Conventional versus traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection for large esophageal cancers: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial (with video)

Endoscopic full-thickness resection for gastric submucosal tumors: Japanese multicenter prospective study

OBJECTIVES

Early gastric cancer endoscopic resection (ER) is prominent in Japan. However, evidence regarding ER of gastric submucosal tumors (SMT) is limited. This prospective multicenter phase II study investigated the efficacy and safety of endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) for gastric SMT.

METHODS

Endoscopic full-thickness resection indication for gastric SMT was 11-30 mm, histologically proven or clinically suspicious (irregular margin, increasing size, or internal heterogeneity) gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), with no ulceration and intraluminal growth type. The primary end-point was the complete ER (ER0) rate, with a sample size of 42.

RESULTS

We enrolled 46 patients with 46 lesions between September 2020 and May 2023 at seven Japanese institutions. The mean ± SD (range) endoscopic tumor size was 18.8 ± 4.5 (11-28) mm. The tumor resection and defect closure times were 54 ± 26 (22-125) min and 33 ± 28 (12-186) min, respectively. A 100% ER0 was achieved in all 46 patients. The EFTR procedure was accomplished in all patients without surgical intervention. One patient had delayed perforation and was managed endoscopically. GIST accounted for 76% (n = 35) of the cases. R0, R1, and RX rates were 33 (77%), 3 (6.5%), and 7 (15%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic full-thickness resection for gastric SMT of 11-30 mm is efficacious. It warrants further validation in a large-scale cohort study to determine the long-term outcome of this treatment for patients with gastric GIST.

Is there a best choice of equipment for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection?

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a widely used technique to remove early neoplastic lesions. It was primarily used in the initial days to treat gastric lesions, but recently, the horizon of this endoscopic procedure has expanded, which has allowed us to manage other technically more complex locations, such as the colorectum.

AREAS COVERED

There has been an exponential growth regarding the wide range of devices available in the market for performing colorectal ESD. As a result, the aim of this review is to highlight the indication of this endoscopic technique, which device is best suited for which indication, as well as future trajectories in this field.

EXPERT OPINION

Although some devices have proven to be more advantageous than others in this area, very often the choice is still subjective, which is commonly attributed to individual preferences and experience. However, an accurate knowledge of the available tools and their functioning, with their pros and cons, is fundamental for any endoscopist venturing into the field of third space endoscopy. In this way, one can choose which device best suits a particular situation, along with simultaneously having the wealth of knowledge related to therapeutic armamentarium at our disposal in the endoscopy suite.

Clip-and-snare method with a pre-looping technique versus conventional method in the treatment of precancerous lesion and early gastric cancer: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Low grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN) and high grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIN) are potential precancerous lesion of gastric neoplasms. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the first option for the treatment of precancerous lesion and early gastric cancer (EGC). Traction is an effective method to improve efficiency, and reduce complications during ESD. In this study, we shared a useful traction method using the clip-and-snare method with a pre-looping technique (CSM-PLT) for precancerous lesion and EGC.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients received ESD combined with CSM-PLT or conventional ESD from June 2018 to December 2021 in Shenzhen People's hospital. The primary outcome was resection speed.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients were enrolled in ESD combined with CSM-PLT group and sixty-five patients in conventional ESD group respectively. Baseline characteristics were comparable among two groups (P>0.05). There were no significant differences in terms of R0 resection rate, en bloc resection rate (97.6% vs. 98.5%, P = 1.000 and 97.6% vs. 96.9%, P = 1.000, respectively), operation costs (933.7 (644.1-1102.4) dollars vs. 814.7 (614.6-988.3) dollars, P = 0.107), and hospital stays (8.0 ± 3.1 days vs. 7.3 ± 3.2 days, P = 0.236). In addition, no significant difference was observed with respect to complications (P>0.05). However, the resection speed of ESD combined with CSM-PLT was faster than that of conventional ESD (11.3 (9.4-14.9) mm2/min vs. 8.0 (5.8-10.9) mm2/min, P < 0.001), particularly lesions located in anterior wall and lesser curvature. In addition, the association between ESD combined with CSM-PLT and resection speed was still supported after propensity matching scores (PMS).

CONCLUSIONS

CSM-PLT can help to improve ESD efficiency without reducing the en bloc resection rate or increasing the incidence of complications.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection with versus without traction for pathologically staged T1B esophageal cancer: a multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Positive vertical margins (VMs) are common after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of T1b esophageal cancer (EC) and are associated with an increased risk of recurrence. Traction during ESD provides better exposure of the submucosa and may allow deeper dissection, potentially reducing the risk of positive VMs. We conducted a retrospective multicenter study to compare the proportion of resections with positive VMs in ESD performed with versus without traction in pathologically staged T1b EC.

METHODS

Patients who underwent ESD revealing T1b EC (squamous or adenocarcinoma) at 10 academic tertiary referral centers in the United States (n = 9) and Brazil (n = 1) were included. Demographic and clinical data were abstracted. ESD using either traction techniques (tunneling, pocket) or traction devices (clip line, traction wire) were classified as ESD with traction (Tr-ESD) and those without were classified as conventional ESD without traction. The primary outcome was a negative VM. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess associations with negative VMs.

RESULTS

A total of 166 patients with pathologically staged T1b EC underwent Tr-ESD (n = 63; 38%) or conventional ESD without traction (n = 103; 62%). Baseline factors were comparable between both groups. On multivariable analysis, Tr-ESD was found to be independently associated with negative VMs (odds ratio, 2.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-4.91; P = .037) and R0 resection (odds ratio, 2.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-6.23; P = .008).

CONCLUSION

Tr-ESD seems to be associated with higher odds of negative VMs than ESD without traction for pathologically staged T1b EC, and future well-conducted prospective studies are warranted to establish the findings of the current study.

Assessment of predictive factors associated with the technical difficulty of endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: Japanese multicenter retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is performed for the treatment of lesions with varied backgrounds and factors. However, the predictive factors associated with the technical difficulty of ESD remain unknown in patients with varied lesions. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the predictive factors associated with the technical difficulty of ESD for ESCC using a retrospective cohort.

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective study was conducted in 10 hospitals in Japan. Consecutive patients who underwent esophageal ESD between January 2013 and December 2019 were enrolled. Lesions of subepithelial tumors, adenocarcinoma, and adenoma were excluded. Difficult lesions were defined as ESD requiring a long procedure time (≥120 min), perforation development, piecemeal resection, or discontinued ESD. In the present study, the clinical factors were assessed to identify the technical difficulty of ESD using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Among 1708 lesions treated with esophageal ESD, eight subepithelial tumors, 44 adenocarcinomas, and two adenomas were excluded. Finally, 1505 patients with 1654 lesions were analyzed, and 217 patients with 217 lesions (13.1%) were classified as patients with difficult lesions. In multivariate analysis, the predictive factors associated with the technical difficulty of ESD were as follows: tumors with varices, tumors with diverticulum, antiplatelet use (discontinued), circumference of tumor (≥1/2), preoperative tumor size ≥30 mm, trainee, and nonhigh-volume center.

CONCLUSION

This multicenter retrospective study identified the predictive factors associated with the technical difficulty of ESD for ESCC with varied backgrounds and factors.

MFGE8 in exosomes derived from mesenchymal stem cells prevents esophageal stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection in pigs

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the current standard treatment for early-stage esophageal neoplasms. However, the postoperative esophageal stricture after extensive mucosal dissection remains a severe challenge with limited effective treatments available. In this study, we introduced a chitosan/gelatin (ChGel) sponge encapsulating the adipose mesenchymal stem cells (ADMSCs)-derived exosomes (ChGelMSC-Exo) for the prevention of esophageal stenosis after ESD in a porcine model.

RESULTS

Pigs were randomly assigned into (1) ChGelMSC-Exo treatment group, (2) ChGelPBS group, and (3) the controls. Exosome treatments were applied immediately on the day after ESD as well as on day 7. Exosome components crucial for wound healing were investigated by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) and small RNA sequencing. ChGelMSC-Exo treatment significantly reduced mucosal contraction on day 21, with less fiber accumulation and inflammatory infiltration, and enhanced angiogenesis when compared with the control and ChGelPBS groups. The anti-fibrotic effects following MSC-Exo treatment were further found to be associated with the anti-inflammatory M2 polarization of the resident macrophages, especially within the M2b subset characterized by the reduced TGFβ1 secretion, which sufficiently inhibited inflammation and prevented the activation of myofibroblast with less collagen production at the early stage after ESD. Moreover, the abundant expression of exosomal MFGE8 was identified to be involved in the transition of the M2b-macrophage subset through the activation of MFGE8/STAT3/Arg1 axis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that exosomal MFGE8 significantly promotes the polarization of the M2b-macrophage subset, consequently reducing collagen deposition. These findings suggest a promising potential for MSC-Exo therapy in preventing the development of esophageal stricture after near-circumferential ESD.

Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma with esophageal varices: Multicenter retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) with esophageal varices (EVs) are obscure. We aimed to elucidate the clinical outcomes of ESD for ESCC with EVs in a multicenter, retrospective study.

METHODS

We established a retrospective cohort of 30 patients with ESCC complicating EVs, who underwent ESD at 11 Japanese institutions. Rates of en bloc resection and R0 resection, procedure time, and adverse events were evaluated as indicators of the feasibility and safety of ESD. Additional treatment, recurrence, and metastasis of the lesions were evaluated as indicators of the long-term efficacy of ESD.

RESULTS

Portal hypertension was caused by cirrhosis, of which alcohol was the most common cause. En bloc resection was achieved in 93.3% and R0 resection in 80.0% of the patients. The median procedure time was 92 min. Adverse events included a case of uncontrolled intraoperative bleeding leading to discontinuation of ESD and a case of esophageal stricture due to extensive resection. During the follow-up period of a median for 42 months, a patient with local recurrence and another patient with liver metastasis were observed. One patient died of liver failure after receiving chemoradiotherapy as an additional treatment after ESD. No patient died of ESCC.

CONCLUSION

This multicenter, retrospective cohort study demonstrated the safety and efficacy of ESD for ESCC with EVs. Further studies are needed to establish appropriate treatment methods for EVs before ESD and additional treatments for patients with insufficient ESD.

Conventional Versus Traction-Assisted Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Esophageal, Gastric, and Colorectal Neoplasms: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is increasingly being utilized for the resection of superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms. However, the long procedure time poses a technical challenge for conventional ESD (C-ESD). Traction-assisted ESD (T-ESD) was developed to facilitate the procedure by reducing its duration. This study compares the efficacy and safety of C-ESD versus T-ESD in the treatment of esophageal, gastric, and colorectal neoplasms. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were analyzed. Traction-assisted ESD exhibited shorter mean dissection times for the esophagus and colorectal regions and lower perforation rates in colorectal cases. No significant differences were observed in en bloc resection or bleeding rates. Traction-assisted ESD proves to be more efficient in mean procedure time for esophageal and colorectal cases and safer in perforation rates for colorectal cases, but similar rates are noted for en bloc resection or bleeding.

Curative criteria for endoscopic treatment of oesophageal squamous cell cancer

Endoscopic treatment of early oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma is widely accepted. ESD (Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection), which allows en bloc resection regardless of size, provides resected specimens that facilitate histological evaluation of curability. In the histological investigation, the determination of tumor depth, lymphovascular involvement, and lateral and vertical margins play a great role in the assessment of curability. The diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion, in particular, is enhanced by the addition of immunostaining. The long-term outcome of ESD is comparable to that of oesophagectomy, and ESD may be the first-line treatment for early-stage oesophageal cancer due to its fewer complications. Surveillance after curative resection is also imperative because oesophageal cancer is often characterized by the concept of field cancerization, which results in metachronous multiple primary lesions.

Predictors of technical difficulty for trainees in esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

Esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is technically challenging, especially for trainees, and requires a safe training system. This study aimed to identify predictors of technical difficulty facing trainees performing esophageal ESD to establish such system.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective study of patients with esophageal cancer who underwent ESD performed by trainees between January 2010 and August 2022. Technical difficulties were defined as muscularis propria exposure and long procedure time (≥ 90 min). Factors associated with these technical difficulties were investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 798 lesions in 721 patients were evaluated. Muscularis propria exposure occurred in 298 lesions (37.3%), including 10 perforations (1.3%). The procedure time was ≥ 90 min in 134 lesions (16.8%). In the multivariate analysis, tumor size ≥ 20 mm, tumors ≥ 1/2 of the circumference, and those close to previous treatment scars significantly increased the incidence of both difficulties, whereas tumors in the upper esophagus significantly decreased this incidence. Furthermore, female sex and tumors in the left wall were independent predictors of muscularis propria exposure, and elevated morphology was an independent predictor of long procedure time. Muscularis propria exposure and long procedure time occurred in more than half of the cases with three or more predictors of each difficulty.

CONCLUSIONS

Large tumors and tumors close to previous treatment scars increase technical difficulties for trainees in esophageal ESD. Conversely, tumors in the upper esophagus reduce these difficulties. These results enable us to predict the difficulty level preoperatively and select appropriate cases in stepwise training.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal cancer in a diverticulum: A case report with literature review

Superficial esophageal cancer (SEC) in a diverticulum is rare and has a high risk of perforation during endoscopic resection. Although endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a standard treatment option, it is challenging to perform. Here, we describe the case of a 79-year-old male patient with a history of ESD for SEC. Surveillance esophagogastroduodenoscopy identified a 20-mm-sized reddish depressed lesion in a diverticulum in the middle esophagus. The lesion was confirmed to be squamous cell carcinoma by biopsy. Magnification endoscopy with narrow-band imaging showed intraepithelial papillary capillary loops of type B1 according to the magnified endoscopic classification of the Japan Esophageal Society. Endoscopic ultrasonography revealed the presence of the muscular layer of the esophagus wall in the diverticulum. Therefore, the lesion was diagnosed as SEC, confined to the epithelium or lamina propria mucosae, in a Rokitansky diverticulum. Based on these findings, ESD was considered technically feasible. Traction-assisted ESD using clip with line was performed, and en bloc resection was achieved without adverse events. The resected specimen pathologically revealed a squamous cell carcinoma confined to the lamina propria mucosae without lymphovascular invasion, suggesting a curative resection. The patient recovered well, and no recurrence has been observed for 5 years after the ESD. Whether ESD is appropriate for the treatment of SEC in a diverticulum remains unclear. However, our case shows that it can be a treatment option in such cases due to its minimal invasiveness and good effectiveness.

Local recurrence risk of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma due to intralesional damage during endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIM

It is unclear whether additional treatment should be considered given the recurrence risk after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) when the vertical margin is positive or unclear (VM1/VMX) due to intralesional damage. This study aimed to elucidate the local recurrence risk of ESCC caused by intralesional damage during ESD.

METHODS

Among consecutive patients with pT1a ESCCs initially treated by ESD at our institution between January 2006 and December 2018, ESCCs diagnosed as VM1/VMX were retrospectively reviewed. Exclusion criteria were piecemeal resection and any additional treatment after ESD. Intralesional damage included the following three types: a macroscopic hole inside the lesion, an incision from the lateral margin of the specimen into the lesion, and crushing injury or burn effect into the deepest area of the lesion without an obvious hole. The local recurrence rate after ESD was primarily analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 1174 pT1a ESCCs initially treated using ESD, 22 lesions were histopathologically diagnosed as VM1/VMX due to intralesional damage (1.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.8%). At a median follow-up period of 60.0 (interquartile range, 15.0-84.0) months, no local recurrence was observed (0.0%; 95% CI, 0.0-13.3%) among 21 lesions finally evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of intralesional damage during ESD for ESCC on local recurrence might be negligible. Follow-up without additional treatment may be acceptable even if intralesional damage occurs and results in VM1/VMX after ESD for pT1a ESCCs.

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

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

Hybrid and Conventional Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Gastric Neoplasms: A Multi-Center Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (H-ESD), which incorporates endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with endoscopic mucosal resection, has been developed to make ESD technically easier. This study aimed to determine if H-ESD is superior to conventional ESD (C-ESD) for small early gastric neoplasms (EGNs).

METHODS

We conducted a multi-center, prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial to compare the treatment outcomes of H-ESD and C-ESD (Hybrid-G Trial). Patients with differentiated type intramucosal EGN ≤20 mm in diameter and without ulceration were randomly assigned (1:1) to groups that underwent H-ESD or C-ESD. A single multi-functional snare, SOUTEN (ST1850-20, Kaneka, Medix, Tokyo, Japan), was used for H-ESD. The primary outcome was procedure time. Secondary outcomes included mucosal incision time, time and speed of submucosal dissection, curability, and endoscopic procedural adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 39 and 40 patients underwent H-ESD and C-ESD, respectively. The procedure time of H-ESD was significantly shorter than that of C-ESD (33.16 min vs 62.46 min; H-ESD/C-ESD ratio: 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.69; P < .0001). There was no significant difference in mucosal incision time between the 2 groups; the time and speed of submucosal dissection of H-ESD were significantly shorter than those of C-ESD. No difference was observed between the 2 groups in other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

H-ESD has significantly shorter procedure time than C-ESD, with high and comparable curability and safety for both H-ESD and C-ESD. H-ESD can be a good option for the endoscopic treatment of small EGNs. (UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, Numbers: UMIN000041244).

First clinical experience with esophageal ESD using a novel adjustable traction device

Background and study aims  In esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), the effectiveness of traction including clip-thread method has been reported, but it is difficult to adjust the direction of traction. Therefore, we developed a dedicated over-tube type traction device (ENDOTORNADO) that has a working channel and allows traction from any directions by rotating itself. We investigated the clinical feasibility and potential usefulness of this new device in esophageal ESD. Patients and methods  This was a single-center, retrospective study. Six cases of esophageal ESD with ENDOTORNADO from January to March 2022 (tESD group) were compared with 23 cases of conventional esophageal ESD performed by the same operator from January 2019 to December 2021 (cESD group) in terms of clinical treatment outcomes. Results  In all cases, en bloc resection was achieved without intraoperative perforation. The total procedure speed was significantly increased in tESD group (23 vs. 30 mm 2 /min, P  = 0.046). In particular, the submucosal dissection time was significantly reduced to about one-quarter in tESD group (11 vs. 42 min, P  = 0.004). Conclusions  ENDOTORNADO creates the adjustable traction from any directions and may have the clinical feasibility. It would be an option for human esophageal ESD.

Two traction methods that can facilitate esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Different traction devices that can provide a visual field and attain appropriate tension at the dissection plane during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) have been developed. Clip-with-line (CWL) is a classic traction device that can offer per-oral traction toward the direction where the line is drawn. A multicenter randomized controlled trial (CONNECT-E trial) comparing the conventional ESD and CWL-assisted ESD (CWL-ESD) for large esophageal tumors was conducted in Japan. This study showed that CWL-ESD was associated with a shorter procedure time (defined as the time from initiating submucosal injection to completing tumor removal) without increasing the risk of adverse events. Multivariate analysis revealed that whole-circumferential lesion and abdominal esophageal lesion were independent risk factors for technical difficulties, which were defined as a procedure time of > 120 min, perforation, piecemeal resection, inadvertent incision (any accidental incision caused by the electrosurgical knife within the marked area), or handover to another operator. Therefore, techniques other than CWL should be considered for these lesions. Several studies have shown the usefulness of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) for such lesions. A randomized controlled trial conducted at five Chinese institutions showed that compared with the conventional ESD, ESTD had a significantly reduced median procedure time for lesions covering ≥ 1/2 of the esophageal circumference. In addition, a propensity score matching analysis conducted at a single Chinese institution showed that compared with the conventional ESD, ESTD had a shorter mean resection time for lesions at the esophagogastric junction. With the appropriate use of CWL-ESD and ESTD, esophageal ESD can be performed more efficiently and safely. Moreover, the combination of these two methods may be effective.

Device-assisted traction methods in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection and options for difficult cases

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedure has a longer procedure time and higher perforation rate than endoscopic mucosal resection owing to technical complications, including a poor field of vision and inadequate tension for the submucosal dissection plane. Various traction devices were developed to secure the visual field and provide adequate tension for the dissection plane. Two randomized controlled trials demonstrated that traction devices reduce colorectal ESD procedure time compared with conventional ESD (C-ESD), but they had limitations, including a single-center fashion. The CONNECT-C trial was the first multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing the C-ESD and traction device-assisted ESD (T-ESD) for colorectal tumors. In the T-ESD, one of the device-assisted traction methods (S–O clip, clip-with-line, and clip pulley) was chosen according to the operator’s discretion. The median ESD procedure time (primary endpoint) was not significantly different between C-ESD and T-ESD. For lesions ≥ 30 mm in diameter or in cases treated by nonexpert operators, the median ESD procedure time tended to be shorter in T-ESD than in C-ESD. Although T-ESD did not reduce ESD procedure time, the CONNECT-C trial results suggest that T-ESD is effective for larger lesions and nonexpert operators in colorectal ESD. Compared with esophageal and gastric ESD, colorectal ESD has some difficulties, including poor endoscope maneuverability, which may be associated with prolonged ESD procedure time. T-ESD may not effectively improve these issues, but a balloon-assisted endoscope and underwater ESD may be promising options and these methods can be combined with T-ESD.

The relationship between the esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection technical difficulty and its intraoperative process

BACKGROUND

Estimating the esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) technical difficulty is important to reduce complications. Endoscopic duration is one of the related factors to a technical difficulty. The relationship between the esophageal ESD technical difficulty and its intraoperative process was analyzed as a first step toward automatic technical difficulty recognition using artificial intelligence.

METHODS

This study enrolled 75 patients with superficial esophageal cancer who underwent esophageal ESD. The technical difficulty score was established, which consisted of three factors, including total procedure duration, en bloc resection, and complications. Additionally, technical difficulty-related factors, which were perioperative factors that included the intraoperative process, were investigated.

RESULTS

Eight (11%) patients were allocated to high difficulty, whereas 67 patients (89%) were allocated to low difficulty. The intraoperative process, which was shown as the extension of each endoscopic phase, was significantly related to a technical difficulty. The area under the curve (AUC) values were higher at all the phase duration than at the clinical characteristics. Submucosal dissection phase (AUC 0.902; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.752-1.000), marking phase (AUC 0.827; 95% CI 0.703-0.951), and early phase which was defined as the duration from the start of marking to the end of submucosal injection (AUC 0.847; 95% CI 0.701-0.992) were significantly related to technical difficulty.

CONCLUSIONS

The intraoperative process, particularly early phase, was strongly associated with esophageal ESD technical difficulty. This study demonstrated the potential for automatic evaluation of esophageal ESD technical difficulty when combined with an AI-based automatic phase evaluation system.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Esophageal Cancer: Current and Future

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been widely used to treat superficial esophageal cancer. The advantages of esophageal ESD include a high en bloc resection rate and accurate pathological diagnosis. It enables local resection of the primary tumor and accurate identification of the risk factors for lymph node metastasis, including depth, vascular invasion, and types of invasion. Even in cases with clinical T1b-SM cancer, ESD and additional treatment can achieve radical cure, depending on the risk of lymph node metastasis. Esophageal ESD will be increasingly vital in minimally invasive and effective esophageal cancer treatment. This article describes the current status and prospects of esophageal ESD.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection techniques and technology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review

ESGE suggests conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD; marking and mucosal incision followed by circumferential incision and stepwise submucosal dissection) for most esophageal and gastric lesions. ESGE suggests tunneling ESD for esophageal lesions involving more than two-thirds of the esophageal circumference. ESGE recommends the pocket-creation method for colorectal ESD, at least if traction devices are not used. The use of dedicated ESD knives with size adequate to the location/thickness of the gastrointestinal wall is recommended. It is suggested that isotonic saline or viscous solutions can be used for submucosal injection. ESGE recommends traction methods in esophageal and colorectal ESD and in selected gastric lesions. After gastric ESD, coagulation of visible vessels is recommended, and post-procedural high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (or vonoprazan). ESGE recommends against routine closure of the ESD defect, except in duodenal ESD. ESGE recommends corticosteroids after resection of  > 50 % of the esophageal circumference. The use of carbon dioxide when performing ESD is recommended. ESGE recommends against the performance of second-look endoscopy after ESD. ESGE recommends endoscopy/colonoscopy in the case of significant bleeding (hemodynamic instability, drop in hemoglobin > 2 g/dL, severe ongoing bleeding) to perform endoscopic hemostasis with thermal methods or clipping; hemostatic powders represent rescue therapies. ESGE recommends closure of immediate perforations with clips (through-the-scope or cap-mounted, depending on the size and shape of the perforation), as soon as possible but ideally after securing a good plane for further dissection.

Impact of Traction Direction in Traction-Assisted Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (with Videos)

BACKGROUND

The impact of traction direction in traction-assisted gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has not been adequately investigated. A clip with line (CWL) is a classical single-directional traction device. In contrast, a spring and loop with clip (SLC; S-O clip) is a newly developed multidirectional traction device.

AIMS

To investigate the impact of traction direction in gastric ESD by comparing the procedure-related outcomes of CWL-assisted ESD (CWL-ESD) and SLC-assisted ESD (SLC-ESD).

METHODS

We retrospectively examined 140 patients with superficial gastric neoplasms who underwent SLC-ESD or CWL-ESD by a single ESD expert during November 2017-September 2020. The traction direction was classified based on the endoscopic finding in the following five categories: proximal, diagonally proximal, vertical, diagonally distal, and distal. In SLC-ESD, we set vertical traction, using the multidirectional traction function. Propensity score matching was conducted to compensate for the differences in lesion size, injection function of electrosurgical knife, ulcerative lesion, lesion location, and lesion position. The primary outcome was gastric ESD procedure time.

RESULTS

Propensity score matching created 42 pairs. The median gastric ESD procedure time in the SLC-ESD group was significantly shorter than that in the CWL-ESD group (28.3 min vs. 51.0 min, P = 0.022). All traction direction in the SLC-ESD group was vertical, while only 16.7% in the CWL-ESD group. En bloc resection was attained without perforation in all the patients in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that SLC can provide vertical traction, which reduces the gastric ESD procedure time. Multidirectional traction devices can provide vertical traction in most cases of gastric ESD, unlike single-directional traction devices. Vertical traction may reduce the gastric ESD procedure time.

Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial circumferential esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Our aim was to elucidate the clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for superficial circumferential esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (cESCC).

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent ESD for cESCC between 2009 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Short-term outcomes were en-bloc resection, R0 resection, procedure time, and adverse events, whereas long-term outcomes were overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), cumulative recurrence rate (CRR), and clinical course.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients with 52 cESCCs (median tumor length, 5.0 cm; interquartile range [IQR], 4.0-6.3) were evaluated. The en-bloc resection and R0 resection rates were 100% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.4-100) and 69.2% (95% CI, 54.9-81.3), respectively. The median procedure time was 112 minutes (IQR, 87-162). Intraoperative perforations and delayed bleeding occurred in 4 (7.7%) and 1 (1.9%) patients, respectively. Among the 42 patients who underwent ESD alone, 36 (85.7%) experienced esophageal strictures. Within a median follow-up of 49.1 months (IQR, 25.7-74.7), the 4-year OS, DSS, and CRR were 86.2% (95% CI, 71.6-93.6), 95.5% (95% CI, 83.1-98.9), and 11.5% (95% CI, 4.1-23.1), respectively. There was no significant difference in the OS between patients with low-risk cESCC (pT1a, negative lymphovascular invasion, and negative vertical margin) and high-risk lesions, regardless of undergoing additional treatment (P = .93). In 31 patients with low-risk cESCC who were treated with ESD alone, the 4-year OS, DSS, and CRR were 93.2%, 100%, and 0%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD is a highly curative treatment for cESCC with favorable long-term outcomes, especially in low-risk patients. Stricture-prevention techniques should be improved to optimize the benefits of ESD for cESCC.

Efficacy and safety of pocket-creation method for early gastric cancers

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the standard endoscopic treatment for early gastric cancers (EGCs). However, obscured view and difficulty in submucosal lifting during ESD have been demonstrated. Additionally, ESD is time-consuming and poses a high risk of perforation and bleeding when performed in challenging locations. The pocket-creation method (PCM) is a newly developed strategy for colorectal tumors, while the outcomes of application in the treatment of EGCs are rarely reported. In the present study, we aimed to compare the technical efficacy and safety of PCM-ESD and the conventional ESD (c-ESD) technique for the treatment of EGCs.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective study consisting of 162 patients with EGCs who underwent ESD between February 2019 and February 2021. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. In addition, clinicopathological characteristics and treatment outcomes were also compared.

RESULTS

PCM-ESD was more likely to be used in patients with larger lesions than c-ESD with/without traction. In addition, the resection speed for lesions of the PCM-ESD was faster compared with c-ESD without traction (median dissection speed: 19.6 mm²/min vs. 15 mm²/min; p < 0.001) and c-ESD with traction (median dissection speed after PSM: 19.9 mm²/min vs. 15 mm²/min; p = 0.001). In multiple linear regression analysis, significant factors related to a higher dissection speed were the treatment method of PCM-ESD (p = 0.034), the long diameter of the resected lesion (p = 0.001), and lesion location (p = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

Collectively, PCM-ESD appeared to be a safer and more effective treatment for EGCs than c-ESD. In addition, PCM-ESD could significantly improve the speed of tumor resection.

Randomized controlled trial comparing conventional and traction endoscopic submucosal dissection for early colon tumor (CONNECT-C trial)

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a widely used treatment for early gastrointestinal cancer. However, colon ESD remains challenging. Previous studies on colon ESD using the traction method used a small sample, single-center design, providing insufficient evidence of this procedure's efficacy. We thus aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of the traction method in colon ESD in this multicenter randomized trial.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized, two-arm controlled trial at 10 facilities in Japan. A 1:1 allocation was conducted for the conventional ESD (C-ESD) and traction ESD (T-ESD) groups. The primary end-point was ESD procedure time.

RESULTS

We included 128 C-ESD and 123 T-ESD cases from April 2020 to August 2021. The median procedure times for C-ESD and T-ESD were 61 (40-100) and 53 (40-76) min (P = 0.18), respectively, and no significant differences were observed between the groups. Subgroup analysis showed that the median procedure times for patients with a lesion diameter of ≥30 mm in the C-ESD and T-ESD groups were 89 (57-80) and 69 (50-104) min (P = 0.05), respectively, and for nonexpert operators were 81 (62-120) and 64 (52-109) min (P = 0.07), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The traction method did not contribute to a significantly shortened ESD procedure time. However, this method may be useful when the tumor diameter is large or if the procedure is conducted by nonexpert endoscopists.

A Look into the Future of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Third Space Endoscopy: The Role for Robotics and Other Innovation

Endoscopic resection has been widely applied especially in endoscopic submucosal dissection and third space endoscopy (TSE). Flexible endoluminal robotics allow performance of endoscopic submucosal dissection with exposure of the submucosal plane for precise dissection using two robotic arms. The introduction of TSE revolutionized the horizon of therapeutic endoscopy to the submucosal space beneath and beyond the mucosa. Advantages of TSE include avoidance of full thickness incision in gastrointestinal tract through the submucosal tunneling for performance of peroral endoscopic myotomy and submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection. In future, robotic-driven devices should be developed to enhance performance of complex endoluminal procedures and TSE.

Endoscopic resection for gastric submucosal tumors: Japanese multicenter retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

Limited information is available on the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection (ER) of gastric submucosal tumors (SMTs) in Japanese endoscopic practice where ER for gastric tumors is extremely popular.

METHODS

We conducted this study to elucidate the current scenario of ER for gastric SMTs in Japanese endoscopic practice. Patients (from 12 institutions) with gastric SMTs who underwent ER were enrolled from the first case until August 2020.

RESULTS

We enrolled 117 patients with 118 lesions. The number of patients who underwent ER increased over the years. The mean endoscopic tumor size was 20 ± 7.2 (8-40) mm. The growth type was primarily intraluminal (90%). The mean resection and wound closure times were 58 ± 38 (range, 12-254) min and 31 ± 41 (range, 3-330) min, respectively. Complete ER was achieved for 117 (99%) lesions. Full-thickness resection rate was 44%; however, only 12 (10%) patients required abdominal paracentesis for decompression. Endoscopic treatments were completed in 115 (97%) lesions, while three lesions required conversions to laparoscopic surgery due to luminal collapse, uncontrolled bleeding, and difficulty in defect closure. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors were the most common pathology (74%). No recurrence was observed during the mean follow-up period of 4.3 ± 2.9 years. The 5-year overall survival rate was 98.9% (95% confidence interval 97.8-100%).

CONCLUSION

Performance of ER for gastric SMTs is increasing in Japan. The technique seems feasible in Japanese endoscopic practice, warranting further validation in a prospective study.

Comparison of treatment outcomes between endoscopic submucosal dissection with the needle-type knife and insulated-tip knife for superficial esophageal neoplasms

Our study aimed to compare the treatment outcomes between endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with an insulated-tip knife (ESD-IT) and a needle-type knife (ESD-N) for large superficial esophageal neoplasms, as no study of this kind has been previously reported. We used the dataset of a multicenter, randomized controlled trial that compared conventional ESD (C-ESD) and traction-assisted ESD (TA-ESD) for superficial esophageal neoplasms. We compared the procedural outcomes between ESD-IT and ESD-N in a post hoc analysis and conducted sub-analyses based on traction assistance and electrical knife type. We included 223 (EST-IT, n = 169; ESD-N, n = 54) patients with no significant differences in baseline characteristics. The operator handover rate due to ESD difficulties was significantly higher in ESD-N (ESD-IT = 0.6% vs. ESD-N = 13.0%, P = 0.001), while the injection volume was significantly higher in ESD-IT than in ESD-N (40.0 vs. 20.5 mL, P < 0.001). Other outcomes were comparable between both groups (procedural time: 51.0 vs. 49.5 minute, P = 0.89; complete resection: 90.5% vs. 90.7%, P > 0.99; and complication rate: 1.8% vs. 3.7%, P = 0.60 for ESD-IT and ESD-N, respectively). In the sub-analyses, the handover rate was significantly lower with TA-ESD than with C-ESD for ESD-N (3.2% vs. 26.1%, P = 0.034), and a significantly smaller injection volume was used in TA-ESD than in C-ESD for ESD-IT (31.5 vs. 47.0 mL, P < 0.01). ESD with either endoscopic device achieved favorable treatment outcomes with low complication rates. The handover rate in ESD-N and the injection volume in ESD-IT improved with the traction method.

Outcomes for endoscopic submucosal dissection of pathologically staged T1b esophageal cancer: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for T1b esophageal cancer (EC) and its recurrence rates remain unclear in the West. Using a multicenter cohort, we evaluated technical outcomes and recurrence rates of ESD in the treatment of pathologically staged T1b EC.

METHODS

We included patients who underwent ESD of T1b EC at 7 academic tertiary referral centers in the United States (n = 6) and Brazil (n = 1). We analyzed demographic, procedural, and histopathologic characteristics and follow-up data. Time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence rates.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients with pathologically staged T1b EC after ESD were included in the study. A preprocedure staging EUS was available in 54 patients and was Tis/T1a in 27 patients (50%) and T1b in 27 patients (50%). En-bloc resection rate was 92.4% (61/66) and R0 resection rate was 54.5% (36/66). Forty-nine of 66 patients (74.2%) did not undergo surgery immediately after resection and went on to surveillance. Ten patients had ESD resection within the curative criteria, and no recurrences were seen in a 13-month (range, 3-18.5) follow-up period in these patients. Ten of 39 patients (25.6%) with noncurative resections had residual/recurrent disease. Of the 10 patients with noncurative resection, local recurrence alone was seen in 5 patients (12.8%) and metastatic recurrence in 5 patients (12.8%). On univariate analysis, R1 resection had a higher risk of recurrent disease (hazard ratio, 6.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-30.36; P = .023).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS staging of T1b EC has poor accuracy, and a staging ESD should be considered in these patients. ESD R0 resection rates were low in T1b EC, and R1 resection was associated with recurrent disease. Patients with noncurative ESD resection of T1b EC who cannot undergo surgery should be surveyed closely, because recurrent disease was seen in 25% of these patients.

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.

Factors of technical difficulty in conventional and traction-assisted esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

The traction assisted (TA) method has reduced the technical difficulty associated with esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). However, it is unclear which factors associated with difficulty have been improved by the TA-ESD method. We aimed to evaluate and compare difficulty factors between conventional and TA-ESD.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled patients treated by ESD from Apr 2010 to Jun 2014 for the conventional ESD cohort and from Jan 2016 to Dec 2019 for the TA-ESD cohort. Difficult cases were defined as; (1)  ≥ 120 min ESD procedure time, (2) intraoperative perforation, or (3) piecemeal resection. We explored and compared the factors associated with technical difficulty in each cohort.

RESULTS

The conventional and TA-ESD cohorts included 285 (299 lesions) and 387 (421 lesions) patients, respectively. For difficult cases, the conventional and TA-ESD cohorts had 91 (30%) and 71 (17%) lesions, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression showed that ≥ 30 mm lesion length (odds ratio (OR) 6.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.47-13.50), lower esophagus (OR 2.37, 95% Cl 1.34-4.21), > 1/2 circumference (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.28-3.99), and left wall (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.42-5.20) in the conventional ESD cohort, and ≥ 30 mm lesion length (21.30, 95% CI 4.75-95.30), lower esophagus (OR 3.05, 95% CI 1.52-6.13), and > 1/2 circumference (OR 6.40, 95% CI 3.06-13.40) in the TA-ESD cohort, were independently associated with technical difficulty.

CONCLUSIONS

TA-ESD can reduce the difficulty in cases including lesions in the left wall; however, cases in the lower esophagus and large lesions were still difficult to simplify.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs. endoscopic mucosal resection for early Barrett's neoplasia in the West: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

The difference in clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for early Barrett's esophagus (BE) neoplasia remains unclear. We compared the recurrence/residual tissue rates, resection outcomes, and adverse events after ESD and EMR for early BE neoplasia.

METHODS

We included patients who underwent EMR or ESD for BE-associated high grade dysplasia (HGD) or T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) at eight academic hospitals. We compared demographic, procedural, and histologic characteristics, and follow-up data. A time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence/residual disease and a Kaplan-Meier curve was used to compare the groups.

RESULTS

243 patients (150 EMR; 93 ESD) were included. EMR had lower en bloc (43 % vs. 89 %; P < 0.001) and R0 (56 % vs. 73 %; P = 0.01) rates than ESD. There was no difference in the rates of perforation (0.7 % vs. 0; P > 0.99), early bleeding (0.7 % vs. 1 %; P > 0.99), delayed bleeding (3.3 % vs. 2.1 %; P = 0.71), and stricture (10 % vs. 16 %; P = 0.16) between EMR and ESD. Patients with non-curative resections who underwent further therapy were excluded from the recurrence analysis. Recurrent/residual disease was 31.4 % [44/140] for EMR and 3.5 % [3/85] for ESD during a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 15.5 (6.75-30) and 8 (2-18) months, respectively. Recurrence-/residual disease-free survival was significantly higher in the ESD group. More patients required additional endoscopic resection procedures to treat recurrent/residual disease after EMR (EMR 24.2 % vs. ESD 3.5 %; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

ESD is safe and results in more definitive treatment of early BE neoplasia, with significantly lower recurrence/residual disease rates and less need for repeat endoscopic treatments than with EMR.

Recent approach for preventing complications in upper gastrointestinal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Although endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a minimally invasive treatment method for upper gastrointestinal (GI) tumors, patients undergoing upper GI ESD sometimes fall into a serious condition from complications. Thus, it is important to fully understand how to prevent complications when performing upper GI ESD. One of the major complications in esophageal and gastric ESD is intraoperative perforation. To prevent this complication, blind dissection should be avoided. Traction-assisted ESD is a useful technique for maintaining good endoscopic view. This method was proven to reduce the incidence of intraoperative perforation, which would become a standard technique in esophageal and gastric ESD. In gastric ESD, delayed bleeding is the most common complication. Recently, a novel prediction model (BEST-J score) consisting of 10 factors with four risk categories for delayed bleeding in gastric ESD was established, and a free mobile application is now available. For reducing delayed bleeding in gastric ESD, vonoprazan ≥20 mg/day is the sole reliable method in the current status. Duodenal ESD is still challenging with a much higher frequency of complications, such as perforation and delayed bleeding, than ESD in other organs. However, with the development of improved devices and techniques, the frequency of complications in duodenal ESD has been decreasing. To prevent intraoperative perforation, some ESD techniques, such as using the distal tips of the Clutch Cutter, were developed. An endoscopic mucosal defect closure technique would be mandatory for preventing delayed complications. However, several unresolved issues, including standardization of duodenal ESD, remain and further studies are demanded.

Endoscopic resection of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: Current indications and treatment outcomes

Endoscopic resection (ER) is an alternate minimally invasive treatment for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SESCC). We aimed to review the clinical indications and treatment outcomes of ER for SESCC. Endoscopic mucosal resection is relatively easy and efficient for SESCC ≤ 15 mm. In contrast, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is recommended to achieve en bloc resection for lesions >15 mm, in view of the accurate pathological evaluation. The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society guidelines recommend ER for non‐circumferential cT1a‐EP/LPM (epithelium/lamina propria mucosae), cT1a‐MM/T1b‐SM1 (muscularis mucosa/superficial submucosa ≤ 200μm) SESCC, and whole‐circumferential T1a‐EP/LPM SESCC ≤ 50 mm (upon implementing preventive measures for stenosis), considering the risk‐benefit balance of ER. It defines pT1a‐EP/LPM without lymphovascular invasion as a curative endoscopic resection. The guidelines recommend additional esophagectomy or chemoradiotherapy for pT1b SESCC or any SESCC, with lymphovascular invasion. However, there is no recommendation for or against the administration of additional treatments for pT1a‐MM without lymphovascular invasion, owing to limited evidence. Researchers have reported on high en bloc and R0 resection rates of ESD, and a randomized controlled trial demonstrated that clip‐line traction‐assisted ESD could significantly reduce the ESD procedural time. Moreover, steroid treatment has been developed to prevent post‐ESD esophageal strictures. There have been reports on favorable long‐term outcomes of ESD. However, most of them are retrospective studies. Further robust data in prospective trials are warranted to achieve a definitive evidence of ESD, which will be beneficial to patients with SESCC.

The safety and feasibility of endoscopic submucosal dissection using a flexible three-dimensional endoscope for early gastric cancer and superficial esophageal cancer: A prospective observational study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is performed as one of standard treatments for patients with early gastric cancer (EGC) and superficial esophageal squamous cancer (SESCC). A prototype of a flexible endoscope with a 3-D system has been recently developed. This study aimed to investigate the safety and feasibility of ESD using a 3-D flexible endoscope (3-D ESD) for EGC and SESCC.

METHODS

This single-center, prospective, observational study enrolled patients who underwent planned 3-D ESD. The clinical outcomes, including the incidence of adverse events and treatment results, were analyzed. Visibility and manipulation during 3-D ESD were evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS). We also evaluated the effect of the 3-D system on the endoscopist using VAS and the critical flicker fusion frequency (CFFF).

RESULTS

We analyzed 47 EGC and 20 SESCC cases. There are no bleeding cases that required transfusion and perforation during 3-D ESD in both EGC and SESCC patients. However, the incidence of delayed bleeding and delayed perforation was 1.5% (one case) each. The mean VAS scores for recognizing the submucosal layer during the submucosal dissection, visual perception of blood vessel, and depth perception were 72.7 ± 22.2, 74.7 ± 21.8, and 78.2 ± 19.9, respectively. In contrast, the mean VAS score for manipulation was 25.4 ± 19.7. Among endoscopists, there was no significant difference in the VAS of eyestrain and headache before and after ESD, and there was no significant difference in the CFFF.

CONCLUSION

The safety and feasibility of 3-D ESD for EGC and SESCC are acceptable in both patients and endoscopists.

Second gastric cancer after curative endoscopic resection of differentiated-type early gastric cancer: post-hoc analysis of a single-arm confirmatory trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic resection (ER) for early gastric cancer (EGC) can preserve the stomach; however, the remaining stomach can develop second gastric cancer. Few reports have prospectively investigated the incidence and treatment outcomes of second gastric cancer.

METHODS

This post-hoc analysis used the dataset of the single-arm confirmatory trial, JCOG0607. The key inclusion criteria for JCOG0607 were solitary differentiated-type EGC and no previous gastrectomy or endoscopic treatment for EGC. Three hundred seventeen patients who underwent curative ER were included in this study. Surveillance endoscopy was performed 1 to 3 months after the initial ER and subsequently annually for at least 5 years. A lesion detected ≤1 year and >1 year after the initial ER was defined as overlooked gastric cancer (OGC) and metachronous gastric cancer (MGC), respectively.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up period of 6.0 years (interquartile range, 5.1-7.0), 30 OGCs and 61 MGCs were detected in 24 and 48 patients, respectively. The cumulative incidence of OGC at 1 year and MGC at 5 years was 7.6% and 12.7%, respectively. ER and gastrectomy were performed in 85 lesions and 6 lesions, respectively. Pathologic evaluation showed 78 mucosal cancers, 12 submucosal cancers, and 1 advanced cancer. Eventually, 28 OGCs and 52 MGCs fulfilled the pathologic criteria for curative ER.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study was the first to reveal the actual incidence of second gastric cancer after curative ER for differentiated-type gastric cancer. Most lesions could be treated with ER. Continuous endoscopic surveillance after curative ER is important to detect second gastric cancer.

A novel flexible auxiliary single-arm transluminal endoscopic robot facilitates endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric lesions (with video)

BACKGROUND

Using conventional endoscope to perform endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is difficult because of the one-handed operation and blind dissection caused by gravity. Poor visualization of the submucosal plane causes ESD to be associated with a high risk of bleeding and perforation. This study aimed to develop a novel ESD-assistive robot system and to evaluate its efficacy.

METHODS

A novel flexible auxiliary single-arm transluminal endoscopic robot (FASTER) was developed. A total of 36 artificial lesions in ex vivo porcine stomachs were removed using the FASTER-assisted ESD method (n = 18) and the conventional ESD method (n = 18). Lesions were 2 cm or 4 cm in diameter, located on the anterior and posterior walls of the antrum. Primary outcome measurements were dissection time and dissection speed.

RESULTS

The dissection time in FASTER-assisted ESD was significantly shorter than that in conventional ESD (7 min vs 13 min, p = 0.012), mainly because of the faster dissection speed (148.6 vs 97.0 mm²/min, p = 0.002). The total procedure time in FASTER-assisted ESD was shorter than that in conventional ESD, but the difference was not significant (16 min vs 24 min, p = 0.252). Complete en bloc resection was achieved in all lesions. No perforations were detected. The FASTER exhibited the ability of regrasp, multidirectional traction, and proper tension control during ESD.

CONCLUSION

FASTER significantly increased the dissection speed by providing proper traction and achieving good submucosal vision. This new device is expected to facilitate ESD in clinical practice.

Randomized study of two endo-knives for the traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Needle-type devices, such as the DualKnife (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan), are widely used for traction-assisted esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) but require a prolonged operation time. An improved model of the ITknife (Olympus), the ITknife nano, may allow faster and easier ESD than the DualKnife. We conducted a randomized study to compare the performances of the DualKnife and the ITknife nano for traction-assisted esophageal ESD. Patients with early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma were eligible for this study. The primary outcome was the total procedure time. The secondary outcomes were submucosal dissection time, en bloc, and complete resection rates, perforation rate, and adverse events. Results Fifty patients were equally divided into two groups: the DualKnife group (D-group) and the ITknife nano group (I-group), and all underwent the assigned treatment. The I-group had significantly shorter total procedure time (36.8 vs. 60.7 min; P < 0.01) and submucosal dissection time (17.2 vs. 35.8 min; P < 0.01) than the D-group. The en bloc and complete resection rates were sufficiently high in both groups (100% and 100% in the D-group and 100% and 96% in the I-group, respectively). Significantly fewer hemostatic procedures due to intraoperative bleeding were performed in the I-group than in the D-group (0.2 vs. 1.4; P < 0.01). Delayed bleeding, perforation, or esophageal stricture did not occur in either group. The ITknife nano exhibited lower procedure time for traction-assisted esophageal ESD than the DualKnife, without increasing adverse events.

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.

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.

GIE Editorial Board top 10 topics: advances in GI endoscopy in 2020

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Editorial Board reviewed a systematic literature search of original endoscopy-related articles published during 2020 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and 10 other high-impact medical and gastroenterology journals. Votes from each individual board member were tallied to identify a consensus list of the 10 most significant topic areas in GI endoscopy over the calendar year of study using 4 criteria: significance, novelty, impact on national health, and impact on global health. The 10 areas identified were as follows: artificial intelligence in endoscopy, coronavirus disease 2019 and GI practice, third-space endoscopy, lumen-apposing metal stents, single-use duodenoscopes and other disposable equipment, endosonographic needle technology and techniques, endoscopic closure devices, advances in GI bleeding management, improvements in polypectomy techniques, and bariatric endoscopy. Each board member contributed a summary of important articles relevant to 1 to 2 topic areas, leading to a collective summary that is presented in this document of the "top 10" endoscopic advances of 2020.