Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for large colorectal laterally spreading tumors in older adults

Risk factors for unsuccessful colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Despite its growing popularity, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal neoplasms is still technically challenging. The factors contributing to the failure of ESD are not yet comprehensively elucidated. Therefore, this systematic review was conducted to explore the potential risk factors associated with unsuccessful colorectal ESD.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of Medline and Embase databases was conducted to identify relevant publications from inception until March 14, 2023. Unsuccessful ESD was defined as cases involving incomplete resection or the occurrence of adverse events, such as perforation and delayed bleeding.

RESULTS

Among the 2067 citations initially identified, a total of 23 cohort studies and 16 case-control studies met the inclusion criteria. Following meta-analyses, several significant risk factors for incomplete resection were identified, including lesion diameter ≥40 or 50 mm, right-side colonic location, deeper submucosal invasion, and severe fibrosis. Similarly, lesion diameter ≥40 or 50 mm and severe fibrosis emerged as risk factors for perforation. However, no individual factor was found to be statistically associated with delayed bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis identified risk factors correlated with incomplete resection and adverse events following ESD. The findings provide valuable insights that can guide clinical decision-making, aiding gastroenterologists in accurately identifying high-risk individuals.

Curative Effect Analysis of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Giant Laterally Spreading Rectal Tumors

GOAL

The objective of this study was to investigate the clinical efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the treatment of giant lateral developing rectal-type tumors (laterally spreading tumors, LSTs).

BACKGROUND

There are no specialized studies on the efficacy of ESD in the treatment of LSTs measuring >5 cm in diameter, surgery was often used in the past, but it has the disadvantages of large trauma, many complications, and high cost.

METHODS

The data of 185 patients with rectal LSTs who had undergone ESD in the digestive endoscopy center of our hospital from January 2012 to June 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Based on the size of the lesions, the patients were divided into 2 groups: diameter ≤5 cm (110 cases) and diameter >5 cm (75 cases), and we summarized and analyzed the en bloc resection rate, curative resection rate, procedure time, muscle injury, bleeding, perforation, postoperative stricture, and recurrence.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the en bloc resection rate and R0 resection rate between the 2 groups ( P =0.531). Moreover, there was no difference in the incidence of delayed perforation, postoperative stenosis, and recurrence, but the incidence of delayed bleeding was significantly higher in the giant LST group than the small LST group ( P =0.001). Moreover, for giant rectal LSTs, the growth pattern of the lesion, JNET classification, and the extent of postoperative mucosal defect do not significantly affect the efficacy of ESD. It is worth mentioning that the operation time was longer in the group with a diameter >5 cm, in which perforation was more frequent and the muscle layer was more likely to be injured during ESD ( P <0.001). The muscle injury during ESD was mainly related to the diameter of the lesion, the crossing the rectal pouch, and the operation time.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ESD to treat giant rectal LSTs (>5 cm) is relatively difficult and can easily lead to intraoperative muscle injury, perforation, and late postoperative bleeding. However, if active intervention is performed, patients can still achieve good efficacy and prognosis, which can be applied in hospitals with certain conditions.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Efficacy and safety of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with sarcopenia

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early-stage colorectal cancer (CRC) has become a common and useful treatment. Although sarcopenia has been identified as an independent risk factor for complications after surgery for CRC, whether sarcopenia is also an independent risk factor for complications after colorectal ESD remains to be clarified. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of colorectal ESD in patients with and those without sarcopenia.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study. A total of 334 patients underwent colorectal ESD for 361 neoplasms at Hiratsuka City Hospital from March 2012 to October 2018. The neoplasms were divided into two groups depending on the presence or absence of sarcopenia in the patients.

RESULTS

Overall, 334 patients underwent colorectal ESD for 361 neoplasms during the study period. We excluded 90 patients (90 neoplasms), and 244 patients (277 neoplasms) were included in the final analysis (134 from the sarcopenia group, 137 from the non-sarcopenia group). The en-bloc resection rate was high and was not significantly different between the sarcopenia group [126/134 (94.1%)] and the non-sarcopenia group [133/137 (97.1%)], P = 0.1778). The rate of perforation and the rate of delayed bleeding were not significantly different between the sarcopenia group and the non-sarcopenia group [6/134 (4.5%) vs. 9/137 (6.6%), P = 0.314, 4/134 (3%) vs. 6/137 (4.4%), P = 0.3885, respectively].

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of sarcopenia did not influence the rate of complications after ESD. Colorectal ESD is safe and effective even in patients with sarcopenia. Prospective multicenter studies are necessary to confirm our results.

The Coexistence of Colorectal Polyps in the Right Colon Increases the Malignant Risk of Laterally Spreading Tumors

Background

The coexistence of colorectal polyps with laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) is commonly observed during colonoscopy. However, there are rare studies that assess the malignant risks for LSTs with colorectal polyps, which might largely contribute to further strategies of treatment and follow-up plans in LSTs.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study that enrolled 206 patients with LSTs in the Endoscopy Center and Endoscopy Research Institute, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China. The subjects with LSTs were divided into two groups: the nonpolyp group with 89 patients and the polyp group with 117 patients. Binary logistic regression was used to identify the independent predictors of outcomes of interest.

Results

The risk of the polyps' coexistence phenomenon increased in males compared with females (OR = 2.138, p = 0.047), especially in those between 50 and 75 years old (OR = 7.074, p = 0.036). Tumor size (3–4 cm), LSTs with tubulovillous types, and history of polyps statistically increased the risk of the polyp coexistence phenomenon (OR = 5.768, p = 0.003; OR = 36.345, p = 0.024; OR = 13.245, p < 0.0001, respectively). LST-NG-PD (OR = 20.982, p = 0.017) and LSTs ≥ 5 cm (OR = 37.604, p = 0.038) notably increased the malignant risk of LSTs. When the simultaneous polyps are located in the right colon, the risk of malignant LSTs (OR = 58.540, p = 0.013) positively increased.

Conclusion

The simultaneous colorectal polyps in the right colon were the most important risk factor to predict the malignant risk of LSTs.