Cost of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Versus Endoscopic Piecemeal Mucosal Resection in the Colorectum

Prospective, randomized controlled study evaluating a double-balloon interventional endoscopic platform for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (with video)

BACKGROUNDS AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can be challenging and time-consuming. A double-balloon interventional platform (DBIP) was designed to assist with navigation, stabilization, traction, and device delivery during complex colorectal polypectomy. We compared traditional ESD (T-ESD) with DBIP-assisted ESD (DBIP-ESD) in a prospective, randomized trial.

METHODS

Patients with colorectal polyps ≥2 cm were randomly assigned (1:1) to DBIP-ESD or T-ESD. The primary study endpoint was the mean total procedure time difference between groups. Secondary endpoints were intraprocedural time points, en bloc resection rate, procedure cost, adverse events, and 3-month assessment. A sample size of 200 subjects for ≥80% power was calculated. Interim analysis for early study termination was planned at 70% enrollment if the primary endpoint was met (P ≤ .05).

RESULTS

One hundred forty-seven patients were enrolled between February 2019 and February 2020. Seven patients dropped out, and the interim analysis was performed on 140 patients (71 DBIP-ESD, 69 T-ESD). Demographics, comorbidities, and lesion size, location, and classification were similar between groups. The mean procedure time decreased with DBIP-ESD (88.6 ± 42.7 minutes) versus T-ESD (139.5 ± 83.2 minutes; difference of ∼51 minutes [36.5%]; P < .001], with procedural savings of $610.16 (11.4%) per patient after DBIP cost. The DBIP increased dissection speed by 49.0% (15.1 ± 8.0 vs 7.7 ± 6.6 cm2/h, P < .001). En bloc resection was superior with the addition of DBIP (97.2% vs 87.0%, P = .030). The mean navigation time with DBIP-ESD for sutured defect closure decreased by 7.7 minutes (P < .001). There were no adverse events in the DBIP-ESD group.

CONCLUSIONS

DBIP-ESD decreased the total procedure time, improved the en bloc resection rate, and facilitated sutured defect closure, making DBIP a promising and cost-effective tool to improve colorectal ESD adoption. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03846609.).

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: methodology and review of evidence

This document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides a full description of the methodology used in the review of the evidence used to inform the final guidance outlined in the accompanying Summary and Recommendations document regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. This guideline used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation over endosic approaches.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection or piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection for large superficial colorectal lesions: A cost effectiveness study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic management is preferred to surgical management for large superficial colorectal lesions. However, the optimal endoscopic resection strategy (piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection [pEMR] or endoscopic submucosal dissection [ESD]) is still debated from an economical point of view. To date, in France, there is no Health Insurance reimbursement rate for the hospital stays related to ESD. We searched to estimate the global cost of colorectal ESD and to define the most cost-effectiveness endoscopic strategy.

METHODS

A model was created to compare the cost-effectiveness of ESD and pEMR according to optical diagnosis (Japan NBI Expert Team [JNET], laterally spreading tumour [LST], CONECCT). We distinguished three groups from the same multicentre ESD cohort and compared the medical and economic outcomes: real-life ESD data (Universal-ESD or U-ESD) compared to modelled selective ESD (S-ESD JNET; S-ESD LST; S-ESD CONECCT) and exclusive pEMR strategies (Universal-EMR or U-EMR).

RESULTS

The en-bloc, R0, and curative resection rates were 97.5%, 86.5%, and 82.6%, respectively in the real life French ESD cohort of 833 colorectal lesions. U-ESD was the least-expensive strategy, with a global cost of 2,858,048.17 €, i.e. 3,431.03 €/patient and was also the most effective strategy because it avoided 774 surgeries, which was more than any other strategy. It outperformed S-ESD CONNECT (global cost = 2,951,411.44 €, and 3,543.11 €/patient, 765 surgeries avoided, S-ESD LST (global cost = 3,055,951.53 €, and 3,668.61 €/patient, 749 surgeries avoided), and S-ESD JNET (global cost = 3,547,426.97 € and 4,258.62 €/patient, 704 surgeries avoided) and U-EMR (global cost = 4,060,547.62 € and 4,874.61 €/patient, 620 surgeries avoided). Even though a model which optimized pEMR results (0% technical failure, 0% primary surgery), U-EMR strategy remained the most expansive strategy and the one that avoided the least surgeries.

CONCLUSION

ESD for all LSTs upper than 20 mm is more cost-effective than pEMR, and S-ESD.

Self-completion method of endoscopic submucosal dissection using the Endosaber for treating colorectal neoplasms (with video)

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is effective for the treatment of colorectal neoplasms. We have developed a self-completion ESD (S-ESD) using Endosaber without requiring additional instruments or assistance. This prospective cohort study was conducted to investigate the feasibility of S-ESD for colorectal neoplasms. Patients with colorectal neoplasms measuring 20–40 mm in size were enrolled. A single operator, without assistance, performed ESD using only the Endosaber. The primary outcome was the success rate of S-ESD. Secondary outcomes included procedure time, the rates of en bloc, complete, and curative resection, and complication rates, including the incidence of perforation and delayed bleeding. In total, 15 patients with 15 lesions were enrolled. The median size of the resected lesions was 28 mm (interquartile range 25–29 mm). S-ESD success rate of 100% was achieved. The median procedure time was 44 min (29.5–53.5 min). We observed en bloc, complete, and curative resection rates of 100%, 93.3%, and 86.7%, respectively, and a complication rate of 6.7% (perforation: 0%, delayed bleeding: 6.7%). S-ESD for colorectal neoplasms was successfully performed with favorable treatment outcomes and low complication rates. S-ESD reduces the number of devices and extent of assistance, making S-ESD a simple and cost-effective procedure.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of endoscopic resection for colorectal laterally spreading tumors: Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection

OBJECTIVES

The cost-effectiveness of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (pEMR) for colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) remains unclear. We examined the cost-effectiveness of these procedures for cases of colon/rectal LST-non-granular-type ≥2 cm and LST-granular-mixed-type ≥3 cm.

METHODS

We performed a simulation model analysis using parameters based on clinical data from the National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, and previous literature. The number of recurrences and surgeries and the required costs for 5 years following ESD and pEMR were assessed. Japanese cost data were used in the base-case analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed. The Swedish cost data were used in the scenario analysis.

RESULTS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection yielded a considerably lower number of recurrences and surgeries but required a higher cost than pEMR. The recurrence rates following ESD and pEMR were 0.9-1.3% and 21.1-25.9%, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for an avoided recurrence and surgery for ESD against pEMR were 376,796-476,496 JPY (3575-4521 USD) and 7,335,436-8,187,476 JPY (69,604-77,689 USD), respectively. PSA demonstrated that the probability of ESD being chosen as a more cost-effective option than pEMR was >50% at willingness-to-pay values of ≥400,000-500,000 JPY (3795-4744 USD) for avoiding a recurrence and ≥9,500,000-10,500,000 JPY (90,143-99,631 USD) for avoiding a surgery. In the scenario analysis, the required cost was also lower for ESD.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest potentially favorable cost-effectiveness of ESD, depending on cost settings and the willingness-to-pay value for avoiding recurrence/surgery.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a novel endoscopic technique for the resection of GI lesions not amenable to standard endoscopic therapy. The primary aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate EFTR for the resection of colorectal lesions.

METHODS

Individualized searches were developed through October 2020 in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Random-effects models were used to determine pooled technical success, margin-negative (R₀) resection, adverse events, procedure duration, and rate of recurrence at follow-up. Subgroup analysis was used to assess the impact of specific procedure techniques and regression analyses to determine influence of lesion size. Heterogeneity was assessed with I² statistics and publication bias by funnel plots using Egger and Begg tests.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies (1936 subjects; 39.6% women) were included. Most EFTR lesions were located in the colon (75.8%) with the remaining in the rectum. Mean procedure duration was 45.4 ± 11.4 minutes. Pooled technical success was 87.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.1-89.8; I² = 33), R₀ resection rate was 78.8% (95% CI, 75.7-81.5; I² = 33), procedure-associated adverse events occurred in 12.2% (95% CI, 9.3-15.9; I² = 61), and recurrence rate was 12.6% (95% CI, 11.1-14.4; I² = 0) over an average weighted follow-up of 20.1 ± 3.8 weeks. Regression analyses revealed significantly lower R₀ resection (odds ratio, .3; 95% CI, .2-.6; I² = 61; P = .0003) and higher overall procedure-associated adverse event rates (odds ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.8-7.2; I² = 55; P = .0004) for lesions >20 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

EFTR overall appears to be an effective modality with high technical success and R₀ resection rate with a relatively low risk of adverse events and recurrence, with greatest success when lesions are <20 mm.

The COlorectal NEoplasia Endoscopic Classification to Choose the Treatment classification for identification of large laterally spreading lesions lacking submucosal carcinomas: A prospective study of 663 lesions

Introduction

Optical diagnosis is necessary when selecting the resection modality for large superficial colorectal lesions. The COlorectal NEoplasia Endoscopic Classification to Choose the Treatment (CONECCT) encompasses overt (irregular pit or vascular pattern) and covert (macroscopic features) signs of carcinoma in an all‐in‐one classification using validated criteria. The CONECCT IIC subtype corresponds to adenomas with a high risk of superficial carcinoma that should be resected en bloc with free margins.

Methods

This prospective multicentre study investigated the diagnostic accuracy of the CONECCT classification for predicting submucosal invasion in colorectal lesions >20 mm. Optical diagnosis before en bloc resection by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was compared with the final histological diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy for the CONECCT IIC subtype was compared with literature‐validated features of concern considered to be risk factors for submucosal invasion (non‐granular large spreading tumour [NG LST], macronodule >1 cm, SANO IIIA area, and Paris 0‐IIC area).

Results

Six hundred 63 lesions removed by ESD were assessed. The en bloc, R0, and curative resection rates were respectively 96%, 85%, and 81%. The CONECCT classification had a sensitivity (Se) of 100%, specificity (Sp) of 26.2%, positive predictive value of 11.6%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100% for predicting at least submucosal adenocarcinoma. The sensitivity of CONECCT IIC (100%) to predict submucosal cancer was superior to all other criteria evaluated. COlorectal NEoplasia Endoscopic Classification to Choose the Treatment IIC lesions constituted 11.5% of all submucosal carcinomas.

Conclusion

The CONECCT classification, which combines covert and overt signs of carcinoma, identifies with very perfect sensitivity (Se 100%, NPV 100%) the 30% of low‐risk adenomas in large laterally spreading lesions treatable by piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection or ESD according to expertise without undertreatment. However, the low specificity of CONECCT leads to a large number of potentially not indicated ESDs for suspected high‐risk lesions.

Double-clip traction for colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter study of 599 consecutive cases (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is particularly challenging and limited to a few expert centers. We recently conducted a pilot study on improvement of colonic ESD with systematic use of a countertraction device (double-clip traction with rubber band [DCT-ESD]).

METHODS

A French prospective multicenter study was conducted between March 2017 and September 2019, including all consecutive cases of naive colonic ESD. Since the first case of DCT-ESD in March 2017, all cases of colonic ESD have been performed using the DCT-ESD strategy in the 3 centers involved in the study.

RESULTS

Five hundred ninety-nine lesions with a mean size of 53 mm were included in this study, resected by 5 operators in 3 centers. The en bloc, R0, and curative resection rates were 95.7%, 83.5%, and 81.1%, respectively. The adverse event rates were 4.9% for perforation and 4.2% for postprocedure bleeding. Between 2017 and 2019, the rates of R0 and curative resections increased significantly from 74.7% in 2017 to 88.4% in 2019 (P = .003) and from 72.6% in 2017 to 86.3% in 2019 (P = .004), respectively. Procedure duration and speed of resection were 62.4 minutes and 39.4 mm²/minute, respectively. No differences were noted between operators.

CONCLUSION

DCT-ESD is a safe and reproducible technique, with results comparable with those of the large Japanese teams with speed of resection twice as high as previously reported studies. The DCT strategy is promising, cheap, and seems to be reproducible. Physicians performing colonic ESD should be aware of this promising tool to improve their results in ESD.