Pocket-creation method improves efficacy of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a system review and meta-analysis

Advances in Endoscopic Resection

This article provides an overview of recent advances in endoscopic resection techniques. It includes the brief overview of endoscopic submucosal dissection, regional differences in ESD indications, innovation of ESD techniques, and expansion to full-thickness resection. The article covers cold snare polypectomy for small polyps with tips, underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) for sessile lesions with tips and expanding role of U-EMR, and the key assistive techniques for ESD that have improved the safety and efficacy. Furthermore, it discusses the emerging field of endoscopic full-thickness resection including device-assisted and freehand exposure techniques.

A prospective randomized trial comparing the pocket-creation method and conventional method of endoscopic submucosal dissection in early gastric cancers and precancerous lesions

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely used as a standard treatment regimen for early gastric cancers (EGCs). However, such an approach is time consuming and has a high risk of perforation and bleeding in some corner-site lesions because of the obscured view and difficulty in submucosal lifting. The newly developed pocket-creation method (PCM) provides a clearer view and better traction of the submucosal layer than conventional ESD (c-ESD). Nevertheless, no prospective randomized study has evaluated the efficacy of the PCM in EGCs and precancerous lesions.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized controlled trial. Patients with superficial gastric neoplastic lesions ≥ 20 mm were randomly assigned to the PCM-ESD group or c-ESD group. The primary outcome was dissection speed.

RESULTS

There were 28 patients in the PCM-ESD group and 27 in the c-ESD group. The median dissection speed was significantly higher in the PCM-ESD group than in the c-ESD group (21.5 mm2/min vs 14.3 mm2/min, P < .001). Meanwhile, the operation time in the PCM-ESD group was significantly shorter than that in the c-ESD group (30 vs 40 min, P = .047). In multiple linear regression analysis, the treatment method was independently associated with the resection speed of ESD.

CONCLUSION

PCM-ESD was an effective and safe treatment for EGCs and precancerous lesions.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Up to 15% of colorectal polyps are amenable for conventional polypectomy. Advanced endoscopic resection techniques are introduced for the treatment of those polyps. They provide higher en bloc resection rates compared with conventional techniques, while helping patients to avoid the complications of surgery. Note that 20 mm is considered as the largest size of a polyp that can be resected by polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in an en bloc fashion. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is recommended for polyps larger than 20 mm. Intramucosal carcinomas and carcinomas with limited submucosal invasion can also be resected with ESD. EMR is snare resection of a polyp following submucosal injection and elevation. ESD involves several steps such as marking, submucosal injection, incision, and dissection. Bleeding and perforation are the most common complications following advanced endoscopic procedures, which can be treated with coagulation and endoscopic clipping. En bloc resection rates range from 44.5 to 63% for EMR and from 87.9 to 96% for ESD. Recurrence rates following EMR and ESD are 7.4 to 17% and 0.9 to 2%, respectively. ESD is considered enough for the treatment of invasive carcinomas in the presence of submucosal invasion less than 1000 μm, absence of lymphovascular invasion, well-moderate histological differentiation, low-grade tumor budding, and negative resection margins.

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.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection techniques and technology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review

ESGE suggests conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD; marking and mucosal incision followed by circumferential incision and stepwise submucosal dissection) for most esophageal and gastric lesions. ESGE suggests tunneling ESD for esophageal lesions involving more than two-thirds of the esophageal circumference. ESGE recommends the pocket-creation method for colorectal ESD, at least if traction devices are not used. The use of dedicated ESD knives with size adequate to the location/thickness of the gastrointestinal wall is recommended. It is suggested that isotonic saline or viscous solutions can be used for submucosal injection. ESGE recommends traction methods in esophageal and colorectal ESD and in selected gastric lesions. After gastric ESD, coagulation of visible vessels is recommended, and post-procedural high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (or vonoprazan). ESGE recommends against routine closure of the ESD defect, except in duodenal ESD. ESGE recommends corticosteroids after resection of  > 50 % of the esophageal circumference. The use of carbon dioxide when performing ESD is recommended. ESGE recommends against the performance of second-look endoscopy after ESD. ESGE recommends endoscopy/colonoscopy in the case of significant bleeding (hemodynamic instability, drop in hemoglobin > 2 g/dL, severe ongoing bleeding) to perform endoscopic hemostasis with thermal methods or clipping; hemostatic powders represent rescue therapies. ESGE recommends closure of immediate perforations with clips (through-the-scope or cap-mounted, depending on the size and shape of the perforation), as soon as possible but ideally after securing a good plane for further dissection.

Efficacy and safety of pocket-creation method for early gastric cancers

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the standard endoscopic treatment for early gastric cancers (EGCs). However, obscured view and difficulty in submucosal lifting during ESD have been demonstrated. Additionally, ESD is time-consuming and poses a high risk of perforation and bleeding when performed in challenging locations. The pocket-creation method (PCM) is a newly developed strategy for colorectal tumors, while the outcomes of application in the treatment of EGCs are rarely reported. In the present study, we aimed to compare the technical efficacy and safety of PCM-ESD and the conventional ESD (c-ESD) technique for the treatment of EGCs.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective study consisting of 162 patients with EGCs who underwent ESD between February 2019 and February 2021. One-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was performed. In addition, clinicopathological characteristics and treatment outcomes were also compared.

RESULTS

PCM-ESD was more likely to be used in patients with larger lesions than c-ESD with/without traction. In addition, the resection speed for lesions of the PCM-ESD was faster compared with c-ESD without traction (median dissection speed: 19.6 mm²/min vs. 15 mm²/min; p < 0.001) and c-ESD with traction (median dissection speed after PSM: 19.9 mm²/min vs. 15 mm²/min; p = 0.001). In multiple linear regression analysis, significant factors related to a higher dissection speed were the treatment method of PCM-ESD (p = 0.034), the long diameter of the resected lesion (p = 0.001), and lesion location (p = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

Collectively, PCM-ESD appeared to be a safer and more effective treatment for EGCs than c-ESD. In addition, PCM-ESD could significantly improve the speed of tumor resection.

Effectiveness and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection using the pocket creation method in the Japanese population: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a standard method for minimally invasive resection of superficial gastrointestinal tumors. The pocket creation method (PCM) facilitates ESD regardless of location in the gastrointestinal tract. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ESD for superficial neoplasms in the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract comparing the PCM to the non-PCM. Methods  Randomized controlled, prospective, and retrospective studies comparing the PCM with the non-PCM were included. Outcomes included en bloc resection, R0 resection, dissection speed, delayed bleeding and perforation. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) using the Mantel-Haenszel random effect model were documented. Results  Eight studies including gastric, duodenal, and colorectal ESD were included. The en bloc resection rate was significantly higher in the PCM group than the non-PCM group (OR 3.87, 95 %CI 1.24-12.10 P  = 0.020). The R0 resection rate was significantly higher in the PCM group than the non-PCM group (OR 2.46, 95 %CI 1.14-5.30, P  = 0.020). The dissection speed was significantly faster in the PCM group than the non-PCM group (mean difference 3.13, 95 % CI 1.35-4.91, P  < 0.001). The rate of delayed bleeding was similar in the two groups (OR 1.13, 95 %CI 0.60-2.15, P =  0.700). The rate of perforation was significantly lower in the PCM group than the non-PCM group (OR 0.34, 95 %CI 0.15-0.76, P =  0.009). Conclusions  The PCM facilitates high-quality, fast and safe colorectal ESD. Further studies are needed regarding the utility of PCM in ESD of the upper gastrointestinal tract.

Endoscopic instruments and techniques in endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer

Introduction: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a less invasive local treatment for early gastric cancer (EGC).Areas covered: Japanese guidelines have recently expanded the endoscopic treatment indications for EGC. ESD is sometimes performed for lesions with a relative indication that has not previously been considered for ESD. ESD procedures are technically difficult, especially for larger and more invasive lesions. Complete resection and accurate histological assessment of EGC lesions are essential to evaluate endoscopic curability. Various endoscopic instruments, including three types of endoscopic knives and specific hemostatic forceps, have been developed, and endoscopic techniques, including the traction method, have been modified to simplify the procedure.Expert opinion: An insulated-tip knife with large tissue contact allows us to perform faster incisions, while a needle-type knife with minimal tissue contact allows us to perform precise incisions. Furthermore, a scissor-type knife with grasping tissues allows us to perform more secure incision. The traction method enables the operator to proceed with submucosal dissection procedures. In cases with small lesions, snaring can be used, as well as knife dissection. Understanding the features of each endoscopic instrument and technique is essential because appropriate selection and usage contribute to successful and safe ESD procedures.