Prediction of technically difficult endoscopic submucosal dissection for large superficial colorectal tumors: a novel clinical score model

Transrectal Drainage Tube Use for Preventing Postendoscopic Submucosal Dissection Coagulation Syndrome in Patients With Colorectal Lesions: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Postendoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) coagulation syndrome (PECS) prevention is one of the common postoperative complications of colorectal ESD. Considering the increasing incidence of PECS, it is critical to investigate various prevention methods. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of transrectal drainage tubes (TDTs) in PECS prevention in patients following colorectal ESD.

METHODS

From July 2022 to July 2023, a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted in 3 hospitals in China. Patients with superficial colorectal lesions ≥20 mm who had undergone ESD for a single lesion were enrolled. Initially, 229 patients were included in the study and 5 were excluded. Two hundred twenty-four were randomly assigned to the TDT and non-TDT group in the end. This open-label study utilized a parallel design with a 1:1 allocation ratio, and endoscopists and patients were not blind to the randomization, and a 24 Fr drainage tube was inserted approximately 10-15 cm above the anus after the ESD under the endoscopy and tightly attached to a drainage bag. The TDTs were removed in 1-3 days following the ESD.

RESULTS

A total of 229 eligible patients were enrolled in this study, and 5 patients were excluded. Ultimately, 224 patients were assigned to the TDT group (n = 112) and non-TDT group (n = 112). The median age for the patients was 63.45 years (IQR 57-71; 59 men [52.68%]) in the TDT group and 60.95 years (IQR 54-68; 60 men [53.57%]) in the non-TDT group. Intention-to-treat analysis showed patients in the TDT group had a lower incidence of PECS than patients in the non-TDT group (7 [6.25%] vs 20 [17.86%]; relative risk, 0.350; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.154-0.795; P = 0.008). In the subgroup analysis, TDTs were found to prevent PECS in patients of the female gender (odd ratio, 0.097; 95% CI, 0.021-0.449; P = 0.001), tumor size <4 cm (odd ratio, 0.203; 95% CI, 0.056-0.728; P = 0.011), tumor located in the left-sided colorectum (odd ratio, 0. 339 95% CI, 0.120-0.957; P = 0.035), and shorter procedure time (<45 minutes) (odd ratio, 0.316; 95% CI, 0.113-0.879; P = 0.023). The tube fell off in 1 case (0.89%) accidentally ahead of time. No TDT-related complication was observed.

DISCUSSION

The results from this randomized clinical study indicate that the application of TDTs effectively reduced the incidence of PECS in patients after colorectal ESD ( chictr.org.cn Identifier: ChiCTR2200062164).

A novel nomogram for the prediction of perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasms

BACKGROUND

High perforation risk hinders the widespread adoption of ESD for colorectal neoplasms. This study was performed to determine the risk factors of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)-induced perforation and develop a predictive model.

METHODS

A total of 1046 colorectal neoplasms in 1011 patients were retrospectively enrolled from January 2011 to December 2021, in a single tertiary center as the derivation cohort. We identified independent risk factors for perforation using univariate analysis and multi-variate logistic regression. A nomogram was developed based on the logistic regression model and prospectively applied to 266 colorectal neoplasms as the validation cohort. The performance of the predictive model was evaluated with the receiver operating characteristic curve, calibration plot, and decision curve analysis.

RESULTS

Independent pre-operative factors for colorectal ESD-induced perforation were tumor located in the left colon [odds ratio (OR) 2.39, P = 0.040], size ≥ 40 mm (OR 3.36, P < 0.001), ≥2/3 circumference (OR 7.55, P = 0.004), located across folds (OR 6.26, P < 0.001), and laterally spreading tumor (non-granular type, OR 2.34, P = 0.029; granular type, OR 2.46, P = 0.021). The nomogram model incorporating the pre-operative factors performed well in both the derivation and validation cohorts (areas under the curve of 0.750 and 0.806, respectively). Decision curve analysis demonstrated that the clinical benefit of the nomogram was favorable.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel nomogram, developed and prospectively validated, incorporating tumor size, location, and morphology can successfully predict perforation during ESD for colorectal neoplasms.

Outcomes in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection for large protruded lesions: A retrospective multicenter study

Background and study aims Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is increasingly used for treating early-stage colorectal cancer, including large, protruded lesions (LPL). However, the challenges posed by LPLs, especially those accompanied by severe fibrosis or muscle-retracting sign (MRS), remain unclear. This study aims to investigate ESD outcomes for LPL, focusing on factors such as tumor size and, submucosal fibrosis. Patients and methods In a multicenter retrospective study (June 2012 to May 2023), data from 526 patients with 542 LPL lesions (≥ 2 cm) were analyzed. Parameters included lesion size, procedure time, dissection speed, physician experience, submucosal fibrosis, and adverse events. The tunnel method, including the double tunnel method, was used for cases with severe fibrosis or MRS. Multivariate analysis assessed factors affecting procedure difficulty, particularly LPLs ≥ 4 cm. Results The study revealed an impressive en bloc resection rate of 97.8% and a curative resection rate of 78.6% for LPLs. Notably, fibrosis and MRS were present in 25% and 18% of 4-cm LPLs, respectively, and their frequency tended to increase as the tumor diameter increased. One treatment strategy for LPLs was the tunneling method, which was used most frequently (41 cases, 7.6%). Factors affecting dissection speed included larger tumor size, submucosal fibrosis, MRS, and physician experience. Conclusions Treating LPLs through colorectal ESD presents significant challenges, especially in patients with fibrosis and MRS. This study highlights the importance of recognizing these complexities, and that more reliable resection strategy must be established for accurate pathological evaluation.

Predictive factors associated with technical difficulty in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: A Honam Association for the Study of Intestinal Disease (HASID) multicenter study

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a promising but challenging procedure. It is not widely performed due to its technical difficulty. We aimed to find the predictive factors associated with technical difficulty in colorectal ESD before the procedure. Clinical data from patients who underwent ESD for colorectal tumors in 5 hospitals in Honam province of South Korea between 2015 and 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. Technically difficult colorectal ESD procedure was defined in 3 points. Long procedure time (longer than 60 minutes), occurrence of perforation, and failure of en bloc resection. Factors associated with technically difficult ESD were included as main outcome measure. 1446 patients were identified and their data were analyzed. Median procedure time was 30.0 minutes and median long axis of the tumor was 20.1 mm. Technically difficult procedures including long procedure time were 231 cases (16.0%), perforation occurred in 34 cases (2.3%), and en bloc resection was done in 1292 cases (89.3%). Tumor size larger than 35 mm (odd ratio [OR]: 1.474, P = .047), central depression or ulceration in the lesion (OR: 1.474, P = .013), previous endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or polypectomy procedure (OR: 2.428, P = .020) were associated with technically difficult ESD. Descending colon-located tumor (OR: 5.355, P < .001), and use of IT knife (OR: 4.157, P = .003) were associated with perforation. Recognizing factors associated with technically difficult ESD can help in planning the ESD procedure beforehand.

Validation and update of a clinical score model to predict technical difficulty of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The Zhongshan colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (CR-ESD) score model was proposed to grade the technical difficulty of CR-ESD. The objective of this study was to prospectively validate and update the score model.

METHODS

A multicenter prospective cohort analysis of CR-ESD was conducted. Individual data on patients, lesions, and outcomes of CR-ESD were used to validate the original model and further refine the difficulty of the prediction model. Data were randomly divided into discovery and internal validation cohorts. A multivariate Cox regression analysis was conducted on the discovery cohort to develop an updated risk-scoring system, which was then validated.

RESULTS

Five hundred forty-eight patients with 565 colorectal lesions treated by ESD from 4 hospitals were included. In the prospective validation cohort, the area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the original model was .707. Six risk factors were identified and assigned point values: tumor size (2 points for 30-50 mm, 3 points for ≥50 mm), at least two-thirds circumference of the lesion (3 points), tumor location in the cecum (2 points) or flexure (2 points), laterally spreading tumor-nongranular lesions (1 point), preceding biopsy sampling (1 point), and NBI International Colorectal Endoscopic type 3 (3 points). The updated model had an area under the ROC curve of .738 in the discovery cohort and of .782 in the validation cohort. Cases were categorized into easy (score = 0-1), intermediate (score = 2-3), difficult (score = 4-6), and very difficult (score ≥7) groups. Satisfactory discrimination and calibration were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The original model achieved an acceptable level of prediction in the prospective cohort. The updated model exhibited superior performance and can be used in place of the previous version. (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2100047087.).

Endoscopic resection of giant esophageal subepithelial lesions: experience from a large tertiary center

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Increased reports on endoscopic resection (ER) of esophageal giant subepithelial lesions (g-SELs) have emerged in recent years. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, technical difficulty, and safety through our single-center experience.

METHODS

Seventy-five patients with g-SELs undergoing endoscopic resection were included in the training set. Clinicopathologic features, procedure-related characteristics, postprocedural outcomes, and follow-up data were analyzed. A predictive nomogram model for procedural difficulty was proposed based on the multivariable logistic regression analysis. Internal and external validations were conducted to verify the model performance.

RESULTS

The overall en bloc resection rate was 93.3%. Intraoperative and postoperative adverse events occurred in 7 (9.3%) and 13 (17.3%) patients, respectively. No recurrence or metastasis was observed. Thirty-two (42.7%) patients underwent a difficult procedure. Age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], .915; P = .004), maximal tumor diameter ≥8 cm (aOR, 9.896; P = .009), irregular shape (aOR, 4.081; P = .053), extraluminal growth pattern (aOR, 5.419; P = .011), and submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (aOR, .109; P = .042) were found to be statistically or clinically significant factors for predicting endoscopic resection difficulty, based on which a nomogram model was developed. Internal and external validations of the nomogram via receiver-operating characteristic curves and calibration curves achieved favorable results.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic resection serves as a promising therapeutic option for esophageal g-SELs. A younger patient age, large tumor size, irregular shape, and extraluminal growth may indicate increased endoscopic resection difficulty, whereas a submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection procedure tends to be of lower difficulty. Our nomogram model performs well for predicting endoscopic resection difficulty for esophageal g-SELs.

Device-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection in colorectum: Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is emerging as an effective modality for mucosal and submucosal lesions in the colorectum. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to analyze the success and safety of device-assisted EFTR in the colon and rectum.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in the Embase, PubMed, and Medline databases for studies evaluating device-assisted EFTR between inception to October 2022. The primary outcome of the study was clinical success (R0 resection) with EFTR. Secondary outcomes included technical success, procedure duration, and adverse events.

RESULTS

In all, 29 studies with 3467 patients (59% male patients, 3492 lesions) were included in the analysis. The lesions were located in right colon (47.5%), left colon (28.6%), and rectum (24.3%). EFTR was performed for subepithelial lesions in 7.2% patients. The pooled mean size of the lesions was 16.6 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.9-18.2, I2 98%). Technical success was achieved in 87.1% (95% CI 85.1-88.9%, I2 39%) procedures. The pooled rate of en bloc resection was 88.1% (95% CI 86-90%, I2 47%) and R0 resection was 81.8% (95% CI 79-84.3%, I2 56%). In subepithelial lesions, the pooled rate of R0 resection was 94.3% (95% CI 89.7-96.9%, I2 0%). The pooled rate of adverse events was 11.9% (95% CI 10.2-13.9%, I2 43%) and major adverse events requiring surgery was 2.5% (95% CI 2.0-3.1%, I2 0%).

CONCLUSION

Device-assisted EFTR is a safe and effective treatment modality in cases with adenomatous and subepithelial colorectal lesions. Comparative studies are required with conventional resection techniques, including endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection.

Lesion size affects the risk of technical difficulty in gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection

Current evidence shows an inter-country inconsistency in the effect of lesion size on the technical difficulty of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to evaluate the specific correlation and quantify the ensuing risks. This retrospective study consisted of 405 ESD cases with gastric single lesion from April 2015 to April 2023. The correlation and risk prediction of lesion size with technical difficulty was explored to provide further clinical evidence. An additive generalized model and recursive algorithm were used to describe the non-linear association, and a linear two-piece regression was constructed to analyze the inflection point. Subgroup analysis and interaction were used to explore intergroup characteristics. Overall, difficult cases had larger lesion sizes, and the more significant the increase, the higher the risk of technical difficulty. In the full model, after adjusting for all covariates, each 1 mm, 3 mm, 5 mm, 7 mm, and one standard increase in lesion size increased the risk of technical difficulty by 8%, 26%, 42%, 72%, and 125%, respectively. There is a nonlinear positive correlation between lesion size and risk of technical difficulty, and the premeditated inflection point was 40 (mm) via two-piecewise linear regression and recursive algorithm. Subgroup analysis showed a stronger correlation between lesion size and difficult ESD in the upper site and submucosal fibrosis groups. Available evidence suggests that lesion size as a risk signal nonlinearly increases the technical difficulty of gastric ESD procedure, especially in cases of upper site and submucosal fibrosis, which deserves further investigation.

Development of a clinical automatic calculation of hypoglycemia during hemodialysis risk in patients with diabetic nephropathy

BACKGROUND

Hypoglycemia is one of the most common complications in patients with DN during hemodialysis. The purpose of the study is to construct a clinical automatic calculation to predict risk of hypoglycemia during hemodialysis for patients with diabetic nephropathy.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, patients provided information for the questionnaire and received blood glucose tests during hemodialysis. The data were analyzed with logistic regression and then an automated calculator for risk prediction was constructed based on the results. From May to November 2022, 207 hemodialysis patients with diabetes nephropathy were recruited. Patients were recruited at blood purifying facilities at two hospitals in Beijing and Inner Mongolia province, China. Hypoglycemia is defined according to the standards of medical care in diabetes issued by ADA (2021). The blood glucose meter was used uniformly for blood glucose tests 15 minutes before the end of hemodialysis or when the patient did not feel well during hemodialysis.

RESULTS

The incidence of hypoglycemia during hemodialysis was 50.2% (104/207). The risk prediction model included 6 predictors, and was constructed as follows: Logit (P) = 1.505×hemodialysis duration 8~15 years (OR = 4.506, 3 points) + 1.616×hemodialysis duration 16~21 years (OR = 5.032, 3 points) + 1.504×having hypotension during last hemodialysis (OR = 4.501, 3 points) + 0.788×having hyperglycemia during the latest hemodialysis night (OR = 2.199, 2 points) + 0.91×disturbance of potassium metabolism (OR = 2.484, 2 points) + 2.636×serum albumin<35 g/L (OR = 13.963, 5 points)-4.314. The AUC of the prediction model was 0.866, with Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) of 0.633, and Hosmer-Lemeshow χ2 of 4.447(P = 0.815). The automatic calculation has a total of 18 points and four risk levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of hypoglycemia during hemodialysis is high in patients with DN. The risk prediction model in this study had a good prediction outcome. The hypoglycemia prediction automatic calculation that was developed using this model can be used to predict the risk of hypoglycemia in DN patients during hemodialysis and also help identify those with a high risk of hypoglycemia during hemodialysis.

Factors associated with increased duration of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal tumors: a 22-year retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely used in several countries. However, it is associated with technical difficulties. Rectal ESD is considered an intermediate step in colorectal ESD training. Nevertheless, some rectal lesions require a longer procedure time than usual, and the reason for the prolonged time taken for these specific lesions remains unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify the factors associated with prolonged rectal ESD.

METHODS

In total, 483 rectal lesions resected using ESD from February 1998 to June 2021 were investigated. Prolonged ESD procedure time was defined as the time from the first submucosal injection to lesion removal exceeding 120 minutes, whereas other procedures were defined as average ESD procedure time. Clinicopathologic and endoscopic findings were compared between the 2 groups using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-four lesions were resected using a prolonged ESD procedure time of 202.9 ± 92.3 minutes, whereas 339 lesions were resected using an average ESD procedure time of 77.8 ± 29.4 minutes. Multivariate analysis revealed that tumors involving the dentate line (P = .026), resection size ≥50 mm (P < .001), invasion depth ≥T1b (P = .006), and circumferential range ≥2/3 (P = .001) were independent risk factors for prolonged-duration ESDs, regardless of whether the procedure was performed by an expert or not.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study suggest that the location of a lesion involving the dentate line, resection size ≥50 mm, circumferential range ≥2/3, and invasion depth ≥T1b are the independent risk factors for prolonged ESD procedure time.

Predicting procedure duration of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection at Western endoscopy centers

Background and study aims Overcoming logistical obstacles for the implementation of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) requires accurate prediction of procedure times. We aimed to evaluate existing and new prediction models for ESD duration. Patients and methods Records of all consecutive patients who underwent single, non-hybrid colorectal ESDs before 2020 at three Dutch centers were reviewed. The performance of an Eastern prediction model [GIE 2021;94(1):133-144] was assessed in the Dutch cohort. A prediction model for procedure duration was built using multivariable linear regression. The model's performance was validated using internal validation by bootstrap resampling, internal-external cross-validation and external validation in an independent Swedish ESD cohort. Results A total of 435 colorectal ESDs were analyzed (92% en bloc resections, mean duration 139 minutes, mean tumor size 39 mm). The performance of current unstandardized time scheduling practice was suboptimal (explained variance: R 2 =27%). We successfully validated the Eastern prediction model for colorectal ESD duration <60 minutes (c-statistic 0.70, 95% CI 0.62-0.77), but this model was limited due to dichotomization of the outcome and a relatively low frequency (14%) of ESDs completed <60 minutes in the Dutch centers. The model was more useful with a dichotomization cut-off of 120 minutes (c-statistic: 0.75; 88% and 17% of "easy" and "very difficult" ESDs completed <120 minutes, respectively). To predict ESD duration as continuous outcome, we developed and validated the six-variable cESD-TIME formula ( https://cesdtimeformula.shinyapps.io/calculator/ ; optimism-corrected R 2 =61%; R 2 =66% after recalibration of the slope). Conclusions We provided two useful tools for predicting colorectal ESD duration at Western centers. Further improvements and validations are encouraged with potential local adaptation to optimize time planning.

Comparison of efficiency and safety between dual-clip and rubber band-assisted ESD and conventional ESD for colonic lateral spreading tumors (LSTs) with different levels of technical difficulty: a retrospective case–control study

Background

Dual-clip and rubber band-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection (DCRB-ESD) is a useful technique in the management of lateral spreading tumors (LSTs) of the colon and is suggested by researchers compared with conventional ESD (C-ESD). The aim of this retrospective study is to further analyze the efficiency and safety of DCRB-ESD in a setting with varying technical difficulties.

Methods

Patients who underwent endoscopic treatment (DCRB-ESD or C-ESD) due to LSTs between Jan 1st, 2019 and Jan 1st, 2022, were retrospectively collected. Patients were classified into the following two groups: the DCRB-ESD group (n = 46) and the C-ESD group (n = 81). Baselines were compared and propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to manage the heterogeneity. The technical difficulty and outcomes of the two groups were evaluated based on a semiquantitative model (CS-CRESD) previously described.

Results

The baseline characteristics of the two groups were balanced except sex and LST classification before PSM and were corrected after PSM. The median ESD operation time of DCRB-ESD was shorter than that of C-ESD (32 vs 41 and 30 vs 44 before and after PSM respectively, P < 0.05). The operation durations of cases with different CS-CRESD scores were different (P < 0.05). In the subgroup with a score of 0, DCRB-ESD showed no advantage than C-ESD in terms of operation duration before and after PSM. In subgroups with a score of 1–3, DCRB-ESD was faster than C-ESD. In subgroups with a score of 4–5, the between-group operation duration was not significantly different due to the limited number of cases, although the median time of DCRB-ESD was shorter. The R0 resection rates, curative resection, complications, and additional surgery in both groups were not significantly different. No adverse events, such as a clip falling off or rubber band rupturing occurred during this study.

Conclusion

DCRB-ESD was an efficient and safe procedure in the management of colonic LSTs. With DCRB-ESD, the operation duration of difficult cases can be shortened without sacrificing complication risk. However, not all cases would benefit from DCRB-ESD. For easy cases (CS-CRESD score = 0), DCRB-ESD may not be prior to C-ESD by experienced endoscopists. A pre-ESD technical difficulty evaluation was recommended to decide whether to perform DCRB-ESD or not.

Efficacy of a Traction Device for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Using a Scissor-Type Knife: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Although safe, colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) using a scissor-type knife has a slow resection speed. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a traction device to hasten the resection speed.

METHODS

This multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted at 3 Japanese institutions. Patients with a 20-50-mm superficial colorectal tumor were enrolled and randomly assigned to a conventional-ESD (C-ESD) group or a traction-assisted ESD (T-ESD) group. The primary outcome was the resection speed.

RESULTS

The C-ESD and T-ESD groups comprised 49 and 48 patients, respectively. Although the mean resection speed was not significantly different in the entire cohort between the groups (23.7 vs 25.6 mm 2 /min, respectively; P = 0.43), it was significantly faster with T-ESD than with C-ESD at the cecum (32.4 vs 16.7 mm 2 /min, respectively; P = 0.02). The mean resection speed of tumors ≥30 mm tended to be faster by T-ESD than by C-ESD (34.6 vs 27.8 mm 2 /min, respectively; P = 0.054). The mean procedure time of T-ESD was significantly shorter than that of C-ESD (47.3 vs 62.3 minutes, respectively; P = 0.03). The en bloc (100% vs 100%), complete (98.0% vs 97.9%), and curative resection (93.9% vs 91.7%) rates were similar between the 2 groups. Perforation and delayed hemorrhage occurred in only 1 patient each in the T-ESD group.

DISCUSSION

Although the resection rates were sufficiently high and adverse event rates were extremely low in both the groups, the use of a traction device for ESD in the proximal colon and for large lesions may increase the resection speed.

Feasibility of endoscopic submucosal dissection for cecal tumors involving the ileocecal valve or appendiceal orifice

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic resection of the ileocecal valve lesions (ICVL) and peri-appendiceal orifice lesions (PAOL), is challenging. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ICVLs and PAOLs compared with other cecal lesions (OCEL).

METHODS

This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study conducted at a cancer center hospital and two community hospitals. Non-pedunculated cecal lesions that were intended to be treated by ESD followed by at least one surveillance colonoscopy were included. The main outcome was curative resection defined as en-bloc resection and R0 resection without risk factors of metastases. The secondary outcome was co lon preservation.

RESULTS

A total of 206 patients with 206 cecal lesions, including 37 ICVL, 27 PAOL, and 142 OCEL, who were to be treated with ESD were included in this study. Curative resection rates were 75.7% for ICVL, 70.4% for PAOL, and 77.5% for OCEL (P = 0.67). In the multivariate analysis of predictors of curative resection, tumor size (<40 mm) (odds ratio [OR] 2.40; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 1.14-5.04; P = 0.02) and a negative non-lifting sign (OR 6.12; 95% CI, 2.55-14.60; P < 0.01) were significant. Colon preservation was achieved for 91.9% of the ICVL, 92.6% of the PAOL, and 90.8% of the OCEL (P = 0.947).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on curative resection and colon preservation rates, ESD was found to be feasible for ICVL and PAOL. Large tumor size (≥ 40 mm) and positive non-lifting signs were significant factors for non-curative resection.

The usefulness of a double-balloon endolumenal interventional platform for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection by non-expert endoscopists in a porcine model (with video)

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an optimal treatment for colorectal tumors; however, it is technically difficult, especially for non-experts. Therefore, a device that helps non-experts perform colorectal ESD would be beneficial. A double-balloon endolumenal interventional platform (DEIP) was recently developed to assist colorectal ESD through endoscope stabilization and traction. This study assessed the usefulness of colorectal ESD using the DEIP (DEIP-ESD) by endoscopists, including non-experts, in a living porcine model.

METHODS

Two pigs were used to perform eight DEIP-ESD and eight conventional cap-assisted ESD (C-ESD) procedures. Three experts and five non-experts each resected one lesion using DEIP-ESD and one using C-ESD. We evaluated the treatment outcomes and performed stratified analyses between the experts and non-experts.

RESULTS

Dissection speed was significantly faster in DEIP-ESD than in C-ESD (13.3 mm²/min vs 28.5 mm²/min, P = 0.002). However, the total procedure time did not differ significantly between DEIP-ESD and C-ESD. In the stratified analyses, the dissection speed of non-experts was significantly faster in DEIP-ESD than in C-ESD (10.9 mm²/min vs 25.1 mm²/min, P = 0.016), while that of experts increased in DEIP-ESD but to a lesser extent (19.1 mm²/min vs 28.8 mm²/min, P = 0.1). The total procedure time did not differ between DEIP-ESD and C-ESD for both experts and non-experts. The self-completion rate of non-experts also increased in DEIP-ESD. Moreover, the number of muscularis propria injuries induced by non-experts was fewer in DEIP-ESD than in C-ESD.

CONCLUSIONS

DEIP could facilitate colorectal ESD by improving dissection efficiency without increasing adverse events, especially when performed by non-experts.

The feasibility of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions larger than 10 cm

BACKGROUND

Although endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables en bloc removal of colorectal neoplasms, its effectiveness for larger lesions (≥ 10 cm in diameter) is undetermined. We aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of ESD for colorectal lesions ≥ 10 cm wide.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 3591 consecutive colorectal lesions managed with ESD from June 2012 through December 2020. Clinicopathological characteristics and treatment outcomes were compared between lesions ≥ 10 cm wide and lesions 5-10 cm wide.

RESULTS

There were 50 patients in the ≥ 10 cm group and 270 patients in the 5-10 cm group. Among patients in the ≥ 10 cm group, lesions were most often in the rectum (50.0%), and the laterally spreading tumor-granular nodular mixed type (LST-G-M) was most prevalent (41/50, 82%). Although patients in the ≥ 10 cm group a longer mean ESD procedure time (186.0 vs. 94.4 min, p < 0.001), the dissection speed was significantly higher in this group (0.50 vs. 0.41 cm²/min, p = 0.003). The en bloc and curative resection rates were comparable between the ≥ 10 cm and 5-10 cm groups (100% vs. 99.6% and 86.0% vs. 88.5%, respectively). Although the stenosis rate was higher in the ≥ 10 cm group (4% vs. 0%), the delayed bleeding and perforation rates were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD for colorectal lesions ≥ 10 cm wide is feasible and curative, even though it is associated with higher technical difficulty and longer procedure times compared with ESD for smaller lesions (Number: UMIN 000044313).

Predictors of the difficulty for endoscopic resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor and follow-up data

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are among the most common submucosal tumors in the stomach that require therapeutic intervention. We aim to identify the predictors of technical difficulty during endoscopic resection of gastric GIST and to investigate follow-up outcomes.

METHODS

Patients with gastric GISTs were reviewed from June 2009 to June 2020 at Zhongshan Hospital. Clinical and pathological features, endoscopic procedure information, and follow-up data were collected and analyzed. A nomogram was developed and validated internally and externally.

RESULTS

A total of 628 GISTs were finally analyzed. The difficulty was experienced in 66 cases. GISTs size (2-3 cm: OR 2.431 P = 0.018 and > 3 cm: OR 9.765 P < 0.001), invasion depth beyond submucosal (MP: OR 2.280, P = 0.038 and MP-ex: OR 4.295, P = 0.002), and lack of experience (OR 2.075, P = 0.016) were independent risk factors of difficulty. The nomogram prediction model showed a bias-corrected C-index value of 0.778 and acquired an area under curve (AUC) of 0.756 on the external validation cohort. At the cut-off of 0.15, the nomogram's negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy (ACC) were 94.9% and 79.8% in identifying non-difficult GISTs. Follow-up results showed that only five GIST patients had local recurrence after endoscopic resection.

CONCLUSIONS

Tumor size, invasion depth, and endoscopists' experience were risk factors for the difficulty of endoscopic GIST resection. Our nomogram provided a valuable tool for screening non-difficult GIST resection.

Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: An Update on Best Practice

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a method of en-bloc resection of neoplastic colorectal lesions which is less invasive compared to surgical resection. Lesion stratification, architecture recognition and estimation of depth of invasion are crucial for patient selection. Expert endoscopists have integrated a variety of classification systems including Paris, lateral spreading tumor (LST), narrow band imaging (NBI), international colorectal endoscopic (NICE) and Japanese NBI expert team (JNET) in their day-to-day practice to enhance lesion detection accuracy. Major societies recommend ESD for LST-non granular (NG), Kudo-VI type, large depressed and protruded colonic lesions with shallow submucosal invasion. Chance of submucosal invasion enhances with increased depth as well as tumor location and size. In comparison to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), ESD has a lowerl recurrence rate and higher curative resection rate, making it superior for larger colonic lesions management. Major complications such as bleeding and perforation could be seen in up to 11% and 16% of patients, respectively. In major Western countries, performing ESD is challenging due to limited number of expert providers, lack of insurance coverage, and unique patient characteristics such as higher BMI and higher percentage of previously manipulated lesions.