Endoscopic full-thickness resection in the colorectum: a single-center case series evaluating indication, efficacy and safety

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.

Outcomes of endoscopic full thickness resection in the colon rectum at an Italian tertiary center

PURPOSE

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is an innovative technique for the treatment of colonic lesions not feasible by conventional endoscopic resection. Here, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a Full-Thickness Resection Device (FTRD) for colonic lesions in a high-volume tertiary referral center.

METHODS

A review of a prospectively collected database on patients that underwent EFTR with FTRD for colonic lesions from June 2016 to January 2021 at our institution was performed. Data regarding the clinical history, previous endoscopic treatments, pathological examination, technical and histological success, and follow-up were evaluated.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients (26 males, median age 69 years) underwent FTRD for colonic lesion. Eighteen lesions were in the left colon, three in the transverse, and 12 in the right colon. The median size of the lesions was 13 (range 10-40) mm. Resection was technically successful in 94% of patients. The mean hospital stay was 3.2 (SD ± 1.2) days. Adverse events were reported in four cases (11.4%). Histological complete resection (R0) was achieved in 93.9% of cases. Endoscopic follow-up was available in 96.8% of patients, at a median duration of 14.6 months (3-46 months). Recurrence was observed in 19.4% of cases at a median time of 3 months (3-7 months). Five patients had multiple FTRD performed, with R0 resection in three cases. In this subset, adverse events were observed in 40% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

FTRD is safe and feasible for standard indication. The non-negligible rate of recurrence observed suggests the need for close endoscopic follow-up in these patients. Multiple EFTR could help achieve complete resection in selected cases; however, in this setting, a higher risk of adverse events was observed.

Adverse events of endoscopic full-thickness resection: results from the German and Dutch nationwide colorectal FTRD registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is emerging as a minimally invasive alternative to surgery for complex colorectal lesions. Previous studies have demonstrated favorable safety results; however, large studies representing a generalizable estimation of adverse events (AEs) are lacking. Our aim was to provide further insight in AEs after eFTR.

METHODS

Data from all registered eFTR procedures in the German and Dutch colorectal full-thickness resection device registries between July 2015 and March 2021 were collected. Safety outcomes included immediate and late AEs.

RESULTS

Of 1892 procedures, the overall AE rate was 11.3% (213/1892). No AE-related mortality occurred. Perforations occurred in 2.5% (47/1892) of all AEs, 57.4% (27/47) of immediate AEs, and 42.6% (20/47) of delayed AEs. Successful endoscopic closure was achieved in 29.8% of cases (13 immediate and 1 delayed), and antibiotic treatment was sufficient in 4.3% (2 delayed). The appendicitis rate for appendiceal lesions was 9.9% (13/131), and 46.2% (6/13) could be treated conservatively. The severe AE rate requiring surgery was 2.2% (42/1892), including delayed perforations in .9% (17/1892) and immediate perforations in .7% (13/1892). Delayed perforations occurred between days 1 and 10 (median, 2) after eFTR, and 58.8% (10/17) were located on the left side. Other severe AEs were appendicitis (.4%, 7/1892), luminal stenosis (.1%, 2/1892), delayed bleeding (.1%, 1/1892), pain after eFTR close to the dentate line (.1%, 1/1892), and grasper entrapment in the clip (.1%, 1/1892).

CONCLUSIONS

Colorectal eFTR is a safe procedure with a low risk for severe AEs in everyday practice and without AE-related mortality. These results further support the position of eFTR as an established minimally invasive technique for complex colorectal lesions.

Long-term oncological outcomes of endoscopic full-thickness resection after previous incomplete resection of low-risk T1 CRC (LOCAL-study): study protocol of a national prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) without histological high-risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) can potentially be cured by endoscopic resection, which is associated with significantly lower morbidity, mortality and costs compared to radical surgery. An important prerequisite for endoscopic resection as definite treatment is the histological confirmation of tumour-free resection margins. Incomplete resection with involved (R1) or indeterminate (Rx) margins is considered a strong risk factor for residual disease and local recurrence. Therefore, international guidelines recommend additional surgery in case of R1/Rx resection, even in absence of high-risk factors for LNM. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a relatively new technique that allows transmural resection of colorectal lesions. Local scar excision after prior R1/Rx resection of low-risk T1 CRC could offer an attractive minimal invasive strategy to achieve confirmation about radicality of the previous resection or a second attempt for radical resection of residual luminal cancer. However, oncologic safety has not been established and long-term data are lacking. Besides, surveillance varies widely and requires standardization.

METHODS/DESIGN

In this nationwide, multicenter, prospective cohort study we aim to assess feasibility and oncological safety of completion eFTR following incomplete resection of low-risk T1 CRC. The primary endpoint is to assess the 2 and 5 year luminal local tumor recurrence rate. Secondary study endpoints are to assess feasibility, percentage of curative eFTR-resections, presence of scar tissue and/or complete scar excision at histopathology, safety of eFTR compared to surgery, 2 and 5 year nodal and/or distant tumor recurrence rate and 5-year disease-specific and overall-survival rate.

DISCUSSION

Since the implementation of CRC screening programs, the diagnostic rate of T1 CRC is steadily increasing. A significant proportion is not recognized as cancer before endoscopic resection and is therefore resected through conventional techniques primarily reserved for benign polyps. As such, precise histological assessment is often hampered due to cauterization and fragmentation and frequently leads to treatment dilemmas. This first prospective trial will potentially demonstrate the effectiveness and oncological safety of completion eFTR for patients who have undergone a previous incomplete T1 CRC resection. Hereby, substantial surgical overtreatment may be avoided, leading to treatment optimization and organ preservation. Trial registration Nederlands Trial Register, NL 7879, 16 July 2019 ( https://trialregister.nl/trial/7879 ).

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) in colon and rectum: indications and outcomes in the first 37 cases in a single center

BACKGROUND

Segmental resection of the colon or rectum for cancer is major surgery with substantial procedure-related morbidity and mortality. A steep increase in the frequency of early cancer and advanced adenoma detection has been evident these late years. Introducing more minimal invasive resection techniques may decrease procedure-related complications and mortality. We aimed to describe the results from introducing endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) in a unit specialized in advanced endoscopic resection of colon neoplasias. Primary outcomes were R0 resection rate and complications.

METHODS

endoscopic full-thickness resection was introduced in our unit in 2017. Patients were referred for eFTR based on indications: (i) completion of resection after unexpected cancer, (ii) suspicion of or clinically confirmed early cancer (T1) without signs of dissemination, or (iii) adenomas not suitable for other endoscopic resection techniques due to difficult position or recurrence. Data on eFTR procedures and follow-up were retrieved from patient journals.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven eFTR procedures were commenced in the period of March 2017 until June 2020, and one of these was abandoned. The overall R0 resection rate was 83.3%. In subgroups of indications i-iii, it was 87.5, 80.0, and 80.0%, respectively. Three perforations and one case of late bleeding occurred. One patient died within 30 days due to late perforation. Six technical failures were evident including operator-induced failures. Five of the technical failures occurred in the first half of the procedures indicating the learning curve of the endoscopist.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of the eFTR procedure has been largely successful, especially in patients referred for completion of resection after unexpected cancer. Complication rates were acceptable, and the technique and quality increased significantly during the study. Careful selection of patients for eFTR is crucial for achieving successful resection. Size and position of lesion seem more important than indication. eFTR is not effective for lesions > 30 mm.

Endoscopic Full Thickness Resection: A Systematic Review

Background Endoscopic full thickness resection (EFTR) is an emerging therapeutic option for resecting subepithelial lesions (SELs) and epithelial neoplasms. We aimed to systematically review the techniques, applications, outcomes, and complications of EFTR.

Methods A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed. All relevant original research articles involving EFTR were included for the review along with case report/series describing novel/rare techniques from 2001 to February 2022.

Results After screening 7,739 citations, finally 141 references were included. Non-exposed EFTR has lower probability of peritoneal contamination or tumor seeding compared with exposed EFTR. Among exposed EFTR, tunneled variety is associated with lower risk of peritoneal seeding or contamination compared with non-tunneled approach. Closure techniques involve though the scope (TTS) clips, loop and clips, over the scope clips (OTSC), full thickness resection device (FTRD), and endoscopic suturing/plicating/stapling devices. The indications of EFTR range from esophagus to rectum and include SELs arising from muscularis propria (MP), non-lifting adenoma, recurrent adenoma, and even early gastric cancer (EGC) or superficial colorectal carcinoma. Other indications include difficult locations (involving appendicular orifice or diverticulum) and full thickness biopsy for motility disorders. The main limitation of FTRD is feasibility in smaller lesions (<20–25 mm), which can be circumvented by hybrid EFTR techniques. Oncologic resection with lymphadencetomy for superficial GI malignancy can be accomplished by hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) combining EFTR and NOTES. Bleeding, perforation, appendicitis, enterocolonic fistula, FTRD malfunction, peritoneal tumor seeding, and contamination are among various adverse events. Post OTSC artifacts need to be differentiated from recurrent/residual lesions to avoid re-FTRD/surgery.

Conclusion EFTR is safe and effective therapeutic option for SELs, recurrent and non-lifting adenomas, tumors in difficult locations and selected cases of superficial GI carcinoma.

Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection for Colorectal Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) with an over-the-scope full-thickness resection device is a relatively new technique for the resection of colorectal lesions. Multiple centers have published the results of case series and observational cohorts regarding the use of this technique for managing difficult polyps. This study aims to aggregate the results of these studies to determine the effectiveness and safety of this technique in the resection of these technically challenging colonic lesions.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched. Articles were included if they reported technical success rate for EFTR of colonic lesions. The primary outcome was technical success rate and secondary outcomes included rate of R0 resection and overall 30-d morbidity. DerSimonian and Laird random-effects meta-analysis of proportions was used to generate effect sizes for pooled outcomes.

RESULTS

From 2211 citations, 21 studies with 1539 patients (mean age 67.2 y, 39.5% female) undergoing 1551 procedures were included. Difficult to resect benign lesions were the most commonly excised lesions (hyperplastic: 35.9%; adenomas: 30.2%), followed by T1 adenocarcinomas (25.6%) and neuroendocrine tumors (6.1%). Technical success rate was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI] 87-92), and R0 resection rate was 79% (95% CI 76-82). Mean procedure time was 53.5 min and mean specimen size was 17.5 mm. Overall 30-d morbidity was 11% (95% CI 7-13), and incidences of perforation and postpolypectomy bleeding were 2% (95% CI 1-2) and 5% (95% CI 3-7), respectively. Lesion recurrence at 3-mo follow-up was 8%.

CONCLUSIONS

EFTR requires further large sample size, comparative studies with reporting of long-term oncologic data. However, preliminary findings indicate that it is a safe and effective technique with high rates of technical success and acceptable rates of R0 resection when employed by experienced endoscopists for high-risk colonic lesions.

Colon Sparing Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection for Advanced Colorectal Lesions: Is It Time for Global Adoption?

The majority of colon lesions are <10 mm in size and are easily resected by endoscopists with appropriate basic training. Lesions ≥10 mm in size are difficult to remove technically and are associated with higher rates of incomplete resection. Currently, the main endoscopic approaches include endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for lesions without submucosal invasion, and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for relatively larger lesions involving the superficial submucosal layer. Both of these approaches have limitations, EMR cannot reliably ensure complete resection for larger tumors and recurrence is a key limitation. ESD reliably provides complete resection and an accurate pathological diagnosis but is associated with risk such as perforation or bleeding. In addition, both EMR and ESD may be ineffective in treating subepithelial lesions that extend beyond the submucosa. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is an emerging innovative endoscopic therapy which was developed to overcome the limitations of EMR and ESD. Advantages include enabling a transmural resection, complete resection of complex colorectal lesions involving the mucosa to the muscularis propria. Recent studies comparing EFTR with current resection techniques and radical surgery for relatively complicated and larger lesion have provided promising results. If the current trajectory of research and development is maintained, EFTR will likely to become a strong contender as an alternative standard of care for advanced colonic lesions. In the current study we aimed to address this need, and highlighted the areas of future research, while stressing the need for multinational collaboration provide the steppingstone(s) needed to bring EFTR to the mainstream.

Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection for the Management of a Polyp in a Patient With Ulcerative Colitis

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is an endoscopic technique utilized to excise challenging gastrointestinal lesions. While the safety and efficacy of EFTR are well-documented in the general population, its utilization in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has not been reported. Here, we present a patient with a longstanding history (more than 10 years) of ulcerative colitis (UC) who was recently found to have a large, fibrotic, non-lifting adenoma in her descending colon. After a multidisciplinary discussion, it was determined that the best way to remove the adenoma would be by EFTR. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case that details the use of EFTR in a patient with IBD. The procedure was successful, and the patient did not experience any complications during the procedure or upon clinical follow-up.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a novel endoscopic technique for the resection of GI lesions not amenable to standard endoscopic therapy. The primary aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate EFTR for the resection of colorectal lesions.

METHODS

Individualized searches were developed through October 2020 in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Random-effects models were used to determine pooled technical success, margin-negative (R₀) resection, adverse events, procedure duration, and rate of recurrence at follow-up. Subgroup analysis was used to assess the impact of specific procedure techniques and regression analyses to determine influence of lesion size. Heterogeneity was assessed with I² statistics and publication bias by funnel plots using Egger and Begg tests.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies (1936 subjects; 39.6% women) were included. Most EFTR lesions were located in the colon (75.8%) with the remaining in the rectum. Mean procedure duration was 45.4 ± 11.4 minutes. Pooled technical success was 87.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.1-89.8; I² = 33), R₀ resection rate was 78.8% (95% CI, 75.7-81.5; I² = 33), procedure-associated adverse events occurred in 12.2% (95% CI, 9.3-15.9; I² = 61), and recurrence rate was 12.6% (95% CI, 11.1-14.4; I² = 0) over an average weighted follow-up of 20.1 ± 3.8 weeks. Regression analyses revealed significantly lower R₀ resection (odds ratio, .3; 95% CI, .2-.6; I² = 61; P = .0003) and higher overall procedure-associated adverse event rates (odds ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.8-7.2; I² = 55; P = .0004) for lesions >20 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

EFTR overall appears to be an effective modality with high technical success and R₀ resection rate with a relatively low risk of adverse events and recurrence, with greatest success when lesions are <20 mm.

Endoscopic full thickness resection in the colo-rectum: outcomes from the UK Registry

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) of the colon using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) is a novel method for removing lesions involving, or tethered to, deeper layers of the colonic wall. The UK FTRD Registry collected data from multiple centres performing this procedure. We describe the technical feasibility, safety and early outcomes of this technique in the UK.

METHODS

Data were collected and analysed on 68 patients who underwent eFTR at 11 UK centres from April 2015 to June 2019. Outcome measures were technical success, procedural time, specimen size, R0 resection, endoscopic clearance, and adverse events. Reported technical difficulties were collated.

RESULTS

Indications for eFTR included non-lifting polyps (29 cases), T1 tumour resection (13), subepithelial tumour (9), and polyps at the appendix base or diverticulum (17). Target lesion resection was achieved in 60/68 (88.2%). Median specimen size was 21.7 mm (10-35 mm). Histologically confirmed R0 resection was achieved in 43/56 (76.8%) with full-thickness resection in 52/56 (92.9%). Technical difficulties occurred in 17/68 (25%) and complications in 3/68 (5.9%) patients.

CONCLUSION

eFTR is a useful technique with a high success rate in treating lesions not previously amenable to endoscopic therapy. Whilst technical difficulties may arise, complication rates are low and outcomes are acceptable, making eFTR a viable alternative to surgery for some specific lesions.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection in the treatment of colonic neoplastic lesions ≤ 30 mm-a single-center experience

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (FTR) is a novel technique of endoscopic treatment of colorectal neoplastic lesions not suitable for endoscopic polypectomy or mucosal resection. FTR appears to be a reasonable alternative to technically demanding endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for lesions ≤ 30 mm. However, comparison between FTR and ESD has not been published yet and their mutual positioning in the treatment algorithm is still unclear. The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate efficacy and safety of FTR in the treatment of colorectal lesions ≤ 30 mm by comparing prospectively followed FTR cohort to retrospective ESD cohort in the setting of single tertiary endoscopy center. Primary outcomes were technical success rate, R0 resection and curative resection rate, and complication rate. A total of 52 patients in FTR and 50 patients in ESD group were treated between 2015 and 2018. Technical success rate was significantly higher in FTR group (92 vs. 74%, P = 0.01) as well as R0 resection rate (85 vs. 62%, P = 0.01) and curative resection rate (75 vs. 56%, P = 0.01). Complications occurred more frequently in ESD group (40 vs. 13%, P = 0.002), mainly due to high incidence of electrocoagulation syndrome (24 vs. 0%). Total procedure time was substantially shorter in FTR group (26.4 ± 11.0 min vs. estimated 90-240 min). Local residual neoplastic lesions were detected numerically more often in FTR group (12 vs. 5%, P = 0.12). No patient died during follow-up. Compared to ESD, FTR proved significantly higher technical success rate, higher R0 and curative resection rate, and shorter procedure time. In the FTR group, there were significantly less complications but higher incidence of local residual neoplasia. Further research including randomized trials is needed to compare both resection techniques.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) of colorectal lesions: results from the Dutch colorectal eFTR registry

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a minimally invasive resection technique that allows definite diagnosis and treatment for complex colorectal lesions ≤ 30 mm unsuitable for conventional endoscopic resection. This study reports clinical outcomes from the Dutch colorectal eFTR registry.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing eFTR in 20 hospitals were prospectively included. The primary outcome was technical success, defined as macroscopic complete en bloc resection. Secondary outcomes were: clinical success, defined as tumor-free resection margins (R0 resection); full-thickness resection rate; and adverse events. RESULTS : Between July 2015 and October 2018, 367 procedures were included. Indications were difficult polyps (non-lifting sign and/or difficult location; n = 133), primary resection of suspected T1 colorectal cancer (CRC; n = 71), re-resection after incomplete resection of T1 CRC (n = 150), and subepithelial tumors (n = 13). Technical success was achieved in 308 procedures (83.9 %). In 21 procedures (5.7 %), eFTR was not performed because the lesion could not be reached or retracted into the cap. In the remaining 346 procedures, R0 resection was achieved in 285 (82.4 %) and full-thickness resection in 288 (83.2 %). The median diameter of resected specimens was 23 mm. Overall adverse event rate was 9.3 % (n = 34/367): 10 patients (2.7 %) required emergency surgery for five delayed and two immediate perforations and three cases of appendicitis. CONCLUSION : eFTR is an effective and relatively safe en bloc resection technique for complex colorectal lesions with the potential to avoid surgery. Further studies assessing the role of eFTR in early CRC treatment with long-term outcomes are needed.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of early colorectal neoplasms using an endoscopic submucosal dissection knife: a retrospective multicenter study

Background and study aims  Endoscopic full-thickness resection allows resection of early gastrointestinal neoplasms not amenable to conventional endoscopic resection techniques, due to their location, presence of submucosal fibrosis, or suspected deep mural invasion. It is typically achieved using a dedicated over-the-scope device (full-thickness resection device or FTRD). The aim of our study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes of endoscopic full-thickness resection using an endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) knife. Patients and methods  Consecutive patients who underwent full-thickness endoscopic resection at six tertiary care centers from August 2010 to June 2017 were retrospectively included. We conducted a comparative analysis of patient characteristics, technical success, adverse events, and time to discharge between patients treated by a full-thickness resection using an ESD knife. Results  Twenty-one procedures were performed using an ESD knife. En-bloc resection and R0 resection rates were 95.2 % and 65 %, respectively. Clinical symptoms of perforation occurred in 66.7 %. There was no need for surgery or additional endoscopic procedures. Conclusion  Endoscopic full-thickness resection of early colorectal neoplasms using an ESD knife might be feasible and safe. It allows complete resection of lesions with no limitation in size. The technique may be preferable to an other-the-scope resection device in lesions larger than 20 mm, and to surgery in selected cases of low-risk T1 colorectal carcinomas, non-lifting adenomas, submucosal tumors, or technically challenging lesion locations.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection using a clip non-exposed method for gastrointestinal tract lesions: a meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) allows for treatment of epithelial and sub-epithelial lesions (SELs) unsuitable to conventional resection techniques. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of clip-assisted method for non-exposed EFTR using FTRD or over-the-scope clip of gastrointestinal tumors. Methods  A comprehensive literature search was performed. The primary outcome of interest was the rate of histologic complete resection (R0). Secondary outcomes of interest were the rate of enbloc resection, FTR, adverse events, and post-EFTR surgery. Random-effects model was used to calculate pooled estimates and generate forest plots. Results  Eighteen studies with 730 patients and 733 lesions were included in the analyses. Indications for EFTR were difficult/residual colorectal adenoma, adenoma at a diverticulum or appendiceal orifice and early cancer (n = 634), colorectal SELs (n = 42), and upper gastrointestinal lesions (n = 51), other colonic lesions (n = 6). Median size of lesions was 13.5 mm. There were 22 failed EFTR attempts. Pooled overall R0 resection rate was 82 % (95 % CI: 75, 89). The pooled overall FTR rate was 83 % (95 % CI: 77, 89). The pooled overall enbloc resection rate was 95 (95 % CI: 92, 96). The pooled estimates for perforation and bleeding were < 0.1 % and 2 %, respectively. Following EFTR, a total of 110 patients underwent surgery for any reason [pooled rate 7 % (95 % 2, 14). The pooled rates for post-EFTR surgery due to invasive cancer, for non-curative endoscopic resection and for adverse events were 4 %, < 0.1 % and < 0.1 %, respectively. No mortality related to EFTR was noted. Conclusions  EFTR appears to be safe and effective for gastrointestinal lesions that are not amenable to conventional endoscopic resection. This technique should be considered as an alternative to surgery in selected cases.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic full-thickness resection in the colon and rectum using an over-the-scope device: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Relevant publications were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science before December 1, 2019. Studies in which ≥ 10 cases of colorectal lesions were resected with endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) were included. Rates of efficacy (technical success (en bloc), full-thickness resection and R0 resection), rates of safety (bleeding, perforation and postpolypectomy syndrome) and rates of follow-up (residual/recurrent adenoma, fate of over-the-scope clip and surgery for any reason) were pooled and analyzed. Forest plots were graphed based on random effects models. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were also performed if significant heterogeneity existed.

RESULTS

A total of 469 patients across 9 studies were eligible for analysis. The pooled rates of technical success, full-thickness resection and R0 resection were 94.0% (95% CI 89.8-97.3%), 89.5% (83.9-94.2%) and 84.9% (75.1-92.8%), respectively. The pooled estimates of bleeding, perforation and postpolypectomy syndrome were 2.2% (95% CI 0.4-4.9%), 0.19% (95% CI 0.00-1.25%) and 2.3% (95% CI 0.1-6.3%), respectively. Finally, the pooled rates of residual/recurrent adenoma, fate of OTSC and surgery for any reason were 8.5% (95% CI 4.1-14.0%), 80.3% (95% CI 67.5-90.8%) and 6.3% (2.4-11.7%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

EFTR for nonlifting, invasive lesions in the colon and rectum appears to be effective and safe. However, future studies are necessary to explore the role of EFTR in large colorectal lesions and specify its indications.

Treatment of neoplastic colonic lesions using the full-thickness resection device

Background and Aims

Advanced adenomas and scarred lesions pose difficulties for the endoscopist because of the need for complete resection and accurate pathologic staging, which cannot be afforded by standard resection techniques. Endoscopic full-thickness resection, first described in Europe for treatment of early adenocarcinoma or scarred lesions in the colon, allows potentially curative en bloc resection in patients who may be at a high risk for surgery. We describe our endoscopic approach and histologic outcomes with use of a commercially available endoscopic full-thickness resection device (FTRD) (Ovesco Endoscopy, Tubingen, Germany).

Methods

We report our experience using the FTRD for advanced polyps in patients referred to our tertiary care center. Three patients were identified from a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing FTRD from December 2018 to February 2019. Demographic, endoscopic, and histologic data were collected.

Results

All patients underwent successful full-thickness resection of the adenocarcinoma, and histopathologic examination showed negative lateral and deep margins. No immediate or delayed adverse events occurred during an average 2-month follow-up period.

Conclusions

Full-thickness resection with an over-the-scope fitted FTRD is safe and effective in the management of advanced colonic neoplastic lesions.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of colorectal lesions with the full-thickness resection device: clinical experience from two referral centers in Greece

Background:

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD^®) is an invasive treatment for colorectal lesions not resectable by conventional endoscopic techniques. This study presents the first Greek experience of the FTRD^® procedure, assessing the efficacy and safety of EFTR.

Methods:

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 17 consecutive patients treated with the FTRD^® at 2 referral centers from October 2015 through December 2018. The indications included difficult adenomas (non-lifting and/or at difficult locations), early adenocarcinomas and subepithelial tumors. Primary endpoints were technical success and R0 resection.

Results:

Technical success and R0 resection were achieved in 82.3% procedures (14/17) and in 87.5% of those with difficult adenomas (8 patients). In the subgroup with carcinomas (n=3), the rate of technical success and R0 resection was 66.6%, while in the subgroup with subepithelial tumors (n=6) the rate was 83.3%. Technical success and R0 resection were significantly lower for lesions >20 mm vs. ≤20 mm (P=0.0429). In the 17 patients a total of 3 adverse events occurred (17.6%) and one of the patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy because of EFTR around the appendix.

Conclusions:

Our study showed favorable results concerning EFTR feasibility, efficacy and safety, especially for lesions ≤20 mm, non-lifting adenomas, and subepithelial tumors. Technical success, R0 resection, and adverse events rates were comparable with previously published data. Larger randomized studies are needed to better define the clinical benefit and long-term outcomes of EFTR in selected patients.