Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: outcomes and predictors of recurrence

Outcomes of endoscopic sub-mucosal dissection in laterally spreading colorectal polyps: A tertiary care centre experience from India

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic sub-mucosal dissection (ESD) is an established endoscopic modality for the management of colorectal polyps. However, there are no studies regarding the outcomes of ESD from India. In this study, we aimed at evaluating the outcomes of ESD in patients with adenomatous polyps in the colon and rectum.

METHODS

Data of consecutive patients who underwent ESD for colorectal polyps from 2018 to 2021 were analyzed, retrospectively. The primary outcome of the study was the technical success of ESD. The secondary outcomes included the rate of histologically complete resection (R0), adverse events and recurrence.

RESULTS

Seventy patients (63.5 years, 60% males) underwent ESD for polyps in colon and rectum. A majority were located in rectum (80%) and sigmoid colon (15.7%). Narrow band classification of the polyps was Japanese Narrow Band Imaging Expert Team (JNET)-2a in 50 (71.4%) and JNET-2b in 13 (18.6%) patients. ESD was technically successful in 64 (91.4%) patients using conventional technique (72.8%) and pocket or tunnelling technique (18.6%). There were no major adverse events. Histologically RO was achieved in 58 (82.8%) patients and deep sub-mucosal invasion was noted in 12 patients. At a median follow-up of 19 (interquartile range [IQR] 15-27) months, recurrence was noticed in four (5.7%) patients all of which could be managed endoscopically.

CONCLUSION

ESD, performed at a tertiary care centre in India, yields high rates of technical success and histologically R0, with a relatively low incidence of adverse events and recurrences.

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.

Comparison of two pathological processing methods for large endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) specimens

AIMS

Accurate histopathological evaluation of the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) specimens is essential for clinicians to guide further triage and management. This study aimed to report a novel processing technique for large ESD (≥4 cm) specimens.

METHODS

92 patients with colorectal neoplasms who had undergone ESD were included. 46 ESD specimens were treated with conventional handling process, while the rest 46 cases were given the optimised method. Macrobiocassettes and L-shaped embedding moulds were applied in the optimised method. We evaluated the efficacy of this improved procedure in terms of the number of paraffin blocks, storage space and time consumption of pathological assessment.

RESULTS

The average diameter of ESD specimens was 4.5±0.4 cm and 4.7±0.5 cm in the control and test group (p=0.023), respectively. In control group, 398 paraffin blocks of 46 cases were obtained. With the same cases number and larger lesion size, only 276 blocks were achieved in test group (p<0.001). As for the storage space, the total volume of paraffin blocks and slides (4554.0 cm3 and 1207.5 cm3) of optimised method was significantly reduced compared with the control group (6208.8 cm3 and 1741.3 cm3) (p=0.001, p<0.001). In addition, the optimised method was superior to the conventional one in shortening time consumption of pathological assessment (164.5 min and 269.0 min, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The optimised technique not only reduced the workload and storage space, but also facilitated accurate pathological assessment.

Tip-in Versus Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Colorectal Neoplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Early-stage gastrointestinal neoplasms are frequently treated with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR). However, C-EMR frequently leads to incomplete resection of large colorectal lesions. Tip-in endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), which was recently introduced for en bloc resection of colorectal neoplasms, minimizes slippage during the procedure.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies that compared Tip-in EMR with conventional EMR. We searched several electronic databases and included studies that reported on the primary outcomes of en bloc resection rate and complete resection rate, as well as secondary outcomes such as procedure time and procedure-related complications (including perforation and delayed bleeding rate). We used a random effects model to calculate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous data and weighted mean differences with 95% CIs for continuous data. We also conducted several sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of our findings.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies involving 1244 lesions (684 in the Tip-in EMR group and 560 in C-EMR group) were included in the meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis showed that compared with conventional EMR, Tip-in EMR significantly increased the en bloc resection rate in patients with colorectal neoplasia (OR=3.61; 95% CI, 2.09-6.23; P <0.00001; I2 =0%) and had a higher complete resection rate (OR=2.49; 95% CI, 1.65-3.76; P <0.0001; I2 =0%). However, the procedure time and rates of procedure-related complications did not differ significantly between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Tip-in EMR outperformed C-EMR for both the en bloc and complete resection of colorectal lesions with similar rates of procedural complications.

Long-Term Outcomes of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Epithelial Neoplasms: A Systematic Review

In this review, we summarize up-to-date reports with five-year observation after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Five-year cause-specific survival rates ranged from 98.6 to 100%. The local recurrence rates ranged from 1.1 to 2.2% in complete resection and 7.5 to 25.0% in incomplete resection. Incomplete resection was a risk factor for local recurrence. In non-curative ESD, five-year cause-specific survival rates ranged from 93.8 to 100% with additional surgery, and 92.7 to 99.1% without surgery. The choice of additional surgery should be based on the individual patient's age, concomitant diseases, wishes, life expectancy, and the risk of lymph node metastasis. The metachronous cancer rates ranged from 0.22 to 1.1%. Both local recurrence and metachronous tumors should be checked with a follow-up colonoscopy after ESD.