Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis

Endoscopic removal of gastrointestinal lesions by using third space endoscopy techniques

The concept of submucosal space, or rather the "third space", located between the intact mucosal flap and the muscularis propria layer of the gastrointestinal tract, represents a tunnel that the endoscopist could use to perform interventions in the muscularis propria layer or breech it to enter the mediastinum or the peritoneal cavity without full thickness perforation. The tunnel technique can be used both for the removal of mucosal tumours, called endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD), for the removal of subepithelial tumours (SELs), called submucosal tunnelling endoscopic resection (STER), and for the removal of extra-luminal lesions (for example in the mediastinum or in the rectum), called submucosal tunnelling endoscopic resection for extraluminal tumours (STER-ET). Aim of this updated narrative review, is to summarize the evidences that analyses indications, and outcomes of tunnelling techniques for the treatment of above mentioned lesions.

Risk factors and a predictive nomogram for lymph node metastasis in superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is defined as cancer infiltrating the mucosa and submucosa, regardless of regional lymph node metastasis (LNM). Endoscopic resection of superficial ESCC is suitable for lesions that have no or low risk of LNM. Patients with a high risk of LNM always need further treatment after endoscopic resection. Therefore, accurately assessing the risk of LNM is critical for additional treatment options.

AIM

To analyze risk factors for LNM and develop a nomogram to predict LNM risk in superficial ESCC patients.

METHODS

Clinical and pathological data of superficial ESCC patients undergoing esophagectomy from January 1, 2009 to January 31, 2016 were collected. Logistic regression analysis was used to predict LNM risk factors, and a nomogram was developed based on risk factors derived from multivariate logistic regression analysis. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to obtain the accuracy of the nomogram model.

RESULTS

A total of 4660 patients with esophageal cancer underwent esophagectomy. Of these, 474 superficial ESCC patients were enrolled in the final analysis, with 322 patients in the training set and 142 patients in the validation set. The prevalence of LNM was 3.29% (5/152) for intramucosal cancer and increased to 26.40% (85/322) for submucosal cancer. Multivariate logistic analysis showed that tumor size, invasive depth, tumor differentiation, infiltrative growth pattern, tumor budding, and lymphovascular invasion were significantly correlated with LNM. A nomogram using these six variables showed good discrimination with an area under the ROC curve of 0.789 (95%CI: 0.737-0.841) in the training set and 0.827 (95%CI: 0.755-0.899) in the validation set.

CONCLUSION

We developed a useful nomogram model to predict LNM risk for superficial ESCC patients which will facilitate additional decision-making in treating patients who undergo endoscopic resection.

Endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection vs conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for large colorectal neoplasms: a single-centre retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is still not widely used due to its technical difficulty and the risk of complications. Several techniques, such as traction techniques, pocket techniques and others, have been proposed to facilitate it. One modified pocket technique especially suitable for large lesions is endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ESTD and compare ESTD to the conventional ESD (CESD) for treating large colorectal lesions.

METHODS

The charts of consecutive patients referred to the Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova (Reggio Emilia, Italy) for colorectal ESD between January 2014 and February 2021 for colorectal neoplasms > 40 mm were retrospectively analysed. The primary outcome of the study was the en bloc resection rate. Secondary outcomes were complete and curative resection rates, procedure speed, the adverse events rate and the recurrence rate.

RESULTS

There were 59 patients (M:F ratio 29:30, median age 70 years [range 50-93 years]). Of 59 colorectal lesions > 40 mm, 25 were removed by ESTD and 34 by CESD. The en bloc resection rate was 100% in both groups and the complete resection rate was similar (ESTD 92% vs CESD 97.1%, p = 0.569), while the curative resection rate was higher in the CESD group, but not significantly (94.1% vs 76%, p = 0.061). Procedure speed was significantly faster with ESTD (22 vs 17 mm²/min, p = 0.045), and the overall incidence of adverse events was low (6.8%). Eight patients were referred to surgery due to non-curative resection. During follow-up, no recurrence was observed in either treatment group.

CONCLUSION

ESTD achieves a very high en bloc resection rate and is faster than CESD.

Robot-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection contributes to efficient and safe learning for novices: Prospective pilot cross-over ex vivo study (with video)

OBJECTIVES

The lack of effective countertraction to expose the submucosal layer contributes to the technical complication and adverse events in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a novel endoscopic robot (flexible auxiliary single-arm transluminal endoscopic robot [FASTER]) for ESD learning for novices.

METHODS

This was a prospective, cross-over designed pilot study in ex vivo porcine stomach. Four ESD novices were randomized to either FASTER-assisted ESD first (FC) group or a conventional ESD first (CF) group, performed 40 gastric ESDs using each technique, then crossed over to another technique. The performance and learning curve were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

In the first phase, novices in the FC group demonstrated significantly better performance with shorter procedure time (25.6 ± 7.8 vs. 38.9 ± 13.4 min; P < 0.001) and submucosal dissection time (13.9 ± 5.5 vs. 23.1 ± 11.0 min; P < 0.001), higher direct-vision dissection ratio (84.0 ± 7.9% vs. 43.5 ± 20.7%; P < 0.001), and lower muscular injury (2.5 vs. 40.0%; P < 0.001) and task load (4 vs. 5; P < 0.001). Fewer ESDs were required to gain early proficiency in the FC group. When crossed to the second phase, procedure time in the FC group was prolonged but the muscular injury rate did not increase significantly. In total, endoscopists in the FC group tended to have a lower task load (4 vs. 5; P = 0.008) and less muscular injury (10.0 vs. 21.3%; P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Flexible auxiliary single-arm transluminal endoscopic robot-assisted learning reduces the technical difficulty of ESD for novices and the safety profile can sustain in following conventional ESD. These results indicated that FASTER has potential implications for ESD training in clinical practice.

Updates in the Field of Submucosal Endoscopy

Submucosal endoscopy (third-space endoscopy) can be defined as an endoscopic procedure performed in the submucosal space. This procedure is novel and has been utilized for delivery to the submucosal space in a variety of gastrointestinal diseases, such as a tumor, achalasia, gastroparesis, and subepithelial tumors. The main submucosal endoscopy includes peroral endoscopic myotomy, gastric peroral endoscopic myotomy, Zenker peroral endoscopic myotomy, submucosal tunneling for endoscopic resection, and endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection. Submucosal endoscopy has been used as a viable alternative to surgical techniques because it is minimally invasive in the treatment and diagnosis of gastrointestinal diseases and disorders. However, there is limited evidence to prove this. This article reviews the current applications and evidence regarding submucosal endoscopy while exploring the possible future clinical applications in this field. As our understanding of these procedures improves, the future of submucosal endoscopy could be promising in the fields of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy.

Clinical benefit of tunnel endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal squamous cancer: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely accepted as a primary treatment modality for dysplastic and early cancerous lesions of the GI tract. However, prolonged procedure time and life-threatening adverse events remain obstacles to the successful treatment of esophageal cancer. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of tunnel ESD (T-ESD) with conventional ESD (C-ESD) for superficial esophageal squamous neoplasms.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter trial was conducted at 5 hospitals in China. Patients with esophageal squamous neoplasms were enrolled and randomly assigned to undergo C-ESD or T-ESD. Randomization was stratified by tumor location and circumference extent (<1/2 or ≥1/2). The primary endpoint was procedure time.

RESULTS

Between January and July 2018, 160 patients were enrolled. One hundred fifty-two patients (76 in the C-ESD group and 76 in the T-ESD group) were included in the final analysis. The median procedure time was 47.3 minutes (interquartile range, 31.7-81.3) for C-ESD and 40.0 minutes (interquartile range, 30.0-60.0) for T-ESD (P = .095). However, T-ESD specifically reduced the median procedure time 34.5% (29.5 minutes) compared with C-ESD for lesions ≥1/2 circumference (P < .001). Among the multiple secondary outcomes, muscular injury was less frequent in the T-ESD group compared with the C-ESD group (18.4% vs 38.2%, P = .007), but complete healing of artificial mucosal defect in 1-month follow-up was more common in the T-ESD group than the C-ESD group (95.9% vs 84.7%, P =.026).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that T-ESD results in shorter procedure time, specifically for lesions ≥1/2 circumference of the esophagus. In addition, T-ESD has a better safety profile indicated by less frequent muscular injury and improved healing of artificial mucosal defects caused by ESD procedures. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03404921.).

Repeat endoscopic submucosal dissection as salvage treatment for local recurrence of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after initial endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Local recurrence of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) after endoscopic resection does not have an established treatment. The efficacy and safety of repeat endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for recurrent ESCC were determined in the study.

METHODS

Forty-three consecutive patients with 45 locally recurrent superficial ESCC lesions undergoing repeat ESD and 909 first ESD lesions for propensity score matching (PSM) at Zhongshan Hospital between January 2011 and January 2020 were retrospectively enrolled. After PSM (1:2), operation-related parameters were compared between repeat ESD and first ESD. In the repeat ESD group, the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests were used for identification of risk factors for local recurrence after repeat ESD.

RESULTS

As compared with propensity score-matched first ESD, rates of complete resection (86.7% vs 97.8%, P = .02) and curative resection (86.7% vs 96.7%, P = .06) were lower and procedure duration (54.8 ± 21.7 minutes vs 46.2 ± 20.6 minutes, P = .67) and hospital stay (4.3 ± 1.8 days vs 2.9 ± 1.4 days, P = .25) were longer in the repeat ESD group. The en-bloc resection rate (93.3% vs 98.8%, P > .11) remained comparable. Adverse events including bleeding (4.4% vs 0%, P = .11), perforation (.0% vs .0%, P > .99), and stricture (6.7% vs 2.2%, P = .33) presented with no difference. The 5-year overall survival rate and recurrence-free survival rate for repeat ESD was 100% and 86.0%, respectively. Multiplicity was significantly associated with recurrence after repeat ESD (P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat esophageal ESD showed favorable short- and long-term outcomes and thus provides an alternative choice for recurrent superficial ESCC.

Advances in traction methods for endoscopic submucosal dissection: What is the best traction method and traction direction?

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been developed as a treatment for superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms, which can achieve en bloc resection regardless of the lesion size. However, ESD is technically difficult because endoscopists cannot bring their hand into the gastrointestinal tract, unlike surgeons in regular surgery. It is difficult to obtain sufficient tension in the dissection plane and a good field of vision. Therefore, ESD is associated with a long procedure time and a high risk of adverse events in comparison with endoscopic mucosal resection. Traction methods have been developed to provide sufficient tension for the dissection plane and a good field of vision during the ESD procedure. However, traction direction is limited in most traction methods, resulting in insufficient effect in some cases. Although traction direction is considered important, there have been few investigations of its effect. In the first half of this review, important traction methods are discussed, including traction direction. In second half, appropriate traction methods for each organ are considered. Other important considerations for traction method, such as ability to adjust traction strength, interference between traction device and endoscope, and the need for specialized devices are also discussed.

Safety and effectiveness of mucosal traction using a snare combined with endoclips to assist the resection of esophageal intraepithelial neoplasia: a propensity score matching analysis

Currently, the reports on esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) assisted by traction with a snare are rare. Because a snare is a commonly used endoscopic accessory and is easily available, its application in mucosal traction is worth exploring. The present study aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of snare-endoclip traction-assisted ESD for esophageal intraepithelial neoplasia. Cases of esophageal intraepithelial neoplasia resected using ESD in the Digestive Endoscopy Center of Guangzhou Nanfang Hospital, China from June 2013 to March 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The procedure of snare-endoclip traction-assisted ESD was compared with nontraction-assisted ESD by using a propensity score matching analysis. Operation time, en bloc and R0 resection, intra- and postoperative complications, and surgery-related costs were mainly evaluated. Overall, 99 cases of esophageal intraepithelial neoplasia under tissue biopsy were included in the present study. Further, 22 exact matched pairs were obtained. There were no differences in en bloc and R0 resection rates, intra- and postoperative complications, and costs of disposable surgical accessories between the traction group and the nontraction group. However, median operation time showed a significant difference: traction group, 50.0 min (range, 20-100 min); nontraction group, 70.0 min (range, 35-133 min), P=0.012. In conclusion, snare-endoclip traction-assisted ESD for esophageal intraepithelial neoplasia was safe and shortened operation time in the study, thereby improving the efficiency of ESD. Despite the additional use of a snare and endoclips for traction, the total costs of endoscopic accessories seemed not to be increased.

Advances in traction methods for endoscopic submucosal dissection: What is the best traction method and traction direction?

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been developed as a treatment for superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms, which can achieve en bloc resection regardless of the lesion size. However, ESD is technically difficult because endoscopists cannot bring their hand into the gastrointestinal tract, unlike surgeons in regular surgery. It is difficult to obtain sufficient tension in the dissection plane and a good field of vision. Therefore, ESD is associated with a long procedure time and a high risk of adverse events in comparison with endoscopic mucosal resection. Traction methods have been developed to provide sufficient tension for the dissection plane and a good field of vision during the ESD procedure. However, traction direction is limited in most traction methods, resulting in insufficient effect in some cases. Although traction direction is considered important, there have been few investigations of its effect. In the first half of this review, important traction methods are discussed, including traction direction. In second half, appropriate traction methods for each organ are considered. Other important considerations for traction method, such as ability to adjust traction strength, interference between traction device and endoscope, and the need for specialized devices are also discussed.

Near-focus mode for accurate operation during endoscopic submucosal tunneling procedure

INTRODUCTION

When using the endoscopic submucosal tunnel technique (ESTT), the working space in the submucosal tunnel is limited, and the visual field is obscured during close inspection or hemostasis. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of near-focus mode technique for accurate operation during the submucosal tunneling endoscopic procedure.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective two-center study was designed. A total of 51 patients undergoing ESTT procedures with near-focus mode (n = 29) or traditional mode (n = 22) between February 2016 and May 2019 were included in this study.

RESULTS

When using the near-focus mode during the ESTT procedure, it is convenient to ensure a clear image and accurate operation. Adverse events occurred more frequently in the traditional group than in the near-focus group (45.5% vs 17.2%, p = .036). The near-focus group exhibited a lower rate of bleeding compared to the traditional group (0 vs 18.2%, p = .029). Furthermore, the mean hospital stay after the procedure was shorter in the near-focus group than in the traditional group (5.7 days vs 6.7 days, p = .013).

CONCLUSIONS

The visual field is more clearly exposed during submucosal tunneling when using the near-focus mode than when using traditional procedures. This technique appears to be more efficient and secure than the traditional ESTT procedure.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection: How to be more efficient?

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) allows an "en bloc" resection with safety margins (R0 resection) regardless of the size of the lesion. However, while R0 brings a real benefit for the patient, it is not considered sufficient by many experts to justify the technical difficulties and the longer procedure time compared to piecemeal mucosectomy. The aims of this review are to provide several technical and strategical tips to help you save time and become comfortable during ESD procedures. ESD is divided into several intertwined phases: injection, incision, access to the submucosae, and submucosal dissection itself. During injection there are some mistakes that should not be made: a superficial injection, or on the contrary, a too deep injection. A good needle and good injection technique are mandatory. Some techniques, such as repeated injection or prolonged lifting solution, can help maintain the lift. After this step, mucosal incision can be made, taking care to have a good margin to allow an R0 resection. Starting the mucosal incision from a small point allows calibration of the depth of the incision and then obtaining a nice incision. Trimming is also very important to widen submucosal access. Then comes the submucosal dissection itself. Strategies such as the tunnel strategy or the pocket creation method can help to facilitate dissection, but more importantly, traction systems have become unavoidable, especially in the stomach and colon. Most common complications are bleeding and perforation, and they usually can be managed endoscopically.

Efficacy of Current Traction Techniques for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy of the current approach to tissue traction during the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of superficial esophageal cancer, early gastric cancer, and colorectal neoplasms. We performed a systematic electronic literature search of articles published in PubMed and selected comparative studies to investigate the treatment outcomes of tractionassisted versus conventional ESD. Using the keywords, we retrieved 381 articles, including five eligible articles on the esophagus, 13 on the stomach, and 12 on the colorectum. A total of seven randomized controlled trials and 23 retrospective studies were identified. Clip line traction and submucosal tunneling were effective in reducing the procedural time during esophageal ESD. The efficacy of traction methods in gastric ESD varied in terms of the devices and strategies used depending on the lesion location and degree of submucosal fibrosis. Several prospective and retrospective studies utilized traction devices without the need to reinsert the colonoscope. When pocket creation is included, the traction devices and methods effectively shorten the procedural time during colorectal ESD. Although the efficacy is dependent on the organ and tumor locations, several traction techniques have been demonstrated to be efficacious in facilitating ESD by maintaining satisfactory traction during dissection.

Simultaneous endoscopic submucosal dissection for synchronous multiple early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The clinical effect of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the treatment of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (EESCC) is widely recognized. However, the long-term treatment outcome of simultaneous ESD for multiple EESCC currently remained unknown. Hence, this study was aimed at further evaluating the long-term outcome of simultaneous ESD for synchronous multiple EESCC by comparing with ESD for single EESCC.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent ESD for EESCC from June 2008 to June 2018 were included. Propensity score-matched analysis was used to compensate for the differences in age, sex, tumor location, tumor size, and tumor invasion depth between simultaneous and single ESD groups. Treatment outcomes including en bloc resection rate, curative resection rate, complication rate, and long-term outcomes including overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), metachronous recurrence were compared between the 2 groups after matching.

RESULTS

The propensity score-matched analysis included 332 lesions (166 patients) and 332 lesions (332 patients) in simultaneous and single ESD groups, respectively. Among all the outcomes, en bloc resection, curative resection, 5-year OS, and 5-year RFS rates were comparable. Complications were more common in the simultaneous ESD group (15.06% vs. 9.64%, P = 0.073). The 5-year metachronous recurrence rates were significantly high in the simultaneous ESD groups (24.28% vs. 6.99%).

CONCLUSIONS

Simultaneous ESD is an effective and safe methodology for synchronous multiple EESCC; it also reduces hospital stay and medical expenses. The risk of metachronous recurrence is higher for patients with synchronous multiple EESCC; thus, more intensive strategies are required.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection vs endoscopic submucosal dissection for early superficial upper gastrointestinal precancerous lesions and tumors: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) is a new treatment for superficial upper gastrointestinal precancerous lesions and tumors. However, its safety and efficacy for treating these lesions is still uncertain. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ESTD with those of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in treating early superficial upper gastrointestinal precancerous lesions and tumors.

METHODS

Electronic databases, including EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library and the Web of Science, were systematically searched for articles published up to 1 April 2020. The primary outcomes were complete and en bloc resection rates of the lesions. The secondary outcomes included operation time, speed of dissection, complication and recurrence rates. The Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale was used to evaluate the quality of the studies.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included in the final meta-analysis. The complete and en bloc resection rates of early superficial esophageal lesions as well as the en bloc resection rate of early superficial gastric lesions were similar between the ESTD and ESD groups. Compared with the ESD group, the ESTD group had a higher en bloc resection rate for early superficial gastric lesions. A faster dissection speed was observed in both superficial esophageal and gastric lesions. In gastric lesions, the operation time of the ESTD group was shorter than that of the ESD group, while it did not differ for esophageal lesions. There were no obvious differences in bleeding and perforation rates between the groups.

CONCLUSION

As an endoscopic technique for treating early superficial upper gastrointestinal lesions, ESTD is as safe as and more effective than ESD, especially for gastric lesions.

Efficacy of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the effectiveness of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions (SENL).

METHODS

A comprehensive search for studies investigating the efficacy of ESTD and ESD for SENL was conducted to search for relevant studies through PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, SinoMed, CNKI, and Wanfang. Weighted pooled rates were calculated for en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, operation time, dissection area, dissection speed, and adverse events. The 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) for effect size were used to calculate the pooled value using the fixed- or random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of seventeen studies with 1161 patients were identified and included in the meta-analysis. The pooled analysis showed that ESTD had significantly higher en bloc resection (OR 3.98; 95% CI 1.74 to 9.12; p = 0.001) and R0 resection rates (OR 2.29; 95% CI 1.54 to 3.46; p < 0.001) than ESD. The operation time in the ESTD group was shorter than that in the ESD group (SMD = - 0.57; 95% CI - 0.95 to - 0.19; p = 0.003). The dissection area of the ESTD group was larger than that in the ESD group (SMD = 0.49; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.83; p = 0.004), and the dissection speed is faster than that in the ESD group (SMD = 1.52; 95%CI 1.09 to 0.83; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in esophageal stenosis (p = 0.94) between the two techniques. However, ESTD was superior to ESD in other adverse events (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

ESTD has a significant advantage over ESD in the treatment of SENL. ESTD has significantly higher en bloc and R0 resection rates and reduced adverse events.

Current status of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection for treatment of superficial gastrointestinal neoplastic lesions

INTRODUCTION

With the widespread application of screening endoscopy and development of endoscopy-related instruments, more and more gastrointestinal cancers are detected in an early stage. Endoscopic resection is a preferred method for selected patients with superficial gastrointestinal neoplastic lesions, and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become a standard method for its ability to perform en bloc resection regardless of the lesion size. ESD can be performed in a conventional or tunneling way, and the latter is termed endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD).

AREA COVERED

In the present review, we provided a comprehensive review on ESTD for treatment of superficial gastrointestinal neoplastic lesions. We mainly focus on technical details, safety and efficacy of ESTD for esophageal, gastric and colorectal lesions. The present review is expected to provide tips for operators who are going to perform ESTD.

EXPERT OPINION

The best indication of ESTD is large superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions (circumferential extent > 1/3 and longitudinal extent > 3 cm). Although ESTD has shown promising primary results for superficial gastric and colorectal neoplastic lesions, it is technically difficult and should be attempted only in experienced hands. Post-treatment stricture is a major concern, and preventive measures are recommended for patients with high risk of post-ESTD stricture.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Presently, endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) has been a novel therapy for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions (SENL), especially for circumferential neoplastic lesions. A number of studies have reported the clinical application of ESTD with promising outcomes. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluated the efficacy and safety of ESTD for SENL .

METHODS

From 2013 to November 2018, Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched to determine studies reporting ESTD treatment of SENL. Weighted pooled rates (WPR) were calculated for en bloc resection, R0 resection and complication of ESTD. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated and pooled to compare the clinical outcomes of ESTD with ESD for SENL.

RESULTS

A total of 9 studies involving 494 patients with 518 esophageal neoplastic lesions were included in our study. WPR for en bloc resection and R0 resection of ESTD was 97.0% (95% CI: 94.7-98.3%) and 84.1% (95% CI: 80.5-87.1%), respectively. WPR for complication was 40.0% (95% CI: 25.8-56.1%). Two studies with 265 patients compared the performance of ESTD with ESD. Pooled RR for en bloc resection and R0 resection was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.95-1.14, P = 0.42) and 1.01 (95% CI: 0.93-1.10, P = 0.73), respectively. Pooled RR for complication was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.46-1.01, P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that ESTD is effective for treating SENL with high en bloc resection rate and R0 resection rate, but accompanying by a relatively high complications.

Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection compared with conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the standard treatment for superficial esophageal cancer. However, it has limitations in case of large superficial esophageal squamous cell neoplasms (SESCNs), in which submucosal injection cannot attain satisfactory lifting effects. Thus, endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) was introduced as a new treatment for SESCNs presenting satisfying results. Many studies have tried to verify the efficacy of ESTD, yet no meta-analysis has been published until now.

Methods

We searched the databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SinoMed, Wanfang, and CNKI dating up to February 1, 2019. Studies comparing the clinical outcomes of ESTD and ESD for superficial esophageal cancers were enrolled. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale was used to evaluate the quality of these studies. Eight articles were included that involved a total of 625 superficial esophageal cancer patients.

Results

Our analysis revealed that ESTD is superior to ESD as it has higher en bloc resection rate, shorter operation time, and lower recurrence rate 1 year after operation. The R0 resection rate and postoperative adverse event rate of ESTD group is comparable with ESD group.

Conclusions

Our study implicates that ESTD is a potentially superior treatment to ESD for superficial esophageal cancer.

Endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The emerging endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) is becoming an alternative method for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and feasibility of ESTD for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted to search relevant studies through PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science before 1 December 2018. Studies relating to ESTD for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions were included. Rates of effectiveness (en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, and curative resection rate), rates of feasibility (muscular damage rate, perforation rate, postprocedural bleeding rate, and emphysema rate), and rates of follow-up (recurrence rate and stricture rate) were pooled and analyzed. Forest plots were constructed based on the random-effects model. Sensitivity analyses were also performed if significant heterogeneity existed.

RESULTS

Six studies including 414 patients and 436 superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions that underwent ESTD were available for analysis. The pooled estimates of en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, and curative resection rate were 98% (95% CI 95.8-99.0%), 87.0% (95% CI 78.2-92.5%), and 87.6% (95% CI 67.4-96.0%), respectively. The pooled outcomes of muscular damage rate, perforation rate, postprocedural bleeding rate and emphysema rate were 19.1% (95% CI 9.8-33.8%), 2.2% (95% CI 1.1-4.1%), 1.6% (95% CI 0.7-3.5%), and 12.2% (95% CI 4.3-29.9%), respectively. Finally, the pooled results of recurrence and stricture were 4.7% (0.9-20.5%) and 20.9% (11.3-35.2%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

ESTD appears to be an effective and feasible approach for treating superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions. However, future research is needed for new and comprehensive methods to decrease the stricture rate after ESTD.

Strategies to prevent stricture after esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been widely applied as a less invasive and more effective method for treating early esophageal cancers such as squamous cell carcinoma and dysplasia of Barrett's esophagus. However, post-ESD esophageal stricture often occurs if patients suffer circumferential mucosal defects of more than three-quarters of the circumference of the esophagus, which makes it difficult for patients to swallow and greatly reduces their quality of life. Moreover, there is currently no standard method to treat post-ESD esophageal stricture, even though it is extraordinarily important to prevent its formation. In recent years, several strategies to prevent esophageal stricture have emerged. These strategies can be classified into pharmacological, mechanical, tissue engineering, and other novel strategies, with each strategy having its own strengths and weaknesses. Although the pharmacological prophylaxis and mechanical strategies are relatively mature, they still have their drawbacks like high time-consumption, the occurrence of re-stricture, and significant side effects. Tissue engineering strategies and other novel strategies have shown promising preliminary results, but more clinical trials are needed. In this review, we discuss these strategies, with a particular focus on tissue engineering strategies and other novel strategies. It is hoped that this discussion will aid in finding more effective and safer strategies to prevent esophageal stricture.

Endoscopic Submucosal Single- or Multi-tunnel Dissection for Near-Circumferential and Circumferential Superficial Esophageal Neoplastic Lesions

This study reports the outcomes of endoscopic submucosal single-tunnel dissection or endoscopic submucosal multi-tunnel dissection for the treatment of esophageal neoplastic lesions of at least three-quarters of the esophageal circumference, including circumferential superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions. From July 2014 to February 2018, a total of 124 lesions underwent endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection at our hospital. One to four submucosal tunnels were created in the oral to anal direction. Of the 124 lesions, there were 83 noncomplete circumferential lesions and 41 circumferential lesions. Endoscopic submucosal single-tunnel dissection was performed in 54 patients, two-tunnel dissection in 43 patients, three-tunnel dissection in 19 patients, and four-tunnel dissection in 8 patients. The mean dissection speed was 22.8 ± 12.7 mm²/min. En bloc dissection was achieved in all lesions, and the R0 resection rate was 70.2 percent. No matter how large the lesion area was, there were no significant differences in the dissection speed and the R0 resection rate when lesions were at least three-quarters of the esophageal circumference. Esophageal stricture was observed in 54 patients and was relieved by placement of a retrievable metal stent or by endoscopic water balloon dilation. No recurrence was noted after 19.1 ± 12.4 months of follow-up. Our large sample size study showed that endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection showed effectiveness and safety for the treatment of large superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions at least three-quarters of the esophageal circumference, including circumferential superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions.

Consensus on the digestive endoscopic tunnel technique

With the digestive endoscopic tunnel technique (DETT), many diseases that previously would have been treated by surgery are now endoscopically curable by establishing a submucosal tunnel between the mucosa and muscularis propria (MP). Through the tunnel, endoscopic diagnosis or treatment is performed for lesions in the mucosa, in the MP, and even outside the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. At present, the tunnel technique application range covers the following: (1) Treatment of lesions originating from the mucosal layer, e.g., endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection for oesophageal large or circular early-stage cancer or precancerosis; (2) treatment of lesions from the MP layer, per-oral endoscopic myotomy, submucosal tunnelling endoscopic resection, etc.; and (3) diagnosis and treatment of lesions outside the GI tract, such as resection of lymph nodes and benign tumour excision in the mediastinum or abdominal cavity. With the increasing number of DETTs performed worldwide, endoscopic tunnel therapeutics, which is based on DETT, has been gradually developed and optimized. However, there is not yet an expert consensus on DETT to regulate its indications, contraindications, surgical procedure, and postoperative treatment. The International DETT Alliance signed up this consensus to standardize the procedures of DETT. In this consensus, we describe the definition, mechanism, and significance of DETT, prevention of infection and concepts of DETT-associated complications, methods to establish a submucosal tunnel, and application of DETT for lesions in the mucosa, in the MP and outside the GI tract (indications and contraindications, procedures, pre- and postoperative treatments, effectiveness, complications and treatments, and a comparison between DETT and other operations).

Endoscopic Resection in the Esophagus

The article is a review of the principles behind endoscopic resection of esophageal dysplasia and early cancers. The techniques of endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection are reviewed, and the supporting literature compared. Endoscopic resection is compared with esophagectomy for the management of these lesions and current areas of controversy with regard to T1b lesions and gastroesophageal reflux following resection are addressed.

Comparison of synchronous dual wavelength diode laser versus conventional endo-knives for esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection: an animal study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely used for en bloc resection in early gastrointestinal cancer. However, it is technically complex with long procedure time and high adverse event rates with using conventional knives. The aim of this animal study was to verify the feasibility of ESD using a novel 980/1470 nm dual diode laser (DDL-ESD) in comparison with conventional knives (C-ESD) in esophagus.

METHODS

This was an in vivo animal study using eight porcine models. Four were allocated in DDL-ESD group and four were in C-ESD group. Every model underwent two ESDs to remove half circumferential esophageal mucosa. Each model's esophagus was harvested during postmortem at 24 h after ESD. Each specimen underwent gross inspection and histopathological examination was carried out. Procedure time, completeness of en bloc resection, adverse events (bleeding and perforation) and histological injury to muscularis propria were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 16 ESD procedures were performed with 100% en bloc resection rate. The procedure speed in DDL-ESD group was significantly faster as compared to C-ESD group (0.27 cm²/min vs. 0.21 cm²/min, p = 0.001). The number of intraoperative bleeding points and the use of haemostatic forceps were significantly lesser in DDL-ESD group (4 ± 2 vs. 8 ± 3, p = 0.016; 1 ± 1 vs. 3 ± 2, p = 0.029). Histological assessment showed that injury to muscularis propria in DDL-ESD was milder than C-ESD. There was no perforation observed in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

DDL-ESD technique appears to be safer and faster than C-ESD with less bleeding and injury to deep tissues.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and precancerous lesions

AIM

To evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and precancerous lesions.

METHODS

ESTD was performed in 289 patients. The clinical outcomes of the patients and pathological features of the lesions were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 311 lesions were included in the analysis. The en bloc rate, complete resection rate, and curative resection rate were 99.04%, 81.28%, and 78.46%, respectively. The ESTD procedure time was 102.4 ± 35.1 min, the mean hospitalization time was 10.3 ± 2.8 d, and the average expenditure was 3766.5 ± 846.5 dollars. The intraoperative bleeding rate was 6.43%, the postoperative bleeding rate was 1.61%, the perforation rate was 1.93%, and the postoperative infection rate was 9.65%. Esophageal stricture and positive margin were severe adverse events, with an incidence rate of 14.79% and 15.76%, respectively. No tumor recurrence occurred during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

ESTD for ESCC and precancerous lesions is feasible and relatively safe, but for large mucosal lesions, the rate of esophageal stricture and positive margin is high.

Endoscopic Submucosal Tunnel Dissection for Large Gastric Neoplastic Lesions: A Case-Matched Controlled Study

Aim

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) for resection of large superficial gastric lesions (SGLs).

Methods

The clinicopathological records of patients performed with ESTD or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for SGLs between January 2012 and January 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. 7 cases undergoing ESTD were enrolled to form the ESTD group. The cases were individually matched at a 1 : 1 ratio to other patients performed with ESD according to lesion location, ulcer or scar findings, resected specimen area, operation time and operators, and the matched cases constituting the ESD group. The treatment outcomes were compared between the two groups.

Results

The mean specimen size was 46 mm. 10 lesions were located in the cardia and 4 lesions in the lesser curvature of the lower gastric body. En bloc resection was achieved for all lesions. The mean ESTD resection time was 69 minutes as against 87.7 minutes for the ESD (P = 0.01). The mean resection speed was faster for ESTD than for ESD (18.86 mm²/min versus 13.76 mm²/min, P = 0.03). There were no significant differences regarding the safety and curability during the endoscopic follow-up (mean 27 months).

Conclusions

ESTD is effective and safe for the removal of SGLs and appears to be an optimal option for patients with large SGLs at suitable sites.