.96 per stay. Presence of comorbidities/complications increasing DRG value was the only predictive factor for a positive budgetary balance in a multivariate analysis (odds ratio 49.21, 95% confidence interval 11.3-214.25, p < 0.0001). In comparison with surgery, ESD was associated with shorter length of stay (11 vs 2 days; p < 0.0001) and lower morbidity (28% vs 14%; p = 0.061), lower cost (€8960 vs €1770; p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

The ESD cost/revenue balance is negative in 80% of cases. Given the benefits of ESD in terms of patient morbidity and financial savings compared with surgery, the implementation of a specific ESD reimbursement is warranted.

Introduction of endoscopic submucosal dissection in the West

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is well established in Asia as a modality for selected advanced lesions of both the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract, but ESD has not attained the same niche in the West due to a variety of reasons. These include competition from traditional surgery, minimally invasive surgery and endoscopic mucosal resection. Other obstacles to ESD introduction in the West include time commitment for learning and doing procedures, a steep learning curve, special equipment, lack of mentors, cost issues, interdisciplinary conflicts, concern regarding complications and lack of support from institutions and interfacing departments. There are intrinsic differences in pathology prevalence (e.g., early gastric cancer) between the two regions that are less conducive for ESD implementation in the West. We will elaborate on these issues and suggest measures as well as a protocol to overcome these obstacles and hopefully allow introduction of ESD as a tenable option for appropriate patients.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: Indications and Application in Western Endoscopy Practice

Endoscopic submucosal dissection was developed in Japan, early in this century, to provide a minimally invasive yet curative treatment for the large numbers of patients with early gastric cancer identified by the national screening program. Previously, the majority of these patients were treated surgically at substantial cost and with significant risk of short- and long-term morbidity. En-bloc excision of these early cancers, most with a limited risk of nodal metastasis, allowed complete staging of the tumor, stratification of the subsequent therapeutic approach, and potential cure. This transformative innovation changed the nature of endoscopic treatment for superficial mucosal neoplasia and, ultimately, for the first time allowed endoscopists to assert that the early cancer had been definitively cured. Subsequently, Western endoscopists have increasingly embraced the therapeutic possibilities offered by endoscopic submucosal dissection, but with some justifiable scientific caution. Here we provide an evidence-based critical appraisal of the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection in advanced endoscopic tissue resection.

Management of complex polyps of the colon and rectum

PUPRPOSE

Benign polyps that are technically challenging and unsafe to remove via polypectomy are known as complex polyps. Concerns regarding safety and completeness of resection dictate they undergo advanced endoscopic techniques, such as endoscopic mucosal resection or surgery. We provide a comprehensive overview of complex polyps and current treatment options.

METHODS

A review of the English literature was conducted to identifyarticles describing the management of complex polyps of the colon and rectum.

RESULTS

Endoscopic mucosal resection is the standard of care for the majority of complex polyps. Only polyps that fail endoscopic mucosal resection or are highly suspicious of invasive cancer but which cannot be removed endoscopically warrant surgery.

CONCLUSION

Several factors influence the treatment of a complex polyp; therefore, there cannot be a "one-size-fitsall" approach. Treatment should be tailored to the lesion's characteristics, the risk of adverse events, and the resources available to the treating physician.