Review on colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection focusing on the technical aspect

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Up to 15% of colorectal polyps are amenable for conventional polypectomy. Advanced endoscopic resection techniques are introduced for the treatment of those polyps. They provide higher en bloc resection rates compared with conventional techniques, while helping patients to avoid the complications of surgery. Note that 20 mm is considered as the largest size of a polyp that can be resected by polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in an en bloc fashion. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is recommended for polyps larger than 20 mm. Intramucosal carcinomas and carcinomas with limited submucosal invasion can also be resected with ESD. EMR is snare resection of a polyp following submucosal injection and elevation. ESD involves several steps such as marking, submucosal injection, incision, and dissection. Bleeding and perforation are the most common complications following advanced endoscopic procedures, which can be treated with coagulation and endoscopic clipping. En bloc resection rates range from 44.5 to 63% for EMR and from 87.9 to 96% for ESD. Recurrence rates following EMR and ESD are 7.4 to 17% and 0.9 to 2%, respectively. ESD is considered enough for the treatment of invasive carcinomas in the presence of submucosal invasion less than 1000 μm, absence of lymphovascular invasion, well-moderate histological differentiation, low-grade tumor budding, and negative resection margins.

Effects of integrated management on surgical outcomes and mental health of patients following endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a less invasive local treatment for diseases throughout the gastrointestinal tract.

AIM

To develop an integrated management protocol and analyze its effects on surgical outcomes and mental health of patients after ESD.

METHODS

The study population consisted of patients undergoing ESD before implementation of integrated management and those undergoing ESD by the same pool of surgeons after implementation of integrated management.

RESULTS

The management group exhibited shortened fasting time and length of hospital stay compared to the control group (P < 0.05). The management group exhibited a higher incidence rate of postoperative complications than the control group (3 cases vs 11 cases; P = 0.043). The management group exhibited a lower uncertainty score for disease knowledge compared to the control group 12 h after surgery (P < 0.05). The management group gave more scores on the domains of patient familiarity to the responsible nurses, professional skills of responsible nurses, and general evaluation compared to the control group. The management group had a higher total score of patient satisfaction towards the responsible nurses in term of health care than the control group (P < 0.01). The management group exhibited lower Self-Rating Anxiety Scale and Self-Rating Depression Scale scores compared to the control group 12 h after surgery (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrates that integrated management could improve surgical outcomes and mental health of patients undergoing ESD.

Risk factors and a nomogram for prediction of post-endoscopic submucosal dissection electrocoagulation syndrome for superficial colorectal lesions

BACKGROUND

Post-endoscopic submucosal dissection electrocoagulation syndrome (PEECS) is an uncommon complication after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). This study aimed to explore the risk factors of PEECS for superficial colorectal lesions based on the latest and consistent diagnostic criteria and to establish a predictive nomogram model.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included patients with superficial colorectal lesions who underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) between June 2008 and December 2021 in our center. The independent risk factors of PEECS for superficial colorectal lesions were identified using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression analysis, as well as univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression, and derived predictive nomogram model was constructed.

RESULTS

Among the 555 patients with superficial colorectal lesions enrolled, PEECS occurred in 45 (8.1%) patients. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that female sex (OR 3.94, P < 0.001), age > 50 years (OR 4.28, P = 0.02), injury to muscle layer (OR 10.38, P < 0.001), non-lifting sign (OR 2.20, P = 0.04) and inadequate bowel preparation (OR 5.61, P < 0.001) were independent risk factors of PEECS for superficial colorectal lesions. A predictive nomogram model was constructed based on the above five predictors. For this model, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.855, the calibration curve exhibited good consistency between the prediction and the actual observation, and the C-index was confirmed as 0.843 by bootstrap method.

CONCLUSION

Female sex, age > 50 years, injury to muscle layer, non-lifting sign and inadequate bowel preparation were independent risk factors of PEECS for superficial colorectal lesions. The proposed nomogram could accurately predict the risk of PEECS for superficial colorectal lesions.

A multicenter, retrospective study of a through-the-needle injection-capable electrosurgical knife for endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technically challenging resection technique for en bloc removal of dysplastic and early cancerous GI lesions. We conducted a single-arm retrospective study evaluating the safety and efficacy of a new through-the-needle injection-capable electrosurgical knife used in upper and lower ESD procedures performed at 6 U.S. academic centers.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively collected on consecutive cases in which the new ESD knife was used. The primary efficacy endpoint was successful ESD (en bloc resection with negative margins). Secondary efficacy endpoints included en bloc resection rate, curative resection rate, median ESD time, and median dissection speed. The safety endpoint was device- or procedure-related serious adverse events.

RESULTS

ESD procedures of 581 lesions in 579 patients were reviewed, including 187 (32.2%) upper GI and 394 (67.8%) lower GI lesions. Prior treatment was reported in 283 (48.9%) patients. Successful ESD was achieved in 477 (82.1% of 581) lesions-lower for patients with versus without submucosal fibrosis (73.6% vs 87.0%, respectively; P < .001) but similar for those with versus without previous treatment (81.7% vs 82.3%, respectively; P = .848). A total of 443 (76.2% of 581) lesions met criteria for curative resection. Median ESD time was 1.0 (range, 0.1-4.5) hour. Median dissection speed was 17.1 (interquartile range, 5.3-29.8) cm2/h. Related serious adverse events were reported in 15 (2.6%) patients, including delayed hemorrhage (1.9%), perforation (0.5%), or postpolypectomy syndrome (0.2%).

CONCLUSION

A newly developed through-the-needle injection-capable ESD knife showed a good success rate and excellent safety at U.S.

CENTERS

(Clinical trial registration number: NCT04580940.).

Validation and update of a clinical score model to predict technical difficulty of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The Zhongshan colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (CR-ESD) score model was proposed to grade the technical difficulty of CR-ESD. The objective of this study was to prospectively validate and update the score model.

METHODS

A multicenter prospective cohort analysis of CR-ESD was conducted. Individual data on patients, lesions, and outcomes of CR-ESD were used to validate the original model and further refine the difficulty of the prediction model. Data were randomly divided into discovery and internal validation cohorts. A multivariate Cox regression analysis was conducted on the discovery cohort to develop an updated risk-scoring system, which was then validated.

RESULTS

Five hundred forty-eight patients with 565 colorectal lesions treated by ESD from 4 hospitals were included. In the prospective validation cohort, the area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the original model was .707. Six risk factors were identified and assigned point values: tumor size (2 points for 30-50 mm, 3 points for ≥50 mm), at least two-thirds circumference of the lesion (3 points), tumor location in the cecum (2 points) or flexure (2 points), laterally spreading tumor-nongranular lesions (1 point), preceding biopsy sampling (1 point), and NBI International Colorectal Endoscopic type 3 (3 points). The updated model had an area under the ROC curve of .738 in the discovery cohort and of .782 in the validation cohort. Cases were categorized into easy (score = 0-1), intermediate (score = 2-3), difficult (score = 4-6), and very difficult (score ≥7) groups. Satisfactory discrimination and calibration were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The original model achieved an acceptable level of prediction in the prospective cohort. The updated model exhibited superior performance and can be used in place of the previous version. (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2100047087.).

Conventional versus hybrid knife endoscopic submucosal dissection in large colorectal laterally spreading tumors: A propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (CR-ESD) has become a promising treatment for laterally spreading tumors (LSTs), but is accompanied by great challenges.

.

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CR-ESD with a hybrid knife, versus the conventional technique for LSTs ≥30 mm in diameter, and analyze the risk factors for piecemeal resection and perforation.

METHODS

Patients eligible for CR-ESD were divided into two groups according to the use of the hybrid knife (HK group) or the use of the conventional technique, with an interchange of injection and hook knife (C-group). We performed propensity score matching (PSM) to compare the HK group and the C-group. Risk predictors for perforation and piecemeal resection were identified.

RESULTS

PSM identified 61 (132 patients) and 61 (129 patients) patients in the C-group and the HK group, respectively. Resection speed was significantly faster in the HK group than in the C-group (18.86 vs. 13.33 mm²/min, P < 0.001). The rate of knife exchange was significantly lower in the HK group than in the C-group (1.6% vs. 49.2%, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that unfavorable locations, including the splenic flexure, hepatic flexure, or cecum, were predictive of piecemeal resection. The presence of severe fibrosis and a semilunar fold were independent risk factors for perforation.

CONCLUSIONS

: The use of a hybrid knife appears to increase CR-ESD resection speed. The indicators for piecemeal resection or perforation in CR-ESD identified herein might help to assess the technical difficulties of CR-ESD.

Comparison of efficiency and safety between dual-clip and rubber band-assisted ESD and conventional ESD for colonic lateral spreading tumors (LSTs) with different levels of technical difficulty: a retrospective case–control study

Background

Dual-clip and rubber band-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection (DCRB-ESD) is a useful technique in the management of lateral spreading tumors (LSTs) of the colon and is suggested by researchers compared with conventional ESD (C-ESD). The aim of this retrospective study is to further analyze the efficiency and safety of DCRB-ESD in a setting with varying technical difficulties.

Methods

Patients who underwent endoscopic treatment (DCRB-ESD or C-ESD) due to LSTs between Jan 1st, 2019 and Jan 1st, 2022, were retrospectively collected. Patients were classified into the following two groups: the DCRB-ESD group (n = 46) and the C-ESD group (n = 81). Baselines were compared and propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to manage the heterogeneity. The technical difficulty and outcomes of the two groups were evaluated based on a semiquantitative model (CS-CRESD) previously described.

Results

The baseline characteristics of the two groups were balanced except sex and LST classification before PSM and were corrected after PSM. The median ESD operation time of DCRB-ESD was shorter than that of C-ESD (32 vs 41 and 30 vs 44 before and after PSM respectively, P < 0.05). The operation durations of cases with different CS-CRESD scores were different (P < 0.05). In the subgroup with a score of 0, DCRB-ESD showed no advantage than C-ESD in terms of operation duration before and after PSM. In subgroups with a score of 1–3, DCRB-ESD was faster than C-ESD. In subgroups with a score of 4–5, the between-group operation duration was not significantly different due to the limited number of cases, although the median time of DCRB-ESD was shorter. The R0 resection rates, curative resection, complications, and additional surgery in both groups were not significantly different. No adverse events, such as a clip falling off or rubber band rupturing occurred during this study.

Conclusion

DCRB-ESD was an efficient and safe procedure in the management of colonic LSTs. With DCRB-ESD, the operation duration of difficult cases can be shortened without sacrificing complication risk. However, not all cases would benefit from DCRB-ESD. For easy cases (CS-CRESD score = 0), DCRB-ESD may not be prior to C-ESD by experienced endoscopists. A pre-ESD technical difficulty evaluation was recommended to decide whether to perform DCRB-ESD or not.

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.

Prediction of technically difficult endoscopic submucosal dissection for large superficial colorectal tumors: a novel clinical score model

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a promising technique for removing superficial GI tumors, but ESD is technically difficult. The aim of this study was to establish a clinical score model for grading technically difficult colorectal ESD.

METHODS

Data on patients, lesions, and outcomes of colorectal ESD at 2 centers were analyzed. The objective parameter of successful ESD within 60 minutes was set as an endpoint to evaluate the difficulty. Independent predictors of difficulty in the derivation cohort were identified by multiple logistic regression analysis and used to develop a clinical score. We validated the score model in the validation cohort.

RESULTS

The clinical score comprised tumor size of 30 to 50 mm (1 point) or ≥50 mm (2 points), at least two-thirds circumference of the lesion (2 points), location in the cecum (1 point), flexure (2 points) or dentate line (1 point), and laterally spreading tumor nongranular lesions (1 point). Areas under the receiver operator characteristic curves for the score model were comparable (derivation [.70] vs internal validation [.69] vs external validation [.69]). The probability of successful ESD within 60 minutes in easy (score = 0), intermediate (score = 1), difficult (score = 2-3), and very difficult (score ≥4) categories were 75.0%, 51.3%, 35.6%, and 3.4% in the derivation cohort; 73.3%, 47.9%, 31.8%, and 16.7% in the internal validation cohort; and 79.5%, 66.7%, 43.3%, and 20.0% in the external validation cohort, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This clinical score model accurately predicts the probability of successful ESD within 60 minutes and can be applied to grade the technical difficulty before the procedure.