Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal polyps: outcome determining factors

A novel nomogram for the prediction of perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasms

BACKGROUND

High perforation risk hinders the widespread adoption of ESD for colorectal neoplasms. This study was performed to determine the risk factors of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)-induced perforation and develop a predictive model.

METHODS

A total of 1046 colorectal neoplasms in 1011 patients were retrospectively enrolled from January 2011 to December 2021, in a single tertiary center as the derivation cohort. We identified independent risk factors for perforation using univariate analysis and multi-variate logistic regression. A nomogram was developed based on the logistic regression model and prospectively applied to 266 colorectal neoplasms as the validation cohort. The performance of the predictive model was evaluated with the receiver operating characteristic curve, calibration plot, and decision curve analysis.

RESULTS

Independent pre-operative factors for colorectal ESD-induced perforation were tumor located in the left colon [odds ratio (OR) 2.39, P = 0.040], size ≥ 40 mm (OR 3.36, P < 0.001), ≥2/3 circumference (OR 7.55, P = 0.004), located across folds (OR 6.26, P < 0.001), and laterally spreading tumor (non-granular type, OR 2.34, P = 0.029; granular type, OR 2.46, P = 0.021). The nomogram model incorporating the pre-operative factors performed well in both the derivation and validation cohorts (areas under the curve of 0.750 and 0.806, respectively). Decision curve analysis demonstrated that the clinical benefit of the nomogram was favorable.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel nomogram, developed and prospectively validated, incorporating tumor size, location, and morphology can successfully predict perforation during ESD for colorectal neoplasms.

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.).

Planned Hybrid Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection as Alternative for Colorectal Neoplasms: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (H-ESD), a modified ESD with a snare, has become increasingly utilized to overcome the limitations of conventional ESD (C-ESD). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of Planned H-ESD and C-ESD for colorectal lesions.

METHODS

Propensity score matching was performed to control for confounding variables in this retrospective study. Outcomes included en bloc resection and complete resection (R0) rates, procedure time, adverse event rates, and local recurrence rate.

RESULTS

1286 lesions were enrolled in the study. After matching, 263 lesions were assigned to each group. The Planned H-ESD group has lower en bloc rate but similar R0 resection rate compared to the C-ESD group (90.9% vs 98.1%, P = 0.001; 77.2% vs 77.9%, P = 0.917). The median procedure time was shorter in the Planned H-ESD group (27.0 min vs 35.0 min, P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in adverse events rates or local recurrence rate. Subgroup analysis based on lesion size revealed that a significantly lower en bloc resection rate in the Planned H-ESD group compared to the C-ESD group for lesions ≥ 40 mm (71.0% vs 94.3%, P = 0.027), but there was no significant difference for lesions < 40 mm.

CONCLUSION

The Planned H-ESD has a lower en bloc resection rate but a similar R0 resection rate, adverse event rates, local recurrence rate, and shorter procedure duration. Compared to C-ESD, Planned H-ESD presents advantages for managing colorectal neoplasms below 40 mm.

Conventional Versus Traction Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Tumors: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Compared with conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD) for colorectal lesions, the traction method (T-ESD) allows the lesion to be stabilized with easier dissection. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported conflicting results on the clinical outcomes of T-ESD as compared with C-ESD. We conducted a meta-analysis to compile the data.

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched for RCTs evaluating C-ESD versus T-ESD for colorectal tumors. The end points of interest were procedure time (min), resection speed (mm²/min), R0 resection, en bloc resection, delayed bleeding, and perforation. Standard meta-analysis methods were employed using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Six RCTs with a total of 566 patients (C-ESD n=284, T-ESD n=282) were included. The mean age was 67±10 y and 60% were men. As compared with the T-ESD technique, the C-ESD group was associated with longer procedure time (SMD 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.23, P<0.00001) and lesser resection speed (SMD -1.03, 95% CI -2.01 to -0.06, P=0.04). No significant difference was found in the 2 groups with respect to R0 resection rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06, P=0.87), en bloc resection (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.01, P=0.35), delayed bleeding (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.59, P=0.55) and perforation (RR 2.16, 95% CI 0.75 to 6.27, P=0.16).

DISCUSSION

On meta-analysis, pooled procedure time was significantly faster with T-ESD compared with C-ESD. The clinical outcomes, however, were comparable.

Management of complications related to colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Compared to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), colonoscopic endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD) has the advantages of higher en bloc resection rates and lower recurrence rates of colorectal neoplasms. Therefore, C-ESD is considered an effective treatment method for laterally spread tumors and early colorectal cancer. However, C-ESD is technically more difficult and requires a longer procedure time than EMR. In addition to therapeutic efficacy and procedural difficulty, safety concerns should always be considered when performing C-ESD in clinical practice. Bleeding and perforation are the main adverse events associated with C-ESD and can occur during C-ESD or after the completion of the procedure. Most bleeding associated with C-ESD can be managed endoscopically, even if it occurs during or after the procedure. More recently, most perforations identified during C-ESD can also be managed endoscopically, unless the mural defect is too large to be sutured with endoscopic devices or the patient is hemodynamically unstable. Delayed perforations are quite rare, but they require surgical treatment more frequently than endoscopically identified intraprocedural perforations or radiologically identified immediate postprocedural perforations. Post-ESD coagulation syndrome is a relatively underestimated adverse event, which can mimic localized peritonitis from perforation. Here, we classify and characterize the complications associated with C-ESD and recommend management options for them.