Endoscopic submucosal dissection of a lower rectal polyp proximal to the dentate line by using local lidocaine injection

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Is Safe and Effective for Lesions Located at the Anorectal Junction: Analysis from Two Referral European Centers

Introduction

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a well-established resection technique for colorectal superficial tumors, but its role in the treatment of anorectal junction (ARJ) lesions still remains to be determined. With this study, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of ESD for the resection of ARJ lesions, in comparison to more proximal rectal lesions.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data concerning all consecutive rectal ESD procedures performed in two European centers, from 2015 to 2021.

Results

A total of two hundred and fifty-two rectal lesions were included. Sixty (24%) were ARJ lesions, and the remaining 192 (76%) were located proximally. Technical success was achieved in 248 procedures (98%), and its rate was similar in both locations (p = 0.246). Most of the lesions presented high-grade dysplasia/Tis adenocarcinoma (54%); 36 (15%) had submucosal adenocarcinoma, including 20 superficial (sm1) and 16 deeply invasive (>SM1) T1 cancers. We found no differences between ARJ and rectal lesions in regard to en bloc resection rate (100% vs. 96%, p = 0.204), R0 resection rate (76% vs. 75%, p = 0.531), curative resection rate (70% vs. 70%, p = 0.920), procedures' median duration (120 min vs. 90 min, p = 0.072), ESD velocity (14 vs. 12 mm2/min, p = 0.415), histopathology result (p = 0.053), and the need for surgery due to a non-curative ESD (5% vs. 3%, p = 0.739). Also, there was no statistically significant difference that concerns delayed bleeding (7% vs. 8%, p = 0.709), perforation (0% vs. 5%, p = 0.075), or the need for readmission (2% vs. 2%, p = 0.939). Nevertheless, anorectal stenosis (5% vs. 0%, p = 0.003) and anorectal pain (9% vs. 1%, p = 0.002) were significantly more frequent in ARJ lesions.

Conclusion

ESD is a safe and efficient resection technique for the treatment of rectal lesions located in the ARJ.

Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Rectal Tumors Extending Versus Not to the Dentate Line: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

GOALS

To evaluate the outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for rectal tumors extending to the dentate line (RTDLs) compared with rectal tumors not extending to the dentate line (non-RTDLs).

BACKGROUND

There is limited composite data on the outcomes of ESD for RTDLs versus non-RTDLs.

STUDY

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that reported the clinical outcomes of ESD for RTDLs and non-RTDLs. Main outcomes were pooled estimated rates of en bloc/complete/curative resection, local recurrence, and incidence of bleeding, perforation, stricture, anal pain, and fever.

RESULTS

Six studies were enrolled, including 265 cases of RTDLs and 788 cases of non-RTDLs. The en bloc resection rate was comparable for RTDLs and non-RTDLs [odds ratio (OR), 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.55-1.95; P=0.90]. The complete resection rate was significantly lower for RTDLs (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41-0.83; P=0.003), as well as the curative resection rate (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.38-0.87; P=0.010). The rates of stricture, postoperative anal pain and local recurrence were significantly higher for RTDLs than non-RTDLs (OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.01-9.31; P=0.05) (OR, 42.10; 95% CI, 4.73-374.97; P=0.0008) (OR, 3.00; 95% CI, 1.13-7.96; P=0.03), but the higher rates of postoperative bleeding and fever for RTDLs were not significantly (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.53-3.30; P=0.54) (OR, 2.23; 95% CI, 0.55-9.07; P=0.26), as well as its lower perforation rate (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.27-2.63; P=0.78).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite its inferior outcomes than non-RTDLs, ESD is still a feasible and safe treatment for RTDLs if appropriate lesions are treated by experienced operators.

Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for laterally spreading tumors involving the dentate line

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for laterally spreading tumors (LST) involving the dentate line (LST-DL) is challenging because of the specific anatomical features of the anorectum. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ESD for LST-DL.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with LST-DL who had undergone ESD at our hospital between January 2010 and December 2015 were retrospectively enrolled in this study. Rates of en bloc resection, R0 resection, and complications, pathological characteristics, and tumor recurrence were analyzed and compared with those of LST in the rectum not involving the dentate line (LST-NDL).

RESULTS

Altogether 49 patients with LST-DL (median age 63 years; 39 women; median lesion size 57 mm; median follow-up period of 24 months) and 96 patients with LST-NDL (median age 67 years; 31 women; median lesion size 47 mm; median follow-up period of 31 months) were enrolled. En bloc resection (93.9% [46/49] vs 94.8% [91/96]) and en bloc R0 resection rates (83.7% [41/49] vs 88.5% [85/96]), respectively, for LST-DL and LST-NDL, with no significant differences. However, ESD for LST-DL had a longer procedure time (77 min vs 54 min, P = 0.02), a greater postprocedural perianal pain rate (28.6% vs 0%, P < 0.001), and more anal strictures (4.1% vs 0%, P = 0.04). The complication rates of perforation, bleeding and fever, recurrence rate, and pathological characteristics did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD is a safe and effective therapeutic modality for LST-DL. However, this procedure should be performed by experienced endoscopists and the difficulty needs to be fully considered.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neoplasia extending to the dentate line: European experience

Background and study aims  The ideal treatment strategy for rectal neoplasia extending to the dentate line (RNDL) is not well defined. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and submucosal dissection (ESD) compete with surgical techniques such as transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). Non-Asian data and prospective data on ESD are lacking. The study aim was to evaluate the role of ESD in treatment of RNDL in a Western center. Patients and methods  Eighty-six patients with rectal adenomas were included. ESD was performed in 86 rectal adenomas including 24 RNDLs (27.9 %) and 62 lesions distant from the dentate line (72.1 %). Results  En bloc resection rate was comparable (91.7 % vs. 93.5 %, P  = 0.670) between ESD for RNDL and non-RNDL. R0 resection rate was significantly lower in ESD for RNDL compared to that for non-RNDL (70.8 % vs 88.7 %; P  = 0.039), but most non-R0 resection was unclear margin (Rx) and was not obvious positive margin (R1). Accordingly, the recurrence rate after ESD for RNDL (4.5 %) was not statistically different from that for non-RNDL (0 %, P  = 0.275) and was lower than that previously reported for EMR. Median procedure time was 127 vs. 110 minutes ( P  = 0.182). Risk of delayed bleeding (20.8 % vs. 0 %, P  = 0.001) and postinterventional pain (33.3 % vs. 14.5 %, P  = 0.07) increased in RNDL cases, but they were managed conservatively. Incidence of stricture (4.2 % vs. 1.6 %, P  = 0.483) and perforation (0 % vs. 1.6 %, P  = 1.000) were similar. Conclusions  ESD is a feasible and safe resection technique for RNDLs. A randomized controlled trial comparing ESD to other methods (EMR or transanal surgery) is warranted.

Clinical guidelines for endoscopic mucosal resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions

This document summarizes the contents of the Clinical Guidelines for the Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Lesions that was developed by the working group of the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy (GSEED of Endoscopic Resection). This document presents recommendations for the endoscopic management of superficial colorectal neoplastic lesions.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Rectal Cancer Close to the Dentate Line Accompanied by Mucosal Prolapse Syndrome

A 37-year-old man presented to our hospital for early rectal cancer accompanied by mucosal prolapse syndrome. Biopsy confirmed an adenocarcinoma, and endoscopic ultrasonography indicated proximity to the dentate line but no submucosal invasion. The tumor was removed en bloc via endoscopic submucosal dissection without complications, and its margin was free of tumor cells. The total procedure duration was 37 minutes, and the resected specimen measured 23 × 13 mm. There was no recurrence during the 3-year observation period. Although close to the dentate line and accompanied by mucosal prolapse syndrome, a rectal cancer lesion was safely resected en bloc using endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Comparison of efficacy and safety between endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic microsurgery for the treatment of rectal tumor

BACKGROUND/AIM

To compare the treatment efficacy and safety between endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for the treatment of rectal epithelial tumors, including large adenoma, cancer, and subepithelial tumors (SET).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of the medical records of 71 patients with rectal tumors who were treated with ESD (48 patients) or TEM (23 patients) from January 2013 to December 2015. The patient group comprised 56 patients with epithelial tumors and 15 patients with SET. Treatment efficacy such as en bloc resection, procedure time, local recurrence, hospital stay, additional procedure rate, and safety between the treatment groups were evaluated and analyzed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in tumor size, location, macroscopic appearance, and histological depth between ESD and TEM groups. For ESD compared to TEM in rectal epithelial tumors, en bloc resection rates were 95% vs. 93.7% and R0 resection rates were 92.5% vs. 87.5% (P = 0.617); in rectal SET, en bloc resection rates were 100% vs. 100% and R0 resection rates were 87% vs. 85% (P = 0.91). The procedure time was 71.5 ± 51.3 min vs. 105.6 ± 28.2 min (P = 0.016) for epithelial tumors and 32.13 ± 13.4 min vs. 80.71 ± 18.35 min (P = 0.00) for SET, respectively. Hospital stay was 4.3 ± 1.2 days vs. 5.8 ± 1.8 days (P = 0.001) for epithelial tumors and 4.1 ± 4.1 days vs. 5.5 ± 2 days (P = 0.42) for rectal SET, respectively. There were no significant differences between recurrence rates, additional procedure rates, and complications in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD and TEM are both effective and safe for the treatment of rectal epithelial tumors and SET because of favorable R0 resection rates and recurrence rates. However, the ESD group showed shorter procedure times and hospital stays than the TEM group. Therefore, ESD should be considered more preferentially than TEM in the treatment of large rectal epithelial tumors and SET.

The efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors extending to the dentate line

PURPOSE

Although endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is becoming the mainstay of the treatment strategies, rather than surgical treatment, for colorectal tumors extending to the dentate line, ESD is technically more difficult. This study was aimed at assessing the usefulness of ESD for the treatment of colorectal tumors extending to the dentate line.

METHODS

This study included 531 patients with colorectal tumors who underwent colorectal ESD between 2008 and 2015. They were divided into three groups: rectal tumors extending to the dentate line (anorectal group), those not extending to the dentate line (proximal rectal group), and colonic tumors (colonic group), and a retrospective comparative analysis was carried out.

RESULTS

Of the total patients, 18 (3.4%) had lesions extending to the dentate line area. The procedure times were 103.4 ± 84.0, 80.4 ± 64.3, and 71.8 ± 52.3 min, respectively (P = 0.0318). All the patients in the anorectal group were operated by operators who had performed at least 20 colorectal ESDs (P < 0.0001). No significant difference among the three groups was found in the en bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, or curative resection rate. Although no significant difference in the incidence of perforation was observed among the three groups, intraoperative bleeding was observed in 61% of the patients in the anorectal group (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

ESD is an effective treatment strategy for colorectal tumors extending to the dentate line. However, it seems that anorectal ESD, which is technically more difficult than colorectal ESD, should be performed by operators with ample experience in performing ESD.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for anorectal tumor with hemorrhoids close to the dentate line: a multicenter study of Hiroshima GI Endoscopy Study Group

BACKGROUND

The lower rectum close to the dentate line has distinct characteristics, making endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of tumors challenging. We assessed clinical outcomes of ESD for such patients with hemorrhoids.

METHODS

Sixty-four patients (mean age, 68 years) underwent ESD for anorectal tumors close to the dentate line. We divided patients into those with (Group A, 45 patients) and without hemorrhoids (Group B, 19 patients). We examined en bloc and histological en bloc resection rates, procedure time, complication rates, and postoperative prognosis after ESD.

RESULTS

The mean tumor size was 43 mm. Histologic diagnoses were adenoma (42 %, 27/64), carcinoma in situ (44 %, 28/64), and T1 carcinoma (14 %, 9/64). There was no significant difference in en bloc resection (93 %, 42/45 vs. 95 %, 18/19) or postoperative bleeding rates (16 %, 7/45 vs. 11 %, 2/19) between Groups A and B, respectively. The mean procedural durations were 120 and 124 min, respectively, in Groups A and B. No perforations occurred. There was no significant difference in postoperative anal pain rate between Groups A (18 %, 8/45) and B (16 %, 3/19), and it resolved within a few days in all cases. There was one case of stricture in Group B. Two patients with T1 carcinoma underwent additional surgery, one underwent chemotherapy, and five had no additional treatment. No recurrence occurred during the follow-up period of 38 months.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD is safe and effective for anorectal tumors close to the dentate line in patients with hemorrhoids.

Advanced endoscopic resection of colorectal lesions

Advanced endoscopic resection techniques allow curative treatment of difficult colonic lesions and avoid the need for surgery in certain cases. If endoscopic resection is indicated, the choice of the most appropriate resection technique depends on lesion characteristics and endoscopist expertise.

Current opinions for endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors from our experiences: indications, technical aspects and complications

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was first applied in the resection of large colorectal tumors 10 years ago. Frequent complications and technical difficulties were serious problems at first, but were gradually improved with experience. Here, we describe the indications, technical aspects and management of complications of ESD for colorectal tumors. In 2009, we introduce the use of small tip insulation-tipped diathermic (IT) knife. Features separating it from the IT knife and IT Knife2 are a smaller ceramic tip and small round disk at the root of the tip. During submucosal dissection, the small tip IT knife could dissect large pieces of tissue intact. This allows us to shorten the procedure time, particularly the submucosal dissection component. A total of 146 ESD for 140 patients were performed between January 2009 and July 2011. En bloc, and en bloc and R0 resection rates were 92.5% and 83.6%, respectively. Median procedural time was 48.5 min for 40.5 mm specimens. Perforation and delayed bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 1.4%, respectively. We successfully performed ESD for colorectal tumors with a shortened procedure time while preserving quality and safety.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for removal of superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms: A technical review

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is now the most common endoscopic treatment in Japan for intramucosal gastrointestinal neoplasms (non-metastatic). ESD is an invasive endoscopic surgical procedure, requiring extensive knowledge, skill, and specialized equipment. ESD starts with evaluation of the lesion, as accurate assessment of the depth and margin of the lesion is essential. The devices and strategies used in ESD vary, depending on the nature of the lesion. Prior to the procedure, the operator must be knowledgeable about the treatment strategy(ies), the device(s) to use, the electrocautery machine settings, the substances to inject, and other aspects. In addition, the operator must be able to manage complications, should they arise, including immediate recognition of the complication(s) and its treatment. Finally, in case the ESD treatment is not successful, the operator should be prepared to apply alternative treatments. Thus, adequate knowledge and training are essential to successfully perform ESD.

Impact of endoscopic submucosal dissection for the therapeutic strategy of large colorectal tumors

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The change of therapeutic strategy for large colorectal tumors after the introduction of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has not yet been clarified. The aim of this study was to estimate the impact of ESD as an initial treatment strategy.

METHODS

A questionnaire was administered to nine expert panelists in colorectal ESD. The questionnaire used retrospective data from consecutive case series. Forty-seven cases of early colorectal tumors (≥ 20 mm) were included. Endoscopic growth types were 25 laterally-spreading tumors (LST) of granular type (G), 15 LST of non-granular types (NG), and seven protruded types. Pathological diagnoses included 15 adenomas (Ad), 18 intramucosal cancers (M), three submucosally-shallow invasive cancers (< 1000 µm) (SMs), and 11 submucosally-deep invasive cancers (≥ 1000 µm) (SMd). The expert panelists completed questionnaires about recommended initial treatment under suppositions of before and after the introduction of ESD. Over-surgery was defined as surgery for Ad, M, and SMs. Non-curative endoscopic resection (ER) was defined as ER for SMd.

RESULTS

After the introduction of ESD, the reduction in the over-surgery rate was estimated at 10.8% for Ad, M, and SMs, and the increase in the non-curative ER rate was estimated at 27.2% for SMd. By endoscopic growth type, the reduction of over-surgery rates for LST-NG, LST-G, and protruded type was 15.5%, 10.5%, and 2.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The endoscopists changed their therapeutic strategy for large colorectal tumors to reduce over-surgery, especially in LST-NG, demonstrating the impact of ESD.