Efficacy and Safety of Full-thickness Resection Device (FTRD) for Colorectal Lesions Endoscopic Full-thickness Resection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Transcecal endoscopic appendectomy for management of complex appendiceal polyps extending into the appendiceal orifice

Background and study aims Endoscopic resection of appendiceal orifice (AO) polyps extending inside the appendiceal lumen is challenging given the inability to determine polyp lateral margins and risk of appendicitis. Transcecal endoscopic appendectomy (TEA) ensures en bloc resection of these complex polyps. Patients and methods This case series includes patients who underwent TEA by a single endoscopist in the United States. Technical success was defined as achieving complete removal of the appendix along with AO polyp in an en bloc fashion. Results In total, nine patients were included (mean age 69.7 ± 9.6 years). The average appendix size was 4.07 ± 2.02 cm. Technical success was achieved in 100% of the patients. The average procedure length was 118.1 ± 44.21 minutes. The en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, and curative resection rates were 100%. Patients were observed for an average of 3.1 ± 1.6 days. One patient developed loculated fluid collection 9 days post procedure, which resolved on its own with oral antibiotic therapy. No other adverse events were recorded. Conclusions This was an early study of the feasibility of TEA in the United States. This novel technique, in early-stage development, is potentially safe and associated with a minimal risk profile in expert hands. Further prospective studies are needed to standardize the technique.

Endoscopic approaches to the management of dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease: A state-of-the-art narrative review

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at an increased risk of developing colitis-associated neoplasia (CAN), including colorectal cancer (CRC), through the inflammation-dysplasia-neoplasia pathway. Dysplasia is the most reliable, early and actionable marker for CAN in these patients. While such lesions are frequently encountered, adequate management depends on an accurate assessment, complete resection and close surveillance. With recent advances in endoscopic technologies and research in the field of CAN, the management of dysplastic lesions has significantly improved. The American Gastroenterology Association and Surveillance for Colorectal Endoscopic Neoplasia Detection (SCENIC) provide a guideline framework for approaching dysplastic lesions in patients with IBD. However, there are significant gaps in these recommendations and real-world clinical practice. Accurate lesion assessment remains pivotal for adequate management of CAN. Artificial intelligence-guided modalities are now increasingly being used to aid the detection of these lesions further. As the lesion detection technologies are improving, our armamentarium of resection techniques is also expanding and includes hot or cold polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic sub-mucosal dissection and full-thickness resection. With the broadened scope of endoscopic resection, the recommendations regarding surveillance after resection has also changed. Certain patient populations such as those with invisible dysplasia or with prior colectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis need special consideration. In the present review, we aim to provide a state-of-the-art summary of the current practice of endoscopic detection, resection and surveillance of dysplasia in patients with IBD and provide some perspective on the future directions based on the latest research.

Technical failure during colorectal endoscopic full-thickness resection: the "through thick and thin" study

BACKGROUND

 Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is an effective and safe technique for nonlifting colorectal lesions. Technical issues or failures with the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) system are reported, but there are no detailed data. The aim of our study was to quantify and classify FTRD technical failures.

METHODS

 We performed a retrospective study involving 17 Italian centers with experience in advanced resection techniques and the required devices. Each center shared and classified all prospectively collected consecutive failures during colorectal EFTR using the FTRD from 2018 to 2022. The primary outcome was the technical failure rate and their classification; secondary outcomes included subsequent management, clinical success, and complications.

RESULTS

 Included lesions were mainly recurrent (52 %), with a mean (SD) dimension of 18.4 (7.5) mm. Among 750 EFTRs, failures occurred in 77 patients (35 women; mean [SD] age 69.4 [8.9] years). A classification was proposed: type I, snare noncutting (53 %); type II, clip misdeployment (31 %); and type III, cap misplacement (16 %). Among endoscopic treatments completed, rescue endoscopic mucosal resection was performed in 57 patients (74 %), allowing en bloc and R0 resection in 71 % and 64 %, respectively. The overall adverse event rate was 27.3 %. Pooled estimates for the rates of failure, complications, and rescue endoscopic therapy were similar for low and high volume centers (P = 0.08, P = 0.70, and P = 0.71, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

 Colorectal EFTR with the FTRD is a challenging technique with a non-negligible rate of technical failure and complications. Experience in rescue resection techniques and multidisciplinary management are mandatory in this setting.

Efficacy and safety of salvage endoscopy in the treatment of residual or recurrent colorectal neoplasia after endoscopic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review and meta-analyze the efficacy and safety of salvage endoscopy for residual or recurrence of colorectal tumors after endoscopic resection.

METHODS

Multiple databases including PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched to screen for eligible studies and perform data extraction and pooled analysis.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies on salvage endoscopy for residual or recurrent colorectal cancer after endoscopic resection were included, covering approximately 994 patients. The results of the meta-analysis demonstrated that salvage endoscopic therapy for residual or recurrent colorectal tumors following endoscopic resection achieved an en bloc resection rate of 92% (95% CI 0.85-0.97; I2 = 91%) and an R0 resection rate of 82% (95% CI 0.75-0.87; I2 = 78%). The rates of intraoperative or postoperative bleeding and perforation were 10%/1% and 5%/2%, and the recurrence rate was 2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Salvage endoscopic resection is an effective and safe treatment strategy for residual or recurrent colorectal tumors after endoscopic resection.

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.

Safety and Efficacy of Endoscopic Full Thickness Resection of Upper Gastrointestinal Lesions Using a Full Thickness Resection Device: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a promising technique that allows for a minimally invasive resection of mucosal and submucosal lesions in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. The data regarding the efficacy and safety of performing EFTR of upper GI lesions using a full-thickness resection device (FTRD) is limited. Hence, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the studies that evaluated this technique.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive systematic search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings that reported outcomes of EFTR using the FTRD system. The weighted pooled rates of technical success, complete (R0) resection, adverse events (AE), and residual or recurrent lesions were analyzed with 95% CI using the random effects model.

RESULTS

Eight studies with a total of 139 patients who underwent EFTR of upper GI lesions were included in the study. The pooled, weighted rate of technical success was 88.2% (95% CI: 81.4-92.7%, I2 : 0). The R0 resection rate was 70.7% (95% CI: 62.5-77.8%, I2 : 0). Overall AE rates were 22.1% (95% CI: 15.8-30.1%, I2 : 0), however, most of the AEs were minor. Of the patients who had follow-up endoscopies, the residual and/or recurrent lesion rate was 6.1% (95% CI: 2.4-14.4%, I2 : 0). Heterogeneity in the analysis was low.

CONCLUSIONS

EFTR using the FTRD seems to be effective and safe with acceptable R0 resection rates and low recurrence rates. Further prospective studies are required to validate our results and to compare various modalities of endoscopic resection with this single-step EFTR device.

Full-thickness resection device for management of lesions involving the appendiceal orifice: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims Endoscopic resection of lesions involving the appendiceal orifice is technically challenging and is commonly referred for surgical resection. However, post-resection appendicitis is a concern. Many studies have varying rates of post-procedure appendicitis. We aim to report the rate of post-resection appendicitis by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods Studies that involved the use of a full-thickness resection device (FTRD) for management of appendiceal polyps were included. The primary outcome was appendicitis after FTRD and a subgroup analysis was performed on studies that only included FTRD performed at the appendiceal orifice. Results Appendicitis was encountered in 15% (95%CI: [11-21]) of the patients with 61% (95% CI: [44-76]) requiring surgical management. Pooled rates of technical success, histologic FTR, and histologic R0 resection in this sub-group (n=123) were 92% (95% CI: [85-96]), 98% (95% CI: [93-100]), and 72% (95% CI: [64-84%]), respectively. Post-resection histopathological evaluation revealed a mean resected specimen size of 16.8 ± 5.4 mm, with non-neoplastic pathology in 9 (7%), adenomas in 103 (84%), adenomas + high-grade dysplasia (HGD) in nine (7%), and adenocarcinoma in two (2%). The pooled rate for non-appendicitis-related surgical management (technical failure and/or high-risk lesions) was 11 % (CI: 7-17). Conclusions FTRD appears to be an effective method for managing appendiceal lesions. However, appendicitis post-resection occurs in a non-trivial number of patients and the R0 resection rate in appendiceal lesions is only 72%. Therefore, caution should be employed in the use of this technique, considering the relative risks of surgical intervention in each patient.

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 full-thickness resection for upper gastrointestinal tract lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is used to resect difficult superficial mucosal lesions and sub-epithelial lesions (SELs). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EFTR for upper gastrointestinal tract (GIT) lesions.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Scopus databases for studies published in the English language that addressed outcomes of EFTR for upper GIT lesions through November 2021. The weighted pooled rates with the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Cochran Q test and I statistics were used to calculate heterogeneity.

RESULTS

We identify 740 articles on the initial search and six studies met the inclusion criteria. 140 patients (45.7% females) with 142 lesions were analyzed. Four studies used the full-thickness resection device (FTRD®). EFTR was performed for 26 adenomas, 97 SELs, six adenocarcinomas, and ten full-thickness biopsies. The overall technical success rate was 86.9% (CI 79.8-94%, I 2 = 38.9%), R0 resection was 80% (CI 67.6-92.3%, I 2 = 75.6%), and the overall adverse events rate was 18.6% (9.8-27.2%, I 2 = 49.4%). Major adverse events included six episodes of major bleeding, three micro-perforations, one large duodenal perforation, and one case of mucosal damage from FTRD®. At 3-6 months follow-up, there were only two cases of recurrence (R0 was not achieved in both).

CONCLUSION

EFTR has a high technical and clinical success rate in managing upper GIT lesions with an acceptable safety profile. Large prospective studies comparing EFTR with conventional endoscopic resection techniques are needed.

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.

Implementing precision medicine in endoscopy practice

In contrast to the "one-size-fits-all" approach, precision medicine focuses on providing health care tailored to individual variabilities. Implementing precision medicine in endoscopy practice involves selecting the appropriate procedures among the endoscopic armamentarium in the diagnosis and management of patients in a logical sequence, jointly considering the pretest probabilities of possible diagnoses, patients' comorbidities and preference, and risk-benefit ratio of the individual procedures given the clinical scenario. The aim of this review is to summarize evidence-supported strategies and measures that may enhance precision medicine in general endoscopy practice.