Safety and efficacy of endoscopic excavation for gastric subepithelial tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer: results from a large study in China

Endoscopic removal of gastrointestinal lesions by using third space endoscopy techniques

The concept of submucosal space, or rather the "third space", located between the intact mucosal flap and the muscularis propria layer of the gastrointestinal tract, represents a tunnel that the endoscopist could use to perform interventions in the muscularis propria layer or breech it to enter the mediastinum or the peritoneal cavity without full thickness perforation. The tunnel technique can be used both for the removal of mucosal tumours, called endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD), for the removal of subepithelial tumours (SELs), called submucosal tunnelling endoscopic resection (STER), and for the removal of extra-luminal lesions (for example in the mediastinum or in the rectum), called submucosal tunnelling endoscopic resection for extraluminal tumours (STER-ET). Aim of this updated narrative review, is to summarize the evidences that analyses indications, and outcomes of tunnelling techniques for the treatment of above mentioned lesions.

Endoscopic resection in subepithelial lesions of the upper gastrointestinal tract: Experience at a tertiary referral hospital in The Netherlands

Background and study aims Histological confirmation of subepithelial lesions (SELs) in the upper gastrointestinal tract remains challenging. Endoscopic resection of SELs is increasingly used for its excellent diagnostic yield and opportunity to do away with continued surveillance. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the indications, success rates and complications of different endoscopic resection techniques for SELs at a large, tertiary referral hospital in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Patients and methods Data between October 2013 and December 2021 were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Main outcomes were R0-resection rate, en bloc resection rate, recurrence rate, and procedure-related adverse events (AEs) (Clavien-Dindo). Secondary outcomes were procedure time, need for surgical intervention, and clinical impact on patient management. Results A total of 58 patients were referred for endoscopic resection of upper gastrointestinal SELs. The median diameter of lesions was 20 mm (range 7-100 mm). Median follow-up time was 5 months (range 0.4-75.7). Forty-eight procedures (83%) were completed successfully leading to en bloc resection in 85% and R0-resection in 63%. Procedure-related AEs occurred in six patients (13%). Severe complications (CD grade 3a) were seen in three patients. The local recurrence rate for (pre)malignant diagnosis was 2%. Additional surgical intervention was needed in seven patients (15%). A total of 32 patients (67%) could be discharged from further surveillance after endoscopic resection. Conclusions Endoscopic resection is a safe and effective treatment for SELs and offers valuable information about undetermined SELs for which repeated sampling attempts have failed to provide adequate tissue for diagnosis.

Endoscopic Treatment for Gastric Subepithelial Tumor

Most gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs) are asymptomatic and are often incidentally discovered during endoscopic procedures conducted for unrelated reasons. Although surveillance is sufficient for the majority of gastric SETs, certain cases necessitate proactive management. Laparoscopic wedge resection, although a viable treatment option, has its limitations, particularly in cases where SETs (especially those with intraluminal growth) are not visualized on the peritoneal side. Recent advances in endoscopic instruments and technology have paved the way for the feasibility of endoscopic resection of SETs. Several promising endoscopic techniques have emerged for gastric SET resection, including submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection, endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR), laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS), and non-exposure EFTR (non-exposed endoscopic wall-inversion surgery and non-exposure simple suturing EFTR). This study aimed to discuss the indications, methods, and outcomes of endoscopic therapy for gastric SETs. In addition, a simplified diagram of the category of SETs according to the therapeutic indications and an algorithm for the endoscopic management of SET is suggested.

Feasibility of endoscopic resection and impact of endoscopic ultrasound-based surveillance on colorectal subepithelial tumors

BACKGROUND

Owing to the rising number of screening endoscopies and instrumental advances in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), colorectal subepithelial tumors (SETs) are being increasingly detected. We aimed to determine the feasibility of endoscopic resection (ER) and the impact of EUS-based surveillance on colorectal SETs.

METHODS

The medical records of 984 patients with incidentally detected colorectal SETs between 2010 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Overall, 577 colorectal SETs underwent ER, and 71 colorectal SETs underwent serial colonoscopy for > 12 months.

RESULTS

The mean tumor size (± standard deviation) of 577 colorectal SETs for which ER was performed was 7.0 ± 5.7 (median, 55; range, 1-50) mm; 475 tumors were located in the rectum and 102, in the colon. En bloc resection was achieved in 560/577 treated lesions (97.1%), and complete resection was achieved in 516/577 (89.4%). ER-related adverse events occurred in 15/577 (2.6%) patients. SETs originating from the muscularis propria showed a higher risk of ER-related adverse events and perforation than SETs arising from the mucosal or submucosal layer (odds ratio [OR] 19.786, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.556-85.919; P = 0.002 and OR 141.250, 95% CI 11.596-1720.492; P = 0.046, respectively). Seventy-one patients were followed up after EUS without any treatment for > 12 months, during which three showed progression; eight, regression; and sixty, no changes.

CONCLUSIONS

ER for colorectal SETs showed excellent efficacy and safety. Additionally, colorectal SETs without high-risk features in surveillance with colonoscopy showed an excellent prognosis.

Risk factors of perforation in gastric stromal tumors during endoscopic resection: a retrospective case-control study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Perforation is a common complication during endoscopic resection (ER) of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (gGISTs) associated with secondary infections, sepsis, hospitalization time and cost. However, the risk factors of perforation remain controversial. This study aimed to investigate the risk factors for perforation during ER of gGISTs.

METHODS

This retrospective case-control study included consecutive patients with gGISTs who underwent ER between June 2009 and November 2021 at the Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to investigate the risk factors for perforation. Sensitivity analyses with propensity scoring (PS) were performed to evaluate the stability of the independent effects.

RESULTS

In total, 422 patients with gGISTs were included. The following factors were associated with perforation during ER: in the non-intraluminal growth patterns (all confounders adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 5.39, 95% CI 2.99-9.72, P < 0.001), in the gastric fundus (aOR 2.25, 95% CI 1.40-3.60, P = 0.007), sized ≥ 2 cm (aOR 1.70, 95% CI 1.04-2.77, P = 0.035), in the lesser curvature (aOR 0.12, 95% CI 0.05-0.27, P < 0.001), and in the gastric cardia (aOR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04-0.50, P = 0.003). The PS analysis confirmed the stable independent effects of these identified risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

ERs of gGISTs in non-intraluminal growth patterns, in the gastric fundus, and with larger tumor size were independent risk factors for perforation. While tumors in the lesser curvature or gastric cardia were independent protective factor for perforation.

A Nomogram for Predicting Laparoscopic and Endoscopic Cooperative Surgery during the Endoscopic Resection of Subepithelial Tumors of the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract

Background: Considering the widespread use of esophagogastroduodenoscopy, the prevalence of upper gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial tumors (SET) increases. For relatively safer removal of upper GI SETs, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been developed as an alternative to surgery. This study aimed to analyze the outcome of endoscopic resection for SETs and develop a prediction model for the need for laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) during the procedure. Method: We retrospectively analyzed 123 patients who underwent endoscopic resection for upper GI SETs between January 2012 and December 2020 at our institution. Intraoperatively, they underwent ESD or submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER). Results: ESD and STER were performed in 107 and 16 patients, respectively. The median age was 55 years, and the average tumor size was 1.5 cm. En bloc resection was achieved in 114 patients (92.7%). The median follow-up duration was 242 days without recurrence. Perforation occurred in 47 patients (38.2%), and 30 patients (24.4%) underwent LECS. Most perforations occurred in the fundus. Through multivariable analysis, we built a nomogram that can predict LECS requirement according to tumor location, size, patient age, and sex. The prediction model exhibited good discrimination ability, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.893. Conclusions: Endoscopic resection is a noninvasive procedure for small upper-GI SETs. Most perforations can be successfully managed endoscopically. The prediction model for LECS requirement is useful in treatment planning.

Long-term Outcomes of Endoscopic Resection for Gastric Subepithelial Tumors

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the current study was to analyze the safety and efficacy of endoscopic resection for gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs) using long-term patient outcome data.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 73 consecutive patients with gastric SETs was performed from June 2014 to December 2016. The treatment methods included submucosal dissection, submucosal excavation or endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR). In addition to epidemiological data (sex and age), tumor size, surgical parameters, length of stay, complications, costs, and endoscopic, clinicopathologic, and follow-up data were analyzed to compare treatments.

RESULTS

The complete resection rate was 97.3% (71/73). Three patients experienced complications (4.1%), including 2 with delayed perforation and 1 with perioperative infection. The median postoperative feeding time was 3 days, and the median postoperative hospital stay was 5 days. The median follow-up period was 19 months, with no patient death or tumor recurrence. Among the 38 patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors, the complete resection rate was 97.4% (37/38). The complete resection and complication rates between the endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE) group and the EFTR group were not statistically significant. There was no recurrence or metastasis detected among either group; however, the ESE group had earlier postoperative feeding, a shorter postoperative hospital stay, and less hospitalization expenses.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic resection for gastric SETs (<3 cm) is safe and feasible concerning medium-term and long-term effects. Compared with the EFTR group, the ESE group had earlier postoperative feeding, a shorter postoperative hospital stay, and less hospitalization expenses. Even so, gastric SETs with malignant potential are at risk of recurrence. Larger prospective multicenter studies are warranted.

Endoscopic resection of large (≥ 4 cm) upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer: a single-center study of 101 cases (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although endoscopic resection (ER) is already established as a minimally invasive technique for small (< 4.0 cm) upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer (MP-SETs), published data of ER for large (≥ 4.0 cm) upper gastrointestinal MP-SETs are extremely rare and limited to case reports. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of ER for large (≥ 4.0 cm) upper gastrointestinal MP-SETs in a large case series.

METHODS

Between June 2012 and December 2018, 101 patients with large (≥ 4 cm) upper gastrointestinal MP-SETs were enrolled in this study. The main outcome measures included complete resection, total complications, and local residual or recurrent tumor.

RESULTS

The rate of complete resection was 86.1%. Thirteen patients (12.9%) experienced complications including gas-related complications (6/101, 5.9%), localized peritonitis (4/101, 4.0%), esophageal/cardiac mucosal laceration (2/101, 2.0%), and delayed bleeding (1/101, 1.0%). These 13 patients recovered after endoscopic and conservative treatment. The independent risk factor for incomplete resection was tumor size (P = 0.005), and the independent risk factors for total complications were tumor size (P = 0.011) and tumor extraluminal growth (P = 0.037). During the median follow-up of 36 months, local residual tumor was detected in 1 patient. No local recurrence occurred in any patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite being associated with a relatively low complete resection rate, ER is an alternative therapeutic method for large (≥ 4.0 cm) upper gastrointestinal MP-SETs when performed by an experienced endoscopist. This method is especially valuable for patients who are unwilling to undergo surgery.

Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Treatment for Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors in the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract

Background/Aims:

Endoscopic treatment (ET) has been applied for decades to treat subepithelial tumors, including gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). However, the efficacy of ET remains debatable. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of ET for GISTs in the upper gastrointestinal tract.

Methods:

This retrospective single-center study included 97 patients who underwent ET. All patients were enrolled from July 2014 to July 2018. Parameters such as demographics, size, resection margin, complications, pathological features, procedure time, total cost, and follow-up were investigated and analyzed.

Results:

Our study achieved 100% en bloc resection and 77.4% (72/93) R0 resection. The most common location was the fundus with a mean tumor size of 2.1±1.4 cm. The mean age, procedure time, hospital stay, and cost were 59.7±11.3 years, 64.7±35.2 minutes, 6.8 days, and 5,337 dollars, respectively. According to National Institutes of Health classification, 63 (64.9%), 26 (26.8%), 5 (5.2%), and 3 (3.1%) patients belonged to the very low, low, intermediate, and high risk classification, respectively. Immunohistochemistry results showed a 100% positive rate of CD34, DOG-1, CD117, and Ki67. A mean follow-up of 21.3±13.0 months showed no recurrence or metastasis.

Conclusions:

ET is effective and safe for curative removal of GISTs in the upper gastrointestinal tract, and it can be a treatment of choice for patients with no metastasis.

Snare-assisted endoscopic resection of gastric subepithelial tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although successful endoscopic resection of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs) originating from the muscularis propria (MP) layer has been frequently reported, it requires a relatively complicated technique and has a high perforation rate. In this retrospective study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of the snare-assisted endoscopic resection (SAER) method which is performed using a snare and insulated-tip (IT) knife via a single-channel endoscope to reduce the perforation rate.

METHODS

In this study, fifty-six patients with gastric SETs originating from the MP layer treated by the SAER method at three institutions between July 2017 and December 2017 were reviewed. The procedure involved multiple steps as shown in Fig. 2. Data were obtained on demographics, SET features, histopathological diagnoses, procedure time, en bloc resection rate, R0 resection (negative margins) status, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Endoscopic resection was successfully performed in all patients. The median overall procedure time was 43.5 min (range 26-106 min). The mean size of resected specimens was 19.73 mm (range 10-33 mm). The overall rate of en bloc resection was 96.4% (54/56). In addition, the perforation rate was 7.1% (4/56), and defects in the stomach wall were very small and easily closed using metallic clips. No postprocedural bleeding occurred in any case.

CONCLUSIONS

The SAER method is an effective, safe, less costly technique for the removal of some gastric SETs originating from the MP layer with an appropriate size.

Current Status of Endoscopic Resection of Gastric Subepithelial Tumors

Most gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial tumors (SETs) are identified incidentally during endoscopic examination and are located in the stomach. Some SETs are malignant or have the potential to become malignant. Tumors originating from deeper layers, such as the muscularis propria or serosa, are not easy to diagnose and resect. Current guidelines recommend yearly endoscopic surveillance of SETs smaller than 2 cm. This recommendation may not be cost-effective in managing GI SETs. Endoscopic resection results not only in obtaining sufficient tissue for pathological diagnosis but also in resection and curing the tumor. Many different endoscopic methods for resection of GI SETs have been published in the literature. To avoid confusion, we have divided these methods into standard endoscopic submucosal dissection, modified endoscopic submucosal dissection, submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection, and nonexposed and exposed endoscopic full-thickness resection. These procedures offer less invasive approaches than surgery for resection of GI SETs and may be the most cost-effective in taking care of patients with GI SETs.

The retrospective comparison between submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection and endoscopic submucosal excavation for managing esophageal submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer

BACKGROUND

Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) and endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE) were recently introduced to cure submucosal tumors (SMTs) originating from the muscularis propria (MP) layer. This study aimed to compare clinical performance and safety of STER and ESE in treating esophageal SMTs originating from the MP layer.

METHODS

From January 2011 to December 2017, retrospective data collection and follow-up were applied for all STER or ESE cases with esophageal SMTs originating from the MP layer in our endoscopy center, including clinical characteristics, procedure success, efficacy, and adverse events. Subgroup analysis was further done based on tumor size and origin.

RESULTS

90 STER and 77 ESE were enrolled in this study. There were no significant difference for  patient characteristics, procedure performance, and complications for ESE and STER intervention (P > 0.05). STER was faster than ESE (3.90 mm²/min vs 2.82 mm²/min, P < 0.05). For large tumors (≥ 20 mm), both techniques had the similar performance (P > 0.05), while STER led to the shorter hospitalization (4.0d vs 7.0d, P < 0.05) and lower postoperative complication (16.3% vs 45.5%, P < 0.05). For small tumors (< 20 mm), STER achieved faster operation (STER vs ESE, 2.57 mm²/min vs 1.83 mm²/min, P < 0.05). Regardless of tumor origin, there were no significant difference for both techniques, but STER resulted in short hospitalization for SMTs from the deep MP layer (STER vs ESE, 5.0d vs 7.0d, P < 0.05). During the follow-up, 2 residual and 4 recurrence occurred in the STER group, as well as 1 residual and 2 recurrence in the ESE group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both STER and ESE were effective for treating esophageal SMTs originating from the MP layer. STER might be better due to its faster operation, less complications, and shorter hospitalization.

Endoscopic Enucleation Is Effective and Relatively Safe in Small Gastric Subepithelial Tumors Originating from Muscularis Propria

BACKGROUND

Gastric subepithelial tumors originating from muscularis propria (MP) are usually benign, but some have malignant potential.

AIMS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of endoscopic enucleation for the diagnosis and treatment of MP tumors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2010 to February 2018, eighty patients with gastric MP tumors underwent endoscopic enucleation at our hospital. Band ligation and resection (BLR) or endoscopic muscularis resection (EMD) was performed based on considerations of tumor size (≤ 12 mm or > 12 mm). Tumor characteristics, procedure times, complete resection rates, adverse events and recurrence were analyzed.

RESULTS

Eighty patients with 82 lesions were eligible for inclusion in this study. BLR was used to treat 41 lesions. For these lesions, mean tumor size was 9.5 mm, median procedural time was 17.6 min (range 4-52), and the endoscopic complete resection rate was 100% (41/41). Perforation was developed in four patients, and was closed by endoscopic clipping. EMD was used to treat 41 lesions. Median procedure time was 66.1 min (range 12-260) and the endoscopic complete resection rate was 85.4% (35/41). Perforation occurred in eight patients, four patients received endoscopic treatment and four underwent surgery. Tumor recurrence was not observed in any patient over follow-up (mean 26.3 months).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic enucleation appears to offer an effective, relatively safe means for diagnosing and treating gastric subepithelial tumors originating from the MP, and BLR provides a straightforward, effective, and relatively safe treatment for small MP tumors (≤ 12 mm).

A comparison of submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection and endoscopic full-thickness resection for gastric fundus submucosal tumors

AIM

Both submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) are effective methods for gastric fundus submucosal tumors (SMTs). However, there is little data that compares the two methods. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of STER and EFTR for the treatment of SMTs in the gastric fundus.

METHODS

Clinical data was retrospectively collected from patients with gastric fundus SMTs who underwent STER or EFTR at our hospital from April 2011 to May 2016. Epidemiological data (gender, age), tumor size, procedure-related parameters, complications, postoperative hospital stay, cost and follow-up data were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 43 patients were enrolled: 15 underwent STER and the remaining 28 cases underwent EFTR. There were no significant differences between the two groups with regard to gender, age, tumor size, en bloc resection rate, operation time, pathohistological results and cost (p > 0.05). However, patients who underwent EFTR had a longer suture time, required a larger number of clips for closure and a prolonged postoperative hospital stay (p < 0.05). No recurrence was noted in either the STER or the EFTR group during a mean follow-up of 12.1 and 22.8 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment efficacy of STER and EFTR for the treatment of gastric fundus SMTs was comparable. However, STER has some advantages over EFTR in terms of suture time, the number of clips required for closure and postoperative hospital stay.

Comparison between submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection and video-assisted thoracoscopic enucleation for esophageal submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Surgical resection is considered the first treatment option for submucosal tumors (SMTs) originating from the muscularis propria layer while submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) is proved to be a safe and effective method for treating SMTs. This study aimed to compare video-assisted thoracoscopic enucleation (VATE) with STER for treating esophageal SMTs.

METHODS

Sixty-six patients with small esophageal SMTs were prospectively randomized from July 2014 to December 2015. After exclusion of 8 patients, 58 subjects scheduled for STER or VATE were enrolled. Clinicopathological, endoscopic, and adverse events (AEs) data were collected and analyzed between STER and VATE.

RESULTS

Forty-six males and 12 females with a mean age of 46.1 ± 9.4 years were randomized to the STER (n = 30) and VATE (n = 28) groups, respectively. Demographics and lesion features were similar between the two groups. Median procedure time was shorter in the STER group than the VATE group (44.5 vs. 106.5 min, P < 0.001); cost was lower in the STER group (4499.46 vs. 6137.32 USD, P = 0.010). Median decrease in hemoglobin levels post-procedure was - 1.6 g/L in the STER group and 14.7 g/L after VATE (P = 0.001). Lower postoperative pain scores were found in the STER group compared with the VATE group (2 vs. 4, P < 0.001). No recurrent or residual tumors were found in either group. En bloc resection rates, complete resection rates, hospital times, and post-procedure AEs were similar between two groups. The en bloc resection rates for SMTs < 20.0 mm were 100% in both groups while STER achieved only 71.4% en bloc resection rate for SMTs ≥ 20.0 mm.

CONCLUSION

STER and VATE are comparably effective for esophageal SMTs; however, STER is superior to VATE with shorter operation time and decreased cost, and seems safer than VATE. STER is recommended for SMTs < 20.0 mm while VATE is recommended for SMTs with a transverse diameter > 35.0 mm. Clinical trail registration statement: This study is registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=4814 . The registration identification number is ChiCTR-TRC-14004759. The registration date is April 30, 2014.

Treatment of cardial submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer: submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection versus endoscopic submucosal excavation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) is increasingly used for the treatment of submucosal tumors (SMTs) originating from the muscularis propria layer; however, endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE) is still performed in many hospitals for its low-skill and experience requirements. This study aimed to compare STER with ESE for cardial SMTs.

METHODS

From March 2013 to February 2017, patients with cardial SMTs undergoing STER (n = 47) and ESE (n = 40) were retrospectively assessed. Clinicopathological, endoscopic, and complication data were compared between STER and ESE groups.

RESULTS

The 87 enrolled patients included 31 females and 56 males, aged 48.2 ± 9.8 years. Mean tumor size was 22.0 mm (range 5.0-80.0 mm) as evaluated by pathology. Demographic and lesion features were similar in both groups. Despite similar hospital stay duration and cost, ESE was superior to STER with reduced operation time (34 vs. 46 min, P = 0.013) and less clips required (3 vs. 5, P = 0.000). En bloc resection rates, complete resection rates, hospital stay duration, cost, complications, and hemoglobin levels were similar in both groups. Irregular-shaped SMTs were more likely to achieve piecemeal resection in both STER and ESE groups (all P < 0.05). Meanwhile, the piecemeal resection rate was significantly higher for larger tumors in the STER group.

CONCLUSION

Compared with ESE, STER does not show overt advantages for cardial SMTs. However, ESE is superior to STER for reduced operation time. Irregular tumor shape seems to be a risk factor for piecemeal resection in both STER and ESE.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection for gastrointestinal submucosal tumors

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a "changing-concept" endoscopic resection technique, which safely allows resecting deep submucosal tumors (SMTs) in the gastrointestinal (GI) wall. It's a highly promising endoscopic procedure that allows full-thickness excision of a small piece of the complete GI wall by using only a flexible endoscope. EFTR is a meeting point between surgery and endoscopy and probably the onset of many prospective combined minimally invasive therapeutic techniques that science will explore. In this review, use of the EFTR technique for gastrointestinal SMTs is highlighted, focusing on some technical aspects, indications, contraindications and outcomes.

Endoscopic Treatment of Subepithelial Tumors

Gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs) are generally found during endoscopy and their incidence has gradually increased. Although the indications for the endoscopic treatment of patients with SETs remain to be established, the feasibility and safety of endoscopic dissection, including the advantages of this method compared with surgical treatment, have been validated in many studies. The development of endoscopic techniques, such as endoscopic submucosal dissection, endoscopic enucleation, endoscopic excavation, endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection, submucosal tunnel endoscopic resection, and endoscopic full-thickness resection has enabled the removal of SETs while reducing the occurrence of complications. Here, we discuss the endoscopic treatment of patients with SETs, outcomes for endoscopic treatment, and procedure-related complications. We also consider the advantages and disadvantages of the various endoscopic techniques.

Safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection of large (≥3 cm) subepithelial tumors located in the cardia

BACKGROUND

Upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs) may harbor potential malignancy. Although it is well recognized that large SETs should be resected, the treatment strategy remains controversial. Compared to surgical resection, endoscopic resection has many advantages such as less invasive, shorter hospital stay, lower costs, and better quality of life. However, Endoscopic resection of large SETs in the cardia is challenging. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the treatment of such SETs.

METHODS

A total of 41 patients with large SETs (≥3 cm in diameter) located in the cardia were involved in the study. All patients underwent ESD. Data on therapeutic outcomes and follow-up were collected, for analysis of risk factors of complication rates.

RESULTS

The average tumor size was 4.7 ± 1.7 cm. The average procedure time was 69.3 ± 32.7 min and the average postoperative hospital stay was 3.5 ± 1.1 days. A total of 41 tumors were removed successfully, in which 35 were leiomyomas, three were gastrointestinal stromal tumors, two were lipomas, and one was gastritis cystica profunda. The en bloc resection rate was 90.2%, and was significantly higher for tumors with a round or oval shape (100%) than for those with an irregular shape (75.0%) (P < 0.05). Five patients experienced complications (12.2%), all of which were managed conservatively. The complication rates were significantly higher in patients with a tumor originating from the deep muscularis propria layer and demonstrating a trans-cardia growth pattern. No residual or tumor recurrence was observed and no stricture occurred during the follow-up period (average, 26.7 ± 18.4 months).

CONCLUSIONS

ESD is safe and effective to curatively remove most large SETs in the cardia, and may serve as an accurate histopathology measurement to direct future therapy.

Submucosal Tunneling Endoscopic Resection for the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Submucosal Tumors Originating from the Muscularis Propria Layer

Surgical resection and endoscopic resection comprise two alternative options for the treatment of submucosal tumors (SMTs) originating from the muscularis propria (MP) layer. Endoscopic resection is minimally invasive compared with surgical resection. Conventional non-tunneling techniques, such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE), and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFR) have been demonstrated to be safe and effective. However, these techniques fail to maintain the integrity of the mucosa and induce high risk of perforation, infection, and postoperative strictures. Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) is a novel surgical technique that can maintain the integrity of the mucosa by establishing a tunnel between the submucosal and the MP layers. STER has been proven to be effective and safe for the treatment of SMTs. Currently, STER has become a standard treatment for gastrointestinal (GI) SMTs originating from the MP layer, notably in China. In the present review, we describe the indications, procedures, postoperative care, efficacy and safety outcomes, and future perspectives of STER for GI SMTs originating from the MP layer.

Comparison between submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection and endoscopic full-thickness resection for gastric stromal tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer

BACKGROUND

Both submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) are effective method for treating gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs); however, little is known about the comparison between STER and EFTR. The aim of the study was to compare the safety and efficacy of STER and EFTR for treating gastric GIST.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected the clinical data about patients with gastric GISTs who received STER or EFTR at our hospital from April 2011 to June 2016. Epidemiological data (gender, age), tumor size, procedure-related parameters, complications, length of stay, cost and follow-up data were compared between STER and EFTR.

RESULTS

A total of 52 patients were enrolled, and 20 of them received STER, while the other 32 cases received EFTR. There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of gender, age, concomitant diseases, tumor size, en bloc resection rate, operation time, complications, pathohistological grade of GIST, hospital stay and cost (P > 0.05). However, patients who received EFTR had a longer suture time and needed more clips to close the gastric-wall defect (STER vs EFTR, 291.5 ± 68.7 vs 380.6 ± 96.9s and 6.0 ± 1.2 vs 7.6 ± 1.6, P < 0.05). No recurrence was noted in the STER and EFTR groups during a mean follow-up of 10.9 and 23.8 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment efficacy between STER and EFTR for treating gastric GISTs was comparable, and a large-scale, randomized study is necessary for a more confirmed conclusion.

Comparison of endoscopic submucosal dissection and surgical resection for treating gastric subepithelial tumours

OBJECTIVE

For subepithelial tumours (SETs) of the stomach, surgical resection is the gold standard treatment. With the recent advent of endoscopic resection techniques and devices, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been considered as an alternative treatment for SETs. The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of ESD for treating gastric SETs compared with surgical resection.

METHODS

Between January 2006 and September 2014, 55 patients with gastric SETs (13 gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs), 27 leiomyomas, and 15 others) were treated by ESD and 27 patients (19 GISTs, two leiomyomas, and six others) underwent surgical resection. We retrospectively reviewed the therapeutic outcomes, procedure-related complications, post-procedure hospital stays, and medical costs of the two groups.

RESULTS

The complete resection rate of the ESD group was lower than that of the surgery group (81.8% vs. 100%, p = 0.026). Although the incidence of complications that occurred with ESD was higher than that associated with surgical resection, there were no significant between-group differences (12.5% vs. 3.7%, p = 0.261), and all complicated cases were successfully treated without mortality. The ESD group had significantly shorter post-procedural hospital stays (median five days vs. eight days, p = 0.034) and lower medical costs (median $2374 vs. $4954, p <0.001) than the surgery group. There were no recurrences in either group during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD is an efficient treatment tool for gastric SETs in selected patients. Additionally, ESD has the advantages of shorter hospital stays and lower medical costs compared with surgery.

Management of gastric subepithelial tumors: The role of endoscopy

With the wide use of esophagogastroduodenoscopy, the incidence of gastric subepithelial tumor (SET) diagnosis has increased. While the management of large or symptomatic gastric SETs is obvious, treatment of small (≤ 3 cm) asymptomatic gastric SETs remains inconclusive. Moreover, the presence of gastrointestinal stromal tumors with malignant potential is of concern, and endoscopic treatment of gastric SETs remains a subject of debate. Recently, numerous studies have demonstrated the feasibility of endoscopic treatment of gastric SETs, and have proposed various endoscopic procedures including endoscopic submucosal dissection, endoscopic muscularis dissection, endoscopic enucleation, endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, and a hybrid approach (the combination of endoscopy and laparoscopy). In this review article, we discuss current endoscopic treatments for gastric SETs as well as the advantages and limitations of this type of therapy. Finally, we predict the availability of newly developed endoscopic treatments for gastric SETs.

Safety of Endoscopic Resection for Upper Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Tumors Originating from the Muscularis Propria Layer: An Analysis of 733 Tumors

OBJECTIVES

Although endoscopic resection is an accepted technique for upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs) originating from the muscularis propria (MP) layer, published data regarding its complications are highly variable and limited to small data series. This study aimed to analyze the safety of endoscopic resection in a large case series.

METHODS

A total of 726 consecutive patients with 733 upper gastrointestinal SETs originating from the MP layer underwent endoscopic resection from June 2005 to December 2014. The complete resection rate, perioperative perforation rate, and perioperative bleeding rate were the main outcome measurements.

RESULTS

The complete resection rate was 97.1%. Ninety-four patients had complications (12.9%), including 88 with perioperative perforations (12.1%), 13 with perioperative bleeding (1.8%), 5 with localized peritonitis (0.7%), and one with delayed bleeding (0.1%). Eleven patients required surgery; the others were treated endoscopically. Risk factors for incomplete resection were extensive connection of the tumor to the MP layer (P=0.007) and extraluminal growth (P=0.048). Risk factors for perioperative perforation were larger tumor size (≤2.0 cm vs. 2.1-3.0 cm vs. >3.0 cm, P=0.021), extraluminal growth (P=0.046), and extensive connection (P<0.001). A risk factor for perioperative bleeding was larger tumor size (P=0.045). No residual or recurrent lesions were detected during the follow-up period (median: 28 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic resection is an effective and reasonably safe therapeutic method for treating/removing upper gastrointestinal SETs originating from the MP layer when managed by an experienced endoscopic team.

Endoscopic Full-thickness Resection (EFTR) for Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Tumors

There has been booming interest in the endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) technique since it was first described. With the advent of improved and more secure endoscopic closure techniques and devices, such as endoscopic suturing devices, endoscopists are empowered to perform more aggressive procedures than ever. This article focuses on the procedural technique and clinical outcomes of EFTR for gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors.

Endoscopic treatments for small gastric subepithelial tumors originating from muscularis propria layer

Minimally invasive endoscopic resection has become an increasingly popular method for patients with small (less than 3.5 cm in diameter) gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs) originating from the muscularis propria (MP) layer. Currently, the main endoscopic therapies for patients with such tumors are endoscopic muscularis excavation, endoscopic full-thickness resection, and submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection. Although these endoscopic techniques can be used for complete resection of the tumor and provide an accurate pathological diagnosis, these techniques have been associated with several negative events, such as incomplete resection, perforation, and bleeding. This review provides detailed information on the technical details, likely treatment outcomes, and complications associated with each endoscopic method for treating/removing small gastric SETs that originate from the MP layer.

Closing perforations and postperforation management in endoscopy: esophagus and stomach

Luminal perforation after endoscopy is a dreaded complication that is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, longer and more costly hospitalization, and the specter of potential future litigation. The management of such perforations requires a multidisciplinary approach. Until recently, surgery was required. However, nowadays the endoscopist has a burgeoning armamentarium of devices and techniques that may obviate surgery. This article discusses the approach to endoscopic perforations in the esophagus and stomach.

Combined EUS and CT for evaluating gastrointestinal submucosal tumors before endoscopic resection

GOALS

The aim of this study was to evaluate the combination of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and computed tomography (CT) in predicting the maneuvers for therapeutic endoscopy for gastrointestinal submucosal tumors (SMTs).

METHODS

Patients with SMTs, who were scheduled for endoscopic resection, were randomized to preoperative performance of both EUS and CT (group A) or EUS only (group B). The following data were collected: therapeutic maneuvers, duration of procedure, dose of propofol, resected lesion size, and complications.

RESULTS

A total of 36 patients were included in group A and 36 patients were included in group B. Endoscopic submucosal excavation was performed in 43 patients, endoscopic full-thickness resection in 18 patients, and submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection in 11 patients. No significant differences were observed between the two groups (P>0.05). The coincidence rate between the preoperative program and the actual endoscopic procedures in group A was higher than that in group B (83.3 vs. 61.1%, P<0.05). The procedural time in group A was less than that in group B (39.36±17.83 vs. 48.06±12.03 min, P<0.05), and the dose of propofol in group A was less than that in group B (249.18±125.12 vs. 304.16±102.61 mg, P<0.05). The mean resected lesion size was 2.32±1.46 cm in group A and 2.12±0.75 cm in group B, without differences (P>0.05). A total of 14 cardiopulmonary complications and seven endoscopic complications occurred, without significant differences between the two groups (P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

EUS combined with CT can better evaluate SMTs compared with EUS only in predicting the maneuvers for therapeutic endoscopy.