Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions: A systematic review

Predictors of En Bloc, R0 Resection, and Postprocedural Complications After Advanced Endoscopic Resections for Colorectal Neoplasms: Results of 1213 Procedures

BACKGROUND

Advanced endoscopic resection techniques are used to treat colorectal neoplasms that are not amenable to conventional colonoscopic resection. Literature regarding the predictors of the outcomes of advanced endoscopic resections, especially from a colorectal surgical unit, is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the predictors of short-term and long-term outcomes after advanced endoscopic resections.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

SETTINGS

Tertiary care center.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent advanced endoscopic resections for colorectal neoplasms from November 2011 to August 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection, and combined endoscopic laparoscopic surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Predictors of en bloc and R0 resection, bleeding, and perforation were determined using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models. Cox regression models were used to determine the predictors of tumor recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 1213 colorectal lesions from 1047 patients were resected (median age 66 [interquartile range, 58-72] years, 484 women [46.2%], median BMI 28.6 [interquartile range, 24.8-32.6]). Most neoplasms were in the proximal colon (898; 74%). The median lesion size was 30 (interquartile range, 20-40; range, 0-120) mm. Nine hundred eleven lesions (75.1%) underwent previous interventions. The most common Paris and Kudo classifications were 0 to IIa flat elevation (444; 36.6%) and IIIs (301; 24.8%), respectively. En bloc and R0 resection rates were 56.6% and 54.3%, respectively. Smaller lesions, rectal location, and procedure type (endoscopic submucosal dissection) were associated with significantly higher en bloc and R0 resection rates. Bleeding and perforation rates were 5% and 6.6%, respectively. Increased age was a predictor for bleeding (OR 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09; p < 0.0001). Lesion size was a predictor for perforation (OR 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03; p = 0.03). The tumor recurrence rate was 6.6%. En bloc (HR 1.41; 95% CI, 1.05-1.93; p = 0.02) and R0 resection (HR 1.49; 95% CI, 1.11-2.06; p = 0.008) were associated with decreased recurrence risk.

LIMITATIONS

Single-center, retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of advanced endoscopic resections can be predicted by patient-related and lesion-related characteristics. See Video Abstract .

PREDICTORES DE LA RESECCION R, EN BLOQUE Y LAS COMPLICACIONES POR RESECCIONES ENDOSCPICAS AVANZADAS EN CASOS DE NEOPLASIA COLORRECTAL RESULTADOS DE PROCEDIMIENTOS

ANTECEDENTES:Las técnicas avanzadas de resección endoscópica se utilizan para el tratamiento de neoplasias colorrectales que no son susceptibles de resección colonoscópica convencional. La literatura sobre los predictores de los resultados de las resecciones endoscópicas avanzadas, especialmente en una unidad de cirugía colorrectal, es limitada.OBJETIVO:Determinar los predictores de resultados a corto y largo plazo después de resecciones endoscópicas avanzadas.DISEÑO:Serie de casos retrospectivos.LUGAR:Centro de tercer nivel de atención.PACIENTES:Pacientes sometidos a resecciones endoscópicas avanzadas por neoplasias colorrectales desde noviembre de 2011 hasta agosto de 2022.INTERVENCIÓNES:Resección endoscópica de la mucosa, disección endoscópica submucosa (ESD), ESD híbrida, cirugía laparoscópica endoscópica combinada.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los predictores de resección en bloque y R0, sangrado y perforación se determinaron mediante modelos de regresión logística univariables y multivariables. Se utilizaron modelos de regresión de Cox para determinar los predictores de recurrencia del tumor.RESULTADOS:Se resecaron 1.213 lesiones colorrectales en 1.047 pacientes [edad media 66 (58-72) años, 484 (46,2%) mujeres, índice de masa corporal medio 28,6 (24,8-32,6) kg/m 2 ]. La mayoría de las neoplasias se encontraban en el colon proximal (898, 74%). El tamaño medio de la lesión fue de 30mm (RIC: 20-40, rango: 0-120). 911 (75,1%) lesiones tenían intervenciones previas. Las clasificaciones de París y Kudo más comunes fueron 0-IIa elevación plana (444, 36,6%) y III (301, 24,8%), respectivamente. Las tasas de resección en bloque y R0 fueron del 56,6% y 54,3%, respectivamente. Las lesiones más pequeñas, la ubicación rectal y el tipo de procedimiento (ESD) se asociaron con tasas de resección en bloque y R0 significativamente más altas. Las tasas de sangrado y perforación fueron del 5% y 6,6%, respectivamente. La edad avanzada [1,06 (1,03-1,09), p < 0,0001] fue un predictor de sangrado. El tamaño de la lesión [1,02 (1,00-1,03), p = 0,03] fue un predictor de perforación. La tasa de recurrencia del tumor fue del 6,6%. En bloque [HR 1,41 (IC 95% 1,05-1,93), p = 0,02] y la resección R0 [HR 1,49 (IC 95% 1,11-2,06), p = 0,008] se asociaron con un menor riesgo de recurrencia.LIMITACIONES:Estudio unicéntrico, retrospectivo.CONCLUSIONES:Los resultados de las resecciones endoscópicas avanzadas pueden predecirse según las características del paciente y de la lesión. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

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.

Assessment and Techniques for Endoscopic Closure

Endoscopic closure is an essential technique to perform safe advanced endoscopy. Without appropriate closure of a defect, patients can experience spillage of fecal contents into the peritoneal cavity resulting in abdominal sepsis. The essential components to performing endoscopic closure are assessing the defect appropriately and choosing the correct closure technique. Assessing the defect involves five separate elements: timing, size, depth, shape, blood flow, and location in the colon or rectum. Understanding how each of these elements contributes toward a successful closure allows an endoscopist to choose the proper technique for closure. There have been many types of closure techniques described in the literature but the most common are through the scope clips, over the scope clips, and endoscopic suturing. There are advantages and disadvantages of each of these closure techniques. In this manuscript, we will discuss these common techniques as well as some additional techniques and the situations where they can be employed.

Feasibility of a novel unassisted single-channel transcolonic endoscopic appendectomy for the treatment of appendiceal lesions (with video)

BACKGROUND

Transcolonic endoscopic appendectomy (TEA) is rapidly evolving and has been reported as a minimally invasive alternative to appendectomy. We aimed to characterize the feasibility and safety of a novel unassisted single-channel TEA.

METHOD

We retrospectively investigated 23 patients with appendicitis or appendiceal lesions who underwent TEA from February 2016 to December 2022. We collected clinicopathological characteristics, procedure‑related parameters, and follow‑up data and analyzed the impact of previous abdominal surgery and traction technique.

RESULTS

The mean age was 56.0 years. Of the 23 patients with appendiceal lesions, fourteen patients underwent TEA and nine underwent traction-assisted TEA (T-TEA). Eight patients (34.8%) had previous abdominal surgery. The En bloc resection rate was 95.7%. The mean procedure duration was 91.1 ± 45.5 min, and the mean wound closure time was 29.4 ± 18.6 min. The wounds after endoscopic appendectomy were closed with clips (21.7%) or a combination of clip closure and endoloop reinforcement (78.3%), and the median number of clips was 7 (range, 3-15). Three patients (13.0%) experienced major adverse events, including two delayed perforations (laparoscopic surgery) and one infection (salvage endoscopic suture). During a median follow-up of 23 months, no residual or recurrent lesions were observed, and no recurrence of abdominal pain occurred. There were no significant differences between TEA and T-TEA groups and between patients with and without abdominal surgery groups in each factor.

CONCLUSION

Unassisted single-channel TEA for patients with appendiceal lesions has favorable short- and long-term outcomes. TEA can safely and effectively treat appendiceal disease in appropriately selected cases.

Clinical audit of endoscopic sub-mucosal dissection performed for complex lateral spreading colorectal tumors from a region non-endemic for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection is currently the treatment of choice for laterally spreading tumors (LSTs). Endoscopic sub-mucosal dissection (ESD) can achieve higher enbloc resection and R0 resection, albeit at a slightly higher risk of complications. Given scarce data on ESD from India, we performed a retrospective analysis of our experience with colorectal ESD (CR-ESD) to know its clinical efficacy and complications as well as to assess the learning curve of CR-ESD in non-endemic-areas.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained datasheet performed. All patients with large (>2cm), complex or recurrent colorectal LST who underwent ESD at our center between 2012 and 2021 were included in the study. Various baseline lesion-related parameters, procedure-related parameters, enbloc resection (ER) rates, R0 margins and adverse event rates were retrieved. CUSUM analysis was performed to calculate the minimum required procedures to achieve competency in CR-ESD.

RESULTS

Total 149 patients were included in the study; mean patient age was 61.36±18.21 years. Most patients had lesions in rectum (n=102; 68.5%) followed by sigmoid colon (n=25; 16.8%). The mean lesion size was 46.62 ± 25.46 mm and the mean procedure duration for ESD was 219.30 ± 150.05 min. ER was achieved in 94.6% of lesions. R0 resection was achieved in 132 patients (88.6%). Overall, six (4%) adverse events were noted, of which one required surgical intervention. As many as 105 patients (70.5%) had adenomatous lesions on histology. Seventy-four patients underwent follow-up colonoscopy, of which three had a recurrence of adenomatous lesions and five had post-resection stricture requiring endoscopic dilation. CUSUM curve analysis calculated the learning curve for ESD was 47 resections for ER and 55 for the occurrence of AEs, with a composite CUSUM at 47 procedures.

CONCLUSION

CR-ESD even in non-endemic area is associated with high en bloc resection rates, R0 resection rates and acceptable complication profile. Approximately 50 cases of CR-ESD are required to achieve competency.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for the treatment of rectal lesions involving the dentate line

BACKGROUND

The ideal treatment of epithelial neoplastic rectal lesions involving the dentate line is a controversial issue. Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the most commonly used resection technique, but it is associated with high recurrence rates. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been shown to be safe and effective for the treatment of rectal lesions, but evidence is lacking concerning its application close to the dentate line. The aim of our study is to compare ESD and EMR for the treatment of epithelial rectal lesions involving the dentate line.

METHODS

We identified all cases of endoscopic resections of rectal lesions involving the dentate line performed in two German high-volume centers between 2010 and 2022. Periinterventional and follow-up data were collected and retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

We identified 68 ESDs and 62 EMRs meeting our inclusion criteria. ESD showed a significant advantage in en bloc resection rates (89.7% vs. 9.7%; P = 0.001) and complete resection rates (72.1% vs. 9.7%; P = 0.001). The overall curative resection rate was similar between both groups (ESD: 92.6%, EMR: 83.9%; P = 0.324), whereas in the subgroup of low-risk adenocarcinomas ESD was curative in 100% of the cases vs. 14% in the EMR group (P = 0.002). There was one local recurrence after ESD (1,5%) vs. 16 (25.8%) after EMR (P < 0.0001), and the EMR patients required an average of three further interventions.

CONCLUSION

ESD is superior to EMR for the treatment of epithelial rectal lesions involving the dentate line and should be considered the treatment of choice.

Best practices in wound care for gastrointestinal stoma and colorectal cancer patients from a nursing perspective: A meta-analysis

Colorectal cancer, a type of colon or bowel cancer, poses a major challenge in the treatment of colorectal lesions. Colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a minimally invasive technique, but the risk of wound infections remains a significant concern. These infections can impede the healing process, affecting daily activities and patient satisfaction. To mitigate the risk of wound infections, various prophylactic measures have been explored, including medication, vaccines, lifestyle adjustments and hygiene practices. This study aims to investigate the prevention of wound infections through prophylactic measures in colorectal EMR. A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify prophylactic measures that can prevent wound infections. A systematic literature search was conducted using both free words and search terms. The data extraction was performed after a comprehensive literature screening. The meta-analysis was performed using the metabin function of the meta library in R to evaluate the infection incidences in intervention and control groups. A total of 599 infection incidences were considered, with 267 in intervention and 332 in the control group. The results of meta analysis demonstrated significant reduction of wound incidences following the prophylactic measures (risk ratio [RR] = 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.6747; 0.9016, I2 = 78.5%, p < 0.01). The wound infection ratio analysis also exhibited an approximate 6.6% less infection rate in the intervention group, demonstrating significantly less wound infection following the implementation of prophylactic measures. This study highlights the crucial significance of prevention of wound infections by prophylactic measures in colorectal EMR.

Large non-pedunculated colorectal polyp management: The elephant in the room

Minimally invasive innovations have transformed coloproctology. Specific to colorectal cancer (CRC), there has been a shift towards less invasive surgical techniques and use of endoscopic resection as an alternative for low risk T1 CRC. The role of endoscopic resection is however much more extensive: It is now considered the first line management strategy for most large (≥ 20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps, the majority of which are benign. This is due to the well-established efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic techniques compared to surgery. Multiple endoscopic modalities now exist with distinct risk-benefit profiles and their outcomes are further improved by site-specific technical modifications, auxiliary techniques, and adverse event mitigation strategies. Endoscopic capacity continues to evolve with emerging endoscopic techniques and expanding applications, particularly in the confines of a multi-disciplinary setting.

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.

T1 colorectal cancer management in the era of minimally invasive endoscopic resection

T1 colorectal cancer (CRC), defined by tumor invasion confined to the submucosa, has historically been managed by surgery. Improved understanding of recurrence and lymph node metastases risk, coupled with advances in endoscopic resection techniques, have led to an increasing capacity for organ-sparing local excision. Minimally invasive management of T1 CRC begins with optical evaluation of the lesion to diagnose invasive disease and quantify depth of invasion, which informs therapeutic decision making. Modality selection between various available endoscopic resection techniques depends upon lesion characteristics, technique risk-benefit profiles, and location-specific implications. Following endoscopic resection, established histopathology features determine the risk of recurrence and subsequent management including surveillance or adjuvant surgical excision. The management of non-operative candidates deviates from conventional recommendations with emerging treatment strategies in select populations.

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.

Colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection versus segmental colon resection for benign colonic polyps: a comparative cost analysis

AIM

The colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection (CAL-WR) is proven to be an effective and safe alternative to a segmental colon resection (SCR) for large or complex benign colonic polyps that are not eligible for endoscopic removal. This analysis aimed to evaluate the costs of CAL-WR and compare them to the costs of an SCR.

METHOD

A single-centre 90-day 'in-hospital' comparative cost analysis was performed on patients undergoing CAL-WR or SCR for complex benign polyps between 2016 and 2020. The CAL-WR group consisted of 44 patients who participated in a prospective multicentre study (LIMERIC study). Inclusion criteria were (1) endoscopically unresectable benign polyps; (2) residual or recurrence after previous polypectomy; or (3) irradically resected low risk pT1 colon carcinoma. The comparison group, which was retrospectively identified, included 32 patients who underwent an elective SCR in the same period.

RESULTS

Colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection was associated with significantly fewer complications (7% in the CAL-WR group vs. 45% in the SCR group, P < 0.001), shorter operation time (50 min in the CAL-WR group vs. 119 min in the SCR group, P < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (median length of stay 2 days in the CAL-WR group vs. 4 days in the SCR group, P < 0.001) and less use of surgical resources (reduction in costs of 32% per patient), resulting in a cost savings of €2372 (£2099 GBP) per patient (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Given the clinical and financial benefits, CAL-WR should be recommended for complex benign polyps that are not eligible for endoscopic resection before major surgery is considered.

Decreasing rates of colectomy for benign neoplasms: A nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in endoscopic techniques for management of benign colonic neoplasms, a rise in rates of surgical treatment has been reported. We used a nationally representative cohort to characterize temporal trends, patient characteristics, and outcomes associated with colectomy for colonic neoplasms.

METHODS

All patients undergoing elective partial colectomy for benign or malignant colonic neoplasms were identified using the 2012-2019 National Inpatient Sample. Those presenting with inflammatory bowel disease, or experiencing intestinal perforation were excluded. Patients with benign neoplasms were classified as the Benign cohort (others: Malignant). Trends, characteristics, and outcomes were assessed between groups.

RESULTS

Of 569,280 colectomy procedures included for analysis, 153,435 (27.0%) were performed for benign lesions. The proportion of Benign operations decreased from 28.6% in 2012 to 23.7% in 2019 (P for trend<0.001). While overall national incidence of colectomy for benign neoplasms decreased from 2012 to 2019 (IRD -1.19, 95%CI -1.20- -1.19), Black patients demonstrated an incremental increase (IRD +0.04, 95%CI +0.02-0.06). On average, Benign was younger (66 [57-72] vs 68 years [58-77], P<0.001), and demonstrated a lower Elixhauser comorbidity index (2 [1-3] vs 3 [2-4], P<0.001), relative to Malignancy. Following adjustment, Benign demonstrated lower odds of in-hospital mortality (AOR 0.61, 95%CI 0.50-0.74; P<0.001), stoma creation (AOR 0.46, 95%CI 0.43-0.50; P<0.001), and infectious complications (AOR 0.68, 95%CI 0.63-0.73; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present national study identifies a decrease in colectomy for benign polyps from 2012-2019. Future investigations should identify patients who would most benefit from surgical resection and address persistent inequities in access to screening and treatment for colonic neoplasms.

pT1 colorectal cancer: A treatment dilemma

The implementation of population screening programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) has led to a considerable increase in the prevalence pT1-CRC originating on polyps amenable by local treatments. However, a high proportion of patients are referred for unnecessary oncological surgeries without a clear benefit in terms of survival. Selecting the appropriate endoscopic resection technique in the moment of diagnosis becomes crucial to provide the best treatment alternative to each individual polyp and patient. For this, it is imperative to increase the optical diagnostic skill for differentiating pT1-CRCs and decide the appropriate initial therapy. En bloc resection is crucial to obtain an adequate histological specimen that might allow organ preserving therapeutic management. In this review, we address key challenges in T1 CRC management, explore the efficacy and safety of the available diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, and shed light on upcoming advances in the field.

Outcomes for Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of 21-30-mm Colorectal Polyps: A Feasible Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This randomized controlled trial (RCT) was designed to evaluate the short-term outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of 21-30 mm colonic polyps.

METHOD

We conducted a single-center RCT. Patients diagnosed with suspected colorectal intramucosal carcinoma (21-30 mm and adaptable for both UEMR and ESD) were randomly assigned to the UEMR and ESD groups at a 1:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was the R0 resection rate. We independently performed one-sample tests against the set threshold for each treatment. The significance level was set at p = 0.224.

RESULT

Eleven polyps each in the UEMR and ESD groups, respectively, were analyzed. The R0 resection rate (%) was 36 (95% confidence interval 11-69) and 100 (72-100) for UEMR and ESD, respectively, with a significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.002). The p-value against the set threshold for UEMR was 0.743, whereas that for ESD was < 0.001 (one-sample binomial test). The en bloc resection rates (%) were 82 (48-97) and 100 (72-100) for UEMR and ESD, respectively; however, no significant difference was observed (p = 0.167). The mean treatment time (min) was significantly shorter in the UEMR group (8 ± 6) than in the ESD group (48 ± 29) (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

ESD could achieve a high R0 resection rate, while the en bloc resection rate was comparable between the two treatment techniques with less burden on patients undergoing UEMR for 21-30-mm colorectal polyps.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered at the Japan Registry of Clinical Trial as jRCT1030210015 and jRCT1030210177.

Endoscopic management of colorectal polyps

Colorectal polyps are premalignant lesions in the lower gastrointestinal tract. Endoscopic polypectomy is an effective strategy to prevent colorectal cancer morbidity and more invasive procedures. Techniques for the endoscopic resection of polyps keep evolving, and endoscopists are required to perform the most appropriate technique for each polyp. In this review, we outline the evaluation and classification of polyps, update the recommendations for optimal treatment, describe the polypectomy procedures and their strengths/weaknesses, and discuss the promising innovative methods or concepts.

Underwater versus conventional EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Underwater EMR (UEMR) is an alternative procedure to conventional EMR (CEMR) to treat large, nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (LNPCLs). In this multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of UEMR versus CEMR on LNPCLs.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial from February 2018 to February 2020 in 11 hospitals in Spain. A total of 298 patients (311 lesions) were randomized to the UEMR (n = 149) and CEMR (n = 162) groups. The main outcome was the lesion recurrence rate in at least 1 follow-up colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included technical aspects, en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rates, and adverse events, among others.

RESULTS

There were no differences in the overall recurrence rate (9.5% UEMR vs 11.7% CEMR; absolute risk difference, -2.2%; 95% CI, -9.4 to 4.9). However, considering polyp sizes between 20 and 30 mm, the recurrence rate was lower for UEMR (3.4% UEMR vs 13.1% CEMR; absolute risk difference, -9.7%; 95% CI, -19.4 to 0). The R0 resection showed the same tendency, with significant differences favoring UEMR only for polyps between 20 and 30 mm. Overall, UEMR was faster and easier to perform than CEMR. Importantly, the techniques were equally safe.

CONCLUSIONS

UEMR is a valid alternative to CEMR for treating LNPCLs and could be considered the first option of treatment for lesions between 20 and 30 mm due to its higher en bloc and R0 resection rates. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03567746.).

Longly-attached cap can contribute to en bloc underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of 20-30 mm colorectal intramucosal lesions

Background and study aims  Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is effective for colorectal intramucosal lesions. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a longly-attached cap in UEMR improves the en bloc resection rate for 20-30 mm lesions. Patients and methods  We performed a retrospective study at a tertiary institute. Candidates for the study were systematically retrieved from an endoscopic and pathological database from October 2016 to December 2020. We assessed the procedural outcomes with UEMR for lesions ≥ 20 mm in size and the clinical factors contributing to en bloc resection. Results  A total of 52 colorectal lesions that underwent UEMR were included. The median procedure time was 271 (66-1264) seconds. The en bloc resection rate and R0 resection rate were 75 % and 73 %, respectively. Intraprocedural perforation occurred in one (1.9 %) case, but no bleeding occurred. Delayed bleeding occurred in one (1.9%) case, but no delayed perforation occurred. Regarding tumor size, macroscopic type, tumor location, and the presence or absence of a history of abdominal operation, there was no significant difference between the en bloc resection and piecemeal resection groups. The visibility of the whole lesion, a longly-attached cap, and sessile serrated lesions were more frequently observed in the en bloc resection group than in the piecemeal resection group ( P  < 0.001, P  = 0.01, and P  = 0.04, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that a longly-attached cap was the only independent factor associated with en bloc resection ( P  = 0.02). Conclusions  A longly-attached cap might contribute to en bloc resection.

Closure of Mucosal Defects Using Endoscopic Suturing Following Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Single-Center Experience

Background and Aims

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a therapeutic technique for en-bloc resection of both large (>20 mm) and smaller, complex gastrointestinal neoplasms. ESD has a higher success rate of en-bloc resection and a lower rate of local recurrence compared to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Removal of lesions via ESD can leave large mucosal defects, raising unique challenges leading to adverse events. We aimed to determine clinical outcomes including delayed bleeding, perforation and hospitalization in patients undergoing endoscopic suturing following ESD.

Methods

Single-center retrospective study of a prospectively collected database of consecutive adult patients who underwent ESD with mucosal defect closure using endoscopic suturing. Primary outcomes were adverse events, specifically, delayed bleeding or perforation. Secondary outcomes included need for hospitalization and suturing complications.

Results

55 patients (mean age: 67 years) were included with a mean lesion size of 27.4 mm ± 15. Defect closure occurred in the esophagus (6), gastroesophageal junction (2), stomach (30), cecum (2), sigmoid colon (2) and rectum (13). A mean of 1.8 ± 1.0 sutures were required for defect closure. Hospital admission rates were 14% (8/55) with an average length of stay 2 days (range: 1-3 days). Intra-procedure perforation occurred in two patients and both were successfully treated with endoscopic suturing. There was one case of delayed bleeding and no cases of delayed perforation or suturing complications.

Conclusion

The use of endoscopic suturing following ESD is a safe and clinically reliable method to close mucosal defects. This approach is associated with minimal adverse events and need for hospitalization. Larger studies are needed to further validate these findings.

Tip-in EMR as an alternative to endoscopic submucosal dissection for 20- to 30-mm nonpedunculated colorectal neoplasms

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Tip-in EMR, which includes anchoring the snare tip, has recently shown a favorable en-bloc and R0 resection rate for colorectal neoplasms. Thus, Tip-in EMR may be an alternative to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to compare clinical outcomes between Tip-in EMR and ESD for large colorectal neoplasms.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated consecutive patients who underwent Tip-in EMR or ESD for 20- to 30-mm nonpedunculated colorectal neoplasms at a Japanese tertiary cancer center between January 2014 and December 2019. Baseline characteristics, treatment results, and long-term outcomes were analyzed using 1:1 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Seven hundred nine lesions were evaluated. The Tip-in EMR group included 1 lesion with a nonlifting sign but no lesions with fold convergence. After propensity score matching, each group included 140 lesions. The ESD group showed significantly higher en-bloc resection rates (99.3% vs 85.0%) and R0 resection rates (90.7% vs 62.9%). Procedure time was significantly shorter in the Tip-in EMR group (8 minutes vs 60 minutes). The Tip-in EMR and ESD groups did not differ significantly with respect to local recurrence rate (2.1% vs 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Tip-in EMR is comparable with ESD with respect to the local recurrence rate but has a shorter procedure time, despite the lower en-bloc and R0 resection rates for 20- to 30-mm nonpedunculated colorectal neoplasms without fold convergence or nonlifting sign. Thus, Tip-in EMR could be a feasible alternative to ESD in these lesions.

Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection for Colorectal Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) with an over-the-scope full-thickness resection device is a relatively new technique for the resection of colorectal lesions. Multiple centers have published the results of case series and observational cohorts regarding the use of this technique for managing difficult polyps. This study aims to aggregate the results of these studies to determine the effectiveness and safety of this technique in the resection of these technically challenging colonic lesions.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched. Articles were included if they reported technical success rate for EFTR of colonic lesions. The primary outcome was technical success rate and secondary outcomes included rate of R0 resection and overall 30-d morbidity. DerSimonian and Laird random-effects meta-analysis of proportions was used to generate effect sizes for pooled outcomes.

RESULTS

From 2211 citations, 21 studies with 1539 patients (mean age 67.2 y, 39.5% female) undergoing 1551 procedures were included. Difficult to resect benign lesions were the most commonly excised lesions (hyperplastic: 35.9%; adenomas: 30.2%), followed by T1 adenocarcinomas (25.6%) and neuroendocrine tumors (6.1%). Technical success rate was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI] 87-92), and R0 resection rate was 79% (95% CI 76-82). Mean procedure time was 53.5 min and mean specimen size was 17.5 mm. Overall 30-d morbidity was 11% (95% CI 7-13), and incidences of perforation and postpolypectomy bleeding were 2% (95% CI 1-2) and 5% (95% CI 3-7), respectively. Lesion recurrence at 3-mo follow-up was 8%.

CONCLUSIONS

EFTR requires further large sample size, comparative studies with reporting of long-term oncologic data. However, preliminary findings indicate that it is a safe and effective technique with high rates of technical success and acceptable rates of R0 resection when employed by experienced endoscopists for high-risk colonic lesions.

Preparation and ex vivo investigation of an injectable microparticulate formulation for gastrointestinal mucosa polyp resection

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic submucosal resection (EMR) are non-invasive endoscopic techniques. They allow an early excised gastrointestinal (GI) mucosal precancerous lessions. For their application is necessary use of a submucosal injection that lift area to excise. The main objective of this study was the preparation of microparticulate-based fluid for injection in the GI submucosa. Alginate microparticles (MPs) were developed by the solvent displacement technique and characterized by particle size, surface electrical properties, swelling, degradation, rheology, adhesion and leakage, syringeablity and stability. Furthermore, their potential to form a submucosal cushion was assayed in porcine stomach mucosa and porcine colon mucosa. Results showed MPs sizes below 160 μm, negative surface charge around -50 mV at pH=6, high rates of swelling and good adhesion. The microparticulate-based fluid exhibited pseudoplastic behavior following the Ostwald-de Waele rheological model. A brief force is sufficient for its injection through a syringe. Finally, formulations were able to provide a submucosa elevation of 1.70 cm for more than 90 min and 120 min in the porcine stomach and colon, respectively.

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.

Outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasms: Prospective, multicenter, cohort trial

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the gold standard for the treatment of noninvasive large colorectal lesions, despite challenges associated with nonlifting lesions and a high rate of local recurrence. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) offers the possibility of overcoming these EMR limitations. However, a higher risk of complications and longer procedure time prevented its dissemination. As ESD now provides more stable results because of standardized techniques compared with those used earlier, this study aimed to quantify the rates of en bloc and curative resections, as well as ESD complications, in the present situation.

METHODS

A multicenter, large-scale, prospective cohort trial of ESD was conducted at 20 institutions in Japan. Consecutive patients scheduled for ESD were enrolled from February 2013 to January 2015.

RESULTS

ESD was performed for 1883 patients (1965 lesions). The mean procedure time was 80.6 min; en bloc and curative resections were achieved in 1759 (97.0%) and 1640 (90.4%) lesions, respectively, in epithelial lesions ≥20 mm. Intra- and postprocedural perforations occurred in 51 (2.6%) and 12 (0.6%) lesions, respectively, and emergency surgery for adverse events was performed in nine patients (0.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

This trial conducted after the standardization of the ESD technique throughout Japan revealed a higher curability, shorter procedure time, and lower risk of complications than those reported previously. Considering that the target lesions of ESD are more advanced than those of EMR, ESD can be a first-line treatment for large colorectal lesions with acceptable risk and procedure time. (Clinical Trial Registration: UMIN000010136).

Endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of early colorectal cancer

Early colorectal cancer refers to cancer in the colorectum that is confined to the mucosa or submucosa and does not invade the muscularis propria, irrespective of lymph node or distant metastasis. As the number of persons undergoing screening colonoscopy increases, the proportion of patients diagnosed with precancerous colorectal lesions and early colorectal cancer also increases. In the last decade, innovative optical technologies for endoscopic diagnosis have been introduced and endoscopic treatment techniques such as endoscopic submucosal dissection have provided major breakthroughs in the management of early colorectal cancer. With these remarkable developments, endoscopic treatment has established itself as an alternative to surgical resection in the treatment of early colorectal cancer. This review will discuss the endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of early colorectal cancer. Furthermore, the unmet needs in this field and the latest research addressing those issues will be summarized.

Transanal endoscopic microsurgical submucosal dissection (TEM-ESD) for rectal adenomas: a retrospective cohort study of 145 consecutive cases

PURPOSE

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are currently the two most popular methods for resecting large rectal adenomas en bloc. However, damage to the mesorectum in the case of TEM, plus the technical challenges and long procedure times of flexible ESD, are major disadvantages of these procedures. Transanal endoscopic microsurgical submucosal dissection (TEM-ESD) is a new technique, combining the ergonomic features of TEM with the minimally invasive approach of ESD. The aim of our study was to assess the feasibility and safety of TEM-ESD for resection of large rectal adenomas.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed all TEM-ESD procedures performed in Karlsruhe Municipal Hospital between 2012 and 2019, isolated all cases of adenomas, and analyzed the perioperative and follow-up data of the patients.

RESULTS

We identified 145 cases matching our criteria. The median size of the lesions was 4.2 cm, and the median operating time was 45 min. The en bloc resection rate was 100%, and the complete en bloc resection rate was 78.6%. The overall morbidity rate was 6.9%. In a median follow-up period of 24 months, there was a local recurrence in 4.8% of the cases.

CONCLUSIONS

TEM-ESD is a safe and feasible therapeutic option for resecting large rectal adenomas, offering high en bloc resection and low recurrence rates combined with short operating time and low morbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER (CLINICALTRIALS.GOV): NCT04870931.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal lesions: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022

ESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based).ESGE does not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection.ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the treatment of choice for most superficial esophageal squamous cell and superficial gastric lesions.For Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated lesions, ESGE suggests the use of ESD for lesions suspicious of submucosal invasion (Paris type 0-Is, 0-IIc), for malignant lesions > 20 mm, and for lesions in scarred/fibrotic areas.ESGE does not recommend routine use of ESD for duodenal or small-bowel lesions.ESGE suggests that ESD should be considered for en bloc resection of colorectal (but particularly rectal) lesions with suspicion of limited submucosal invasion (demarcated depressed area with irregular surface pattern or a large protruding or bulky component, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm) or for lesions that otherwise cannot be completely removed by snare-based techniques.ESGE recommends that an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with histology no more advanced than intramucosal cancer (no more than m2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma), well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion or ulceration, should be considered a very low risk (curative) resection, and no further staging procedure or treatment is generally recommended.ESGE recommends that the following should be considered to be a low risk (curative) resection and no further treatment is generally recommended: an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with superficial submucosal invasion (sm1), that is well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion, of size ≤ 20 mm for an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma or ≤ 30 mm for a stomach lesion or of any size for a BE-related or colorectal lesion, and with no lymphovascular invasion, and no budding grade 2 or 3 for colorectal lesions.ESGE recommends that, after an endoscopically complete resection, if there is a positive horizontal margin or if resection is piecemeal, but there is no submucosal invasion and no other high risk criteria are met, this should be considered a local-risk resection and endoscopic surveillance or re-treatment is recommended rather than surgery or other additional treatment.ESGE recommends that when there is a diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion, or deeper infiltration than sm1, or positive vertical margins, or undifferentiated tumor, or, for colorectal lesions, budding grade 2 or 3, this should be considered a high risk (noncurative) resection, and complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments should be considered on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE recommends scheduled endoscopic surveillance with high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based) with biopsies of only the suspicious areas after a curative ESD.

Combined endoscopic robotic surgery for complex colonic polyp resection: case series

BACKGROUND

The study objective was to evaluate combined endoscopic and robotic surgery, a novel surgical technique modifying traditional combined endoscopic laparoscopic surgery through robotic assistance, and characterize a series of patients who underwent the modified operative technique.

METHODS

A retrospective case series was performed. The first thirty-seven consecutive patients who underwent combined endoscopic robotic surgery by a single colorectal surgeon from March 2018 to October 2019 were included. Main outcome measures included operative time, intra-operative complication, 30-day post-operative complication, and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

Combined endoscopic and robotic surgery was performed in 37 cases, 32 (86.5%) of which saw the technique through to completion. Median operative room time was 73 min (range 31-184 min). No intraoperative complications occurred and 2 (6.3%) experienced 30-day post-operative complications. Median hospital length of stay was 1.1 days (range 0.2-2.0 days). Median polyp size was 35 mm (range 20-130 mm). Polyps were resected from the following locations: cecum (37.5%), ascending colon (28.1%), transverse colon (21.9%), descending colon (3.1%), sigmoid colon (6.3%), and rectum (3.1%). Pathology demonstrated 77.4% tubular adenoma, 12.9% sessile serrated adenoma, 6.5% dysplasia, and 3.2% signet cell adenocarcinoma.

CONCLUSION

Combined endoscopic robotic surgery was associated with decreased operative time, complication rates, and hospital length of stay compared to literature-reported statistics for combined endoscopic laparoscopic surgery. Increased confidence with 3-dimensional visualization and intracorporeal suturing using combined endoscopic and robotic surgery was noted. Additional studies are needed to further define the role of robotics in combined endoscopic surgery.

Colon Polypectomy with Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection

Endoscopic resection has become the gold standard for the management of most of the large colorectal polyps. Various endoscopic resection techniques include endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR). ESD is a minimally invasive method for the resection of advanced lesions in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract to achieve en-bloc resection. While, EFTR is more commonly used in lesions with suspected deeper submucosal invasion, lesions originating from muscularis propria, or those with advanced fibrosis. This article reviews the indications, technique, and adverse events for use of ESD and EFTR in the colon.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal laterally spreading tumors: Clinical outcomes and predictors of technical difficulty

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for the treatment of colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) and the factors related to technical difficulty.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent ESD for colorectal LSTs between June 2013 and January 2019 were retrospectively included. Factors associated with difficult ESD procedures (defined as conversion to piecemeal resection or discontinuation of endoscopic procedure), and dissection with a slow speed (<8 mm² /min), were determined using the logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 325 patients with 342 colorectal LSTs (median size 20.0 mm) were enrolled. The proportions of granular (LST-G) and non-granular LST (LST-NG) were 62.9% and 37.1%, respectively. The overall en bloc and complete resection rates were 89.8% and 81.9%, respectively. The endoscopic procedure was discontinued in four lesions (1.2%), and 31 (9.1%) converted to piecemeal resection because of technical difficulty. Using multivariate analysis, positive non-lifting sign (odds ratio [OR] 19.9, P < 0.001), tumor size ≥20 mm (OR 10.0, P < 0.001), and less experienced endoscopists (OR 3.7, P = 0.005) were independent factors for technically difficult procedure. Positive non-lifting sign (OR 3.7, P = 0.004), lesion size <20 mm (OR 3.7, P < 0.001), LST-NG type (OR 1.8, P = 0.034), and less colorectal ESD experience (OR 1.9, P = 0.016) were independent factors of slow-speed dissection.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD was feasible and safe for treating colorectal LSTs. Positive non-lifting sign and tumor ≥20 mm indicated difficult ESD procedures. Technical failure was more likely to occur in lesions resected by less-experienced endoscopists. Dissection speed might be improved with more experienced operators.

Ultrasonic cleaning is effective in removing carbonized clots and tissue from the insulation‐tipped diathermic knife‐2

Objectives

Since carbonized clots and tissue (debris) tend to adhere firmly to the tip of the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) knife as the procedure proceeds, manual removing the firm debris is often challenging and time‐consuming. Recently, effective ultrasonic cleaning for other medical devices has been reported. The aim of the present study was to clarify whether ultrasonic cleaning is effective in removing the debris on the insulation‐tipped diathermic (IT) knife‐2.

Methods

This study was an ex‐vivo experimental randomized study. A total of 40 IT knife‐2 knives with debris on their tip surfaces were prepared and randomly assigned to two groups (Group A and Group B). The knives in Group A were cleaned using the conventional scrubbing method for 30 s (conventional cleaning method), while those in Group B were cleaned using a combined method of scrubbing for 20 s and ultrasonic cleaning for 10 s (combined ultrasonic cleaning method). The tip electrode of the knife after cleaning was photographed under a microscope (40x). The 40 images of the knives were evaluated by independent three endoscopists and two clinical engineers using the five‐step evaluation criteria ranging from cleaning score 1 (dirty) to 5 (clean).

Results

The mean cleaning score of 3.78 (range: 2.33–4.67) in Group B was significantly higher than that of 1.68 (range: 1.00–2.83) in Group A.

Conclusions

The combined ultrasonic cleaning method could remove debris adhering to the IT knife‐2 more effectively than the conventional cleaning method. Ultrasonic cleaning may be applied for real‐world ESD.

Identification of Predictive Factors for Lymph Node Metastasis in pT1 Stage Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Retrospective Analysis Based on the Population Database

Objective: The purpose of this study was to identify predictive factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) in pT1 stage colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. Methods: From the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, 2,697 consecutive pT1 stage patients who underwent surgical resection were retrospectively reviewed. Predictive factors for LNM were identified by the univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. The Kaplan-Meier curves and multivariate Cox regression analysis were used to evaluate the relationships between LNM and overall survival (OS) as well as cancer specific survival (CSS) of pT1 stage CRC patients. Results: The prevalence of LNM in pT1 stage CRC patients was 15.2% (410/2,697). Patient age <60 years (OR:1.869, 95% CI: 1.505-2.321, p < 0.001), poorly differentiated or mucinous or signet ring cell adenocarcinoma (OR:2.075, 95% CI: 1.584-2.717, p < 0.001), elevated carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level (OR:1.343, 95% CI: 1.022-1.763, p = 0.033) and perineural invasion (PNI) (OR:6.212, 95% CI: 3.502-11.017, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with LNM in pT1 stage patients. The survival analysis demonstrated that pT1 stage patients with LNM had a worse OS (5-year OS: 82.2% vs 88.7%, p = 0.020) and CSS (5-year CSS: 74.9% vs 81.5%, p = 0.041) than those without lymph node metastasis. Lymph node metastasis was an independent predictor of poor OS (HR: 1.543, 95% CI: 1.156-2.060, p = 0.003) and CSS (HR: 1.614, 95% CI: 1.121-2.324, p = 0.010) for pT1 stage colorectal cancer patients. Conclusion: Age, differentiation type, CEA level and perineural invasion were independent predictive factors for LNM in pT1 stage CRC patients. These findings might provide further risk stratification for pT1 stage patients and help clinicians identify high-risk individuals.

Endoscopic management of difficult laterally spreading tumors in colorectum

Due to the advent of the screening programs for colorectal cancer and the era of quality assurance colonoscopy the number the polyps that can be considered difficult, including large (> 20 mm) laterally spreading tumors (LSTs), has increased in the last decade. All LSTs should be assessed carefully, looking for suspicious areas of submucosal invasion (SMI), such as nodules or depressed areas, describing the morphology according to the Paris classification, the pit pattern, and vascular pattern. The simplest, most appropriate and safest endoscopic treatment with curative intent should be selected. For LST-granular homogeneous type, piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection should be the first option due to its biological low risk of SMI. LST-nongranular pseudodepressed type has an increased risk of SMI, and en bloc resection should be mandatory. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection is useful in situations where submucosal injection alters the operative field, e.g., for the resection of scar lesions, with no lifting, adjacent tattoo, incomplete resection attempts, lesions into a colonic diverticulum, in ileocecal valve and lesions with intra-appendicular involvement. Endoscopic full thickness resection is very useful for the treatment of difficult to resect lesions of less than 20 up to 25 mm. Among the indications, we highlight the treatment of polyps with suspected malignancy because the acquired tissue allows an exact histologic risk stratification to assign patients individually to the best treatment and avoid surgery for low-risk lesions. Endoscopic submucosal dissection is the only endoscopic procedure that allows completes en bloc resection regardless of the size of the lesion. It should therefore be indicated in the treatment of lesions with risk of SMI.

Risk Stratification of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Colon Tumors

Background: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technique proven effective in the treatment of early neoplastic lesions in the gastrointestinal tract. However, in the case of colon lesions, many doubts remain. The purpose of our study is to stratify the success rates of the ESD procedure in the colon. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of 601 patients who underwent ESD procedure for colorectal neoplasm from 2016 to 2019 in Center of Bowel Treatment, Brzeziny, Poland. Excluding 335 rectal neoplasms, we selected 266 patients with lesions located in the colon. Results: Lesions located in the left colon were characterized by the statistically higher en bloc resection and success rate, compared with the right colon—87.76% vs. 73.95% (p = 0.004) and 83.67% vs. 69.75% (p = 0.007), respectively. The success rate was significantly lower in lesions with submucosal cancer, compared to low- and high-grade dysplasia (p < 0.001). Polyps located in the right colon were characterized by a slightly higher complication rate compared to the left colon, without statistical significance—13.45% vs. 9.52% (p = 0.315). Conclusions: Our results show that colonic ESD has a high success rate, especially in the left colon, with a low risk of complications, slightly higher than in the right colon.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of benign and malignant colon lesions with one-year follow up in a Danish cohort

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) has been shown to be a feasible and safe technique in several studies since the introduction of the full-thickness resection device (FTRD^®). This study aimed to describe our clinical experience and long-term follow up in in patients who underwent EFTR of benign and malignant colon lesions using FTRD.

METHODS

All patients with difficult adenomas or early adenocarcinomas referred for an EFTR to two centres in Denmark were included in this prospective consecutive study. The primary outcome was technical success with R0 resection and relapse-free follow up. The secondary outcome was procedure-related adverse events.

RESULTS

Twenty-six patients were enrolled in the study. Technical success was achieved in 81% patients and R0 resection rate was 86%. Full-thickness resection was achieved in 86% patients. In 13 patients with malignant lesions, we obtained follow-up in 10 cases (two patients underwent surgery and one was non-compliant). Findings of the three-month follow up showed no residual tumour in all 10 cases. At the 12-month follow up, one patient had a late relapse. There were no residual or recurrent adenomas in the benign subgroup. Overall, adverse events were observed in 11.5% (3/26) patients with a perforation rate of 7.7%.

CONCLUSION

EFTR with FTRD proves to be an additional technique for the treatment of difficult non-lifting colorectal lesions. For malignant lesions, EFTR is technically safe and feasible and can potentially treat small early low-risk tumours; however, some cases may require subsequent surgery according to the histological staging observed in the resected specimen.

Performance of perioperative antibiotics against post-endoscopic submucosal dissection coagulation syndrome: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of perioperative antibiotics against post-endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) coagulation syndrome (PECS) in patients undergoing colorectal ESD.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled, parallel, superiority trial was conducted at 21 Japanese tertiary institutions. Patients with superficial colorectal lesions ≥20 mm and those undergoing ESD management for a single lesion were eligible. Patients with perforation during and after ESD were withdrawn. Before the ESD procedure, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either undergo conventional treatment (nonantibiotic group) or investigational treatment (antibiotic group). In the antibiotic group, 3 g of ampicillin-sulbactam was administered just before, 8 hours after, and the morning after ESD. The primary endpoint was the incidence of PECS. The onset of PECS was defined as localized abdominal pain (both spontaneous pain and tenderness) and fever (≥37.6°C) or inflammatory response (leukocytosis [≥10,000 cells/μL] or elevated C-reactive protein level [≥.5 mg/dL]).

RESULTS

From February 5, 2019 to September 7, 2020, 432 patients were enrolled and assigned to the antibiotic group (n = 216) or nonantibiotic group (n = 216). After withdrawal of 52 patients, 192 in the antibiotic group and 188 in the nonantibiotic group were analyzed. PECS occurred in 9 of 192 patients (4.7%) in the antibiotic group and 14 of 188 patients (7.5%) in the nonantibiotic group, with an odds ratio of .61 (95% confidence interval, .23-1.56; P = .29).

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative use of antibiotics was not effective in reducing the incidence of PECS in patients undergoing colorectal ESD. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000035178.).

Endoscopic Management of Complex Colorectal Polyps: Current Insights and Future Trends

Most colorectal cancers arise from adenomatous polyps and sessile serrated lesions. Screening colonoscopy and therapeutic polypectomy can potentially reduce colorectal cancer burden by early detection and removal of these polyps, thus decreasing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Most endoscopists are skilled in detecting and removing the vast majority of polyps endoscopically during a routine colonoscopy. Polyps can be considered “complex” based on size, location, morphology, underlying scar tissue, which are not amenable to removal by conventional endoscopic polypectomy techniques. They are technically more challenging to resect and carry an increased risk of complications. Most of these polyps were used to be managed by surgical intervention in the past. Rapid advancement in endoscopic resection techniques has led to a decreasing role of surgery in managing these complex polyps. These endoscopic resection techniques do require an expert in the field and advanced equipment to perform the procedure. In this review, we discuss various advanced endoscopic techniques for the management of complex polyps.

Is underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of colon polyps superior to conventional techniques? A network analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection

Background and study aims  Evidence from recent trials comparing conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to underwater EMR (UEMR) have matured. However, studies comparing UEMR to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are lacking. Hence, we sought to conduct a comprehensive network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of UEMR, ESD, and EMR. Methods  Embase and Medline databases were searched from inception to December 2020 for articles comparing UEMR with EMR and ESD. Outcomes of interest included rates of en bloc and complete polyp resection, risk of perforation and bleeding, and local recurrence. A network meta-analysis comparing all three approaches was conducted. In addition, a conventional comparative meta-analysis comparing UEMR to EMR was performed. Analysis was stratified according to polyp sizes (< 10 mm, ≥ 10 mm, and ≥ 20 mm). Results  Twenty-two articles were included in this study. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, UEMR was inferior to ESD in achieving en bloc resection ( P  = 0.02). However, UEMR had shorter operating time for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P  < 0.001), and ≥20 mm ( P  = 0.019) with reduced perforation risk for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P  = 0.05) compared to ESD. In addition, en bloc resection rates were similar between UEMR and EMR, although UEMR had reduced recurrence for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P  = 0.013) and ≥ 20 mm ( P  = 0.014). UEMR also had shorter mean operating than EMR for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P  < 0.001) and ≥ 20 mm ( P  < 0.001). Risk of bleeding and perforation with UEMR and EMR were similar for polyp of all sizes. Conclusions  UEMR has demonstrated technical and oncological outcomes comparable to ESD and EMR, along with a desirable safety profile. UEMR appears to be a safe and effective alternative to conventional methods for resection of polyps ≥ 10 mm.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions: outcomes from a United States experience

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is commonly used in Asia for resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) and early (T1) colorectal cancers. It allows for en bloc removal and is often curative. We describe outcomes of colorectal ESD from a United States (US) academic medical center and compare this to international experiences.

METHODS

Retrospective review was performed of colonic lesions referred to the University of Chicago Medical Center for ESD from 2012 to 2020. Clinical and procedural data were collected.

RESULTS

The study included 78 lesions with mean size of 29.7 mm (range 10-100 mm). The overall en bloc resection rate was 73.1% (n = 57). Between the first and second half of the study, it improved from 61.5 to 84.6% (p = 0.02). Histology showed adenocarcinoma in fifteen lesions (19.2%). Of all neoplastic lesions (n = 68), resection with negative margins (R0) was achieved in 54 cases (79.4%). Adverse events occurred in 9 cases (11.5%), but most (n = 6, 66.7%) were successfully treated endoscopically. Follow-up endoscopy was performed in 46 patients (59.0%) at a mean interval of 6.8 months (SD ± 5.0 months) with two case of recurrent lesion (4.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows successful colorectal ESD outcomes at a US tertiary center. The en bloc resection rate was lower than other cohorts, but a learning curve was demonstrated. The R0 resection, lesion recurrence, and adverse event rates were similar to other non-Asian experiences, but not as favorable as in Asia [Fuccio et al. in Gastrointest Endosc 86:74-86.e17, 2017]. Increased ESD training in the US can help optimize utilization and outcomes.

Comparison of the Effectiveness and Safety of Different Methods of Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Traditional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has developed different methods, such as pocket method (P-ESD), traction-assisted method (T-ESD), and hybrid method (H-ESD). In this meta-analysis, the benefits and drawbacks of different ESD methods were discussed and ranked.

STUDY DESIGN

Studies comparing different methods of colorectal ESD were searched by using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. The study was conducted for five endpoints: en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, operation time, dissection speed, and adverse events rate. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed through Rev Man 5.4 and Stata 16.0. The quality of all included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, including 7 RCTs and 19 non-RCTs, with a total of 3,002 patients. The pooled analysis showed that the en bloc resection rate of H-ESD was significantly lower than that of C-ESD, P-ESD, and T-ESD (RR = 0.28, 95% CI [0.12, 0.65]; RR = 0.11, 95% CI [0.03, 0.44]; RR = 8.28, 95% CI [2.50, 27.42]). Compared with C-ESD, the operation time of H-ESD and T-ESD was significantly shorter (MD = -21.83, 95% CI [-34.76, -8.90]; MD = -23.8, 95% CI [-32.55, -15.06]). Meanwhile, the operation time of T-ESD was also significantly shorter than that of P-ESD (MD = -18.74, 95% CI [-31.93, -5.54]). The dissection speed of T-ESD was significantly faster than that of C-ESD (MD = 6.26, 95% CI [2.29, 10.23]).

CONCLUSION

P-ESD and T-ESD are probably the two best methods of colorectal ESD at present. The advantages of P-ESD are high en bloc resection rate and low incidence of adverse events. The advantages of T-ESD are rapid dissection and short operation time.

Large polyps: Pearls for the referring and receiving endoscopist

Polyps are precursors to colorectal cancer, the third most common cancer in the United States. Large polyps, i.e.,, those with a size ≥ 20 mm, are more likely to harbor cancer. Colonic polyps can be removed through various techniques, with the goal to completely resect and prevent colorectal cancer; however, the management of large polyps can be relatively complex and challenging. Such polyps are generally more difficult to remove en bloc with conventional methods, and depending on level of expertise, may consequently be resected piecemeal, leading to an increased rate of incomplete removal and thus polyp recurrence. To effectively manage large polyps, endoscopists should be able to: (1) Evaluate the polyp for characteristics which predict high difficulty of resection or incomplete removal; (2) Determine the optimal resection technique (e.g., snare polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, etc.); and (3) Recognize when to refer to colleagues with greater expertise. This review covers important considerations in this regard for referring and receiving endoscopists and methods to best manage large colonic polyps.

Construction of a novel predictive nomogram for difficult procedure of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasms

OBJECTIVES

To determine the predictors of difficult colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and to develop a preoperative predictive model for difficult colorectal ESD procedures.

METHODS

Colorectal neoplasms intended to be resected by ESD in our center between August 2013 and February 2019 were retrospectively enrolled. An ESD procedure which took more than 30 min, failed to remove the lesions en bloc or converted to surgery was defined as difficulty. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to find out the predictors of difficult ESD. A nomogram integrating independent predictors was developed and validated with respect to its discrimination, calibration and clinical application, using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, calibration plot and decision curve analysis (DCA), respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 368 colorectal neoplasms in 355 patients were included. The independent predictors for difficult colorectal ESD were size ≥2 cm (odds ratio [OR] = 6.102, p < .001), positive non-lifting sign (OR = 6.569, p = .005), lesions located in left colon (OR = 2.475, p = .036) or rectum (OR = 2.183, p = .048), laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) (OR = 2.501, p = .008) and less colorectal ESD experience (≤20 cases) (OR = 2.3091, p = .028). The nomogram model incorporating the above predictors performed well in both of the training and validation sets (area under the cure [AUC] = 0.786 and 0.784, respectively). DCA demonstrated the clinical benefit of the nomogram was superior to that of each independent predictor alone.

CONCLUSIONS

The nomogram incorporating tumor size, location, morphology, non-lifting sign and ESD experience of operator can be conveniently used to facilitate the preoperative prediction of difficult colorectal ESD.

Predictors of lymph-node metastasis in surgically resected T1 colorectal cancer in Western populations

Background

The risk of lymph-node metastasis (LNM) in T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) has not been well documented in heterogeneous Western populations. This study investigated the predictors of LNM and the long-term outcomes of patients by analysing T1 CRC surgical specimens and patients’ demographic data.

Methods

Patients with surgically resected T1 CRC between 2004 and 2014 were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Patients with multiple primary cancers, with neoadjuvant therapy, or without a confirmed histopathological diagnosis were excluded. Multivariate logistic-regression analysis was used to identify the predictors of LNM.

Results

Of the 22,319 patients, 10.6% had a positive lymph-node status based on the final pathology (nodal category: N1 9.6%, N2 1.0%). Younger age, female sex, Asian or African-American ethnicity, poor differentiation, and tumor site outside the rectum were significantly associated with LNM. Subgroup analyses for patients stratified by tumor site suggested that the rate of positive lymph-node status was the lowest in the rectum (hazard ratio: 0.74; 95% confidence interval: 0.63–0.86).

Conclusion

The risk of LNM was potentially lower in Caucasian patients than in API or African-American patients with surgically resected T1 CRC. Regarding the T1 CRC site, the rectum was associated with a lower risk of LNM.

Current Endoscopic Resection Techniques for Gastrointestinal Lesions: Endoscopic Mucosal Resection, Submucosal Dissection, and Full-Thickness Resection

Background

Endoscopic resection of dysplastic lesions in early stages of cancer reduces mortality rates and is recommended by many national guidelines throughout the world. Snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are established techniques of polyp removal. The advantages of these methods are their relatively short procedure times and acceptable complication rates. The latter include delayed bleeding in 0.9% and a perforation risk of 0.4-1.3%, depending on the size and location of the resected lesion. EMR is a recent modification of endoscopic resection. A limited number of studies suggest that larger lesions can be removed en bloc with low complication rates and short procedure times. Novel techniques such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are used to enhance en bloc resection rates for larger, flat, or sessile lesions. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is employed for non-lifting lesions or those not easily amenable to resection. Procedures such as ESD or EFTR are emerging standards for lesions inaccessible to EMR techniques.

Summary

Endoscopic treatment is now regarded as first-line therapy for benign lesions.

Key Message

Endoscopic resection of dysplastic lesions or early stages of cancer is recommended. A plethora of different techniques can be used dependent on the lesions.

Underwater vs Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Sessile or Flat Colorectal Polyps: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) with submucosal injection is the current standard for the resection of large, nonmalignant colorectal polyps. We investigated whether underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is superior to CEMR for large (20-40mm) sessile or flat colorectal polyps.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized controlled study, patients with sessile or flat colorectal polyps between 20 and 40 mm in size were randomly assigned to UEMR or CEMR. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate after 6 months. Secondary outcomes included en bloc and R0 resection rates, number of resected pieces, procedure time, and adverse events.

RESULTS

En bloc resection rates were 33.3% in the UEMR group and 18.4% in the CEMR group (P = .045); R0 resection rates were 32.1% and 15.8% for UEMR vs CEMR, respectively (P = .025). UEMR was performed with significantly fewer pieces compared to CEMR (2 pieces: 45.5% UEMR vs 17.7% CEMR; P = .001). The overall recurrence rate did not differ between both groups (P = .253); however, subgroup analysis showed a significant difference in favor of UEMR for lesions of >30 mm to ≤40 mm in size (P = .031). The resection time was significantly shorter in the UEMR group (8 vs 14 minutes; P < .001). Adverse events did not differ between both groups (P = .611).

CONCLUSIONS

UEMR is superior to CEMR regarding en bloc resection, R0 resection, and procedure time for large colorectal lesions and shows significantly lower recurrence rates for lesions >30 mm to ≤40 mm in size. UEMR should be considered for the endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps.

Transanal minimally invasive surgery using laparoscopic instruments of the rectum: A review

Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) was first described in 2010 as an alternative to transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). The TAMIS technique can be access to the proximal and mid-rectum for resection of benign and early-stage malignant rectal lesions and also used for noncurative intent surgery of more advanced lesions in patients who are not candidates for radical surgery. TAMIS has a shorter learning curve, reduced device setup time, flexibility in instrument use, and versatility in application than TEM. Also, TAMIS shows similar results in a view of the operation time, conversion rate, reoperation rate, and complication to TEM. For these reasons, TAMIS is an easily accessible, technically feasible, and cost-effective alternative to TEM. Overall, TAMIS has enabled the performance of high-quality local excision of rectal lesions by many colorectal surgeons. As TAMIS becomes more broadly utilized such as pelvic abscess drainage, rectal stenosis, and treatment of anastomotic dehiscence, the acquisition of appropriate training must be ensured, and the continued assessment and assurance of outcome must be maintained.