A risk-prediction model for en bloc resection failure or perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal neoplasms

Outcome and predictive factors for perforation in orthodontic rubber band-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection of fibrotic colorectal lesions

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of fibrotic colorectal lesions is difficult and has a high complication rate. There are only a few reports on the utility of orthodontic rubber band (ORB) traction in reducing the difficulty of this procedure. This study aimed to investigate the risk factors for perforation when applying ORB traction during ESD of fibrotic colorectal lesions. We continuously collected the clinical data of 119 patients with fibrotic colorectal lesions who underwent ESD with ORB and clip traction between January 2019 and January 2024. Possible risk factors for perforation were analyzed. The median ORB-ESD operative time was 40 (IQR 28-62) min, and the en bloc and R0 resection rates were 94.1% and 84.0%, respectively. Perforation occurred in 16 of 119 patients (13.4%). The lesion size, lesion at the right half of the colon or across an intestinal plica, the degree of fibrosis, operation time, and the surgeon's experience were associated with perforation during ORB-ESD (P < 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that lesions in the right colon (OR 9.027; 95% CI 1.807-45.098; P = 0.007) and those across an intestinal plica (OR 7.771; 95% CI 1.298-46.536; P = 0.025) were independent risk factors for perforation during ORB-ESD. ORB-ESD is an effective and feasible approach to treat fibrotic colorectal lesions. Adequate preoperative evaluation is required for lesions in the right colon and across intestinal plicas to mitigate the risk of perforation.

Clinical outcomes and learning curve of Tip-in endoscopic mucosal resection for 15-25 mm colorectal neoplasms among non-experts

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Tip-in endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has a high en bloc resection rate for large colorectal neoplasms. However, non-experts' performance in Tip-in EMR has not been investigated. We investigated whether Tip-in EMR can be achieved effectively and safely even by non-experts.

METHODS

This retrospective study included consecutive patients who underwent Tip-in EMR for 15-25 mm colorectal nonpedunculated neoplasms at a Japanese tertiary cancer center between January 2014 and December 2020. Baseline characteristics, treatment outcomes, learning curve of non-experts, and risk factors of failing self-achieved en bloc resection were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 597 lesions were analyzed (438 by experts and 159 by non-experts). The self-achieved en bloc resection (69.8% vs 88.6%, P < 0.001) and self-achieved R0 resection (58.3% vs 76.5%, P < 0.001) rates were significantly lower in non-experts with <10 cases of experience than in experts, but not in non-experts with >10 cases. Adverse event (P = 0.165) and local recurrence (P = 0.892) rates were not significantly different between experts and non-experts. Risk factors of failing self-achieved en bloc resection were non-polypoid morphology (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.6-7.3, P = 0.001), lesions with an underlying semilunar fold (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.6-7.3, P < 0.001), positive non-lifting sign (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.2-8.0, P = 0.023), and non-experts with an experience of ≤10 cases (OR 3.6, 95% CI 2.1-6.3, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The clinical outcomes of Tip-in EMR for 15-25 mm lesions performed by non-experts were favorable.

Transrectal Drainage Tube Use for Preventing Postendoscopic Submucosal Dissection Coagulation Syndrome in Patients With Colorectal Lesions: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Postendoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) coagulation syndrome (PECS) prevention is one of the common postoperative complications of colorectal ESD. Considering the increasing incidence of PECS, it is critical to investigate various prevention methods. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of transrectal drainage tubes (TDTs) in PECS prevention in patients following colorectal ESD.

METHODS

From July 2022 to July 2023, a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted in 3 hospitals in China. Patients with superficial colorectal lesions ≥20 mm who had undergone ESD for a single lesion were enrolled. Initially, 229 patients were included in the study and 5 were excluded. Two hundred twenty-four were randomly assigned to the TDT and non-TDT group in the end. This open-label study utilized a parallel design with a 1:1 allocation ratio, and endoscopists and patients were not blind to the randomization, and a 24 Fr drainage tube was inserted approximately 10-15 cm above the anus after the ESD under the endoscopy and tightly attached to a drainage bag. The TDTs were removed in 1-3 days following the ESD.

RESULTS

A total of 229 eligible patients were enrolled in this study, and 5 patients were excluded. Ultimately, 224 patients were assigned to the TDT group (n = 112) and non-TDT group (n = 112). The median age for the patients was 63.45 years (IQR 57-71; 59 men [52.68%]) in the TDT group and 60.95 years (IQR 54-68; 60 men [53.57%]) in the non-TDT group. Intention-to-treat analysis showed patients in the TDT group had a lower incidence of PECS than patients in the non-TDT group (7 [6.25%] vs 20 [17.86%]; relative risk, 0.350; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.154-0.795; P = 0.008). In the subgroup analysis, TDTs were found to prevent PECS in patients of the female gender (odd ratio, 0.097; 95% CI, 0.021-0.449; P = 0.001), tumor size <4 cm (odd ratio, 0.203; 95% CI, 0.056-0.728; P = 0.011), tumor located in the left-sided colorectum (odd ratio, 0. 339 95% CI, 0.120-0.957; P = 0.035), and shorter procedure time (<45 minutes) (odd ratio, 0.316; 95% CI, 0.113-0.879; P = 0.023). The tube fell off in 1 case (0.89%) accidentally ahead of time. No TDT-related complication was observed.

DISCUSSION

The results from this randomized clinical study indicate that the application of TDTs effectively reduced the incidence of PECS in patients after colorectal ESD ( chictr.org.cn Identifier: ChiCTR2200062164).

A novel nomogram for the prediction of perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasms

BACKGROUND

High perforation risk hinders the widespread adoption of ESD for colorectal neoplasms. This study was performed to determine the risk factors of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)-induced perforation and develop a predictive model.

METHODS

A total of 1046 colorectal neoplasms in 1011 patients were retrospectively enrolled from January 2011 to December 2021, in a single tertiary center as the derivation cohort. We identified independent risk factors for perforation using univariate analysis and multi-variate logistic regression. A nomogram was developed based on the logistic regression model and prospectively applied to 266 colorectal neoplasms as the validation cohort. The performance of the predictive model was evaluated with the receiver operating characteristic curve, calibration plot, and decision curve analysis.

RESULTS

Independent pre-operative factors for colorectal ESD-induced perforation were tumor located in the left colon [odds ratio (OR) 2.39, P = 0.040], size ≥ 40 mm (OR 3.36, P < 0.001), ≥2/3 circumference (OR 7.55, P = 0.004), located across folds (OR 6.26, P < 0.001), and laterally spreading tumor (non-granular type, OR 2.34, P = 0.029; granular type, OR 2.46, P = 0.021). The nomogram model incorporating the pre-operative factors performed well in both the derivation and validation cohorts (areas under the curve of 0.750 and 0.806, respectively). Decision curve analysis demonstrated that the clinical benefit of the nomogram was favorable.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel nomogram, developed and prospectively validated, incorporating tumor size, location, and morphology can successfully predict perforation during ESD for colorectal neoplasms.

Risk Factors for Post-Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Bleeding and Efficacy of Carbazochrome Sodium Sulfonate: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Carbazochrome sodium sulfonate (CSS) is a hemostatic agent that reduces capillary permeability and enhances capillary resistance. However, its specific effects on colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) outcomes remain uncertain. This study aimed to assess the risk factors for post-ESD bleeding and the effect of CSS on colorectal ESD outcomes.

METHODS

First, we retrospectively analyzed the risk factors for post-ESD bleeding using data from 1,315 lesions in 1,223 patients who underwent ESD for superficial colorectal neoplasms at eight institutions. Second, patients were divided into CSS and non-CSS groups using propensity score matching, and their outcomes from colorectal ESD were analyzed.

RESULTS

The risk factors for post-colorectal ESD bleeding were identified as age of ≥70 years, tumor located in the rectum, tumor size of ≥40 mm, and post-ESD defect unclosure in both univariate and multivariate analyses. The CSS and non-CSS groups each consisted of 423 lesions after propensity score matching. The post-colorectal ESD bleeding rate was 3.5% (15/423) and 3.3% (14/423) in the CSS and non-CSS groups, respectively, indicating no significant differences. Among patients with the high-risk factors for post-ESD bleeding, the administration of CSS also did not demonstrate a significant reduction in the post-ESD bleeding rate compared to the non-CSS group.

CONCLUSION

CSS administration is ineffective in preventing post-colorectal ESD bleeding in both the general population and individuals at a high risk for such bleeding. Our results indicate the necessity to reconsider the application of CSS for preventing post-colorectal ESD bleeding.

Predictive factors associated with technical difficulty in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: A Honam Association for the Study of Intestinal Disease (HASID) multicenter study

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a promising but challenging procedure. It is not widely performed due to its technical difficulty. We aimed to find the predictive factors associated with technical difficulty in colorectal ESD before the procedure. Clinical data from patients who underwent ESD for colorectal tumors in 5 hospitals in Honam province of South Korea between 2015 and 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. Technically difficult colorectal ESD procedure was defined in 3 points. Long procedure time (longer than 60 minutes), occurrence of perforation, and failure of en bloc resection. Factors associated with technically difficult ESD were included as main outcome measure. 1446 patients were identified and their data were analyzed. Median procedure time was 30.0 minutes and median long axis of the tumor was 20.1 mm. Technically difficult procedures including long procedure time were 231 cases (16.0%), perforation occurred in 34 cases (2.3%), and en bloc resection was done in 1292 cases (89.3%). Tumor size larger than 35 mm (odd ratio [OR]: 1.474, P = .047), central depression or ulceration in the lesion (OR: 1.474, P = .013), previous endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or polypectomy procedure (OR: 2.428, P = .020) were associated with technically difficult ESD. Descending colon-located tumor (OR: 5.355, P < .001), and use of IT knife (OR: 4.157, P = .003) were associated with perforation. Recognizing factors associated with technically difficult ESD can help in planning the ESD procedure beforehand.

Validation and update of a clinical score model to predict technical difficulty of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The Zhongshan colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (CR-ESD) score model was proposed to grade the technical difficulty of CR-ESD. The objective of this study was to prospectively validate and update the score model.

METHODS

A multicenter prospective cohort analysis of CR-ESD was conducted. Individual data on patients, lesions, and outcomes of CR-ESD were used to validate the original model and further refine the difficulty of the prediction model. Data were randomly divided into discovery and internal validation cohorts. A multivariate Cox regression analysis was conducted on the discovery cohort to develop an updated risk-scoring system, which was then validated.

RESULTS

Five hundred forty-eight patients with 565 colorectal lesions treated by ESD from 4 hospitals were included. In the prospective validation cohort, the area under the receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the original model was .707. Six risk factors were identified and assigned point values: tumor size (2 points for 30-50 mm, 3 points for ≥50 mm), at least two-thirds circumference of the lesion (3 points), tumor location in the cecum (2 points) or flexure (2 points), laterally spreading tumor-nongranular lesions (1 point), preceding biopsy sampling (1 point), and NBI International Colorectal Endoscopic type 3 (3 points). The updated model had an area under the ROC curve of .738 in the discovery cohort and of .782 in the validation cohort. Cases were categorized into easy (score = 0-1), intermediate (score = 2-3), difficult (score = 4-6), and very difficult (score ≥7) groups. Satisfactory discrimination and calibration were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The original model achieved an acceptable level of prediction in the prospective cohort. The updated model exhibited superior performance and can be used in place of the previous version. (Clinical trial registration number: ChiCTR2100047087.).

Planned Hybrid Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection as Alternative for Colorectal Neoplasms: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (H-ESD), a modified ESD with a snare, has become increasingly utilized to overcome the limitations of conventional ESD (C-ESD). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of Planned H-ESD and C-ESD for colorectal lesions.

METHODS

Propensity score matching was performed to control for confounding variables in this retrospective study. Outcomes included en bloc resection and complete resection (R0) rates, procedure time, adverse event rates, and local recurrence rate.

RESULTS

1286 lesions were enrolled in the study. After matching, 263 lesions were assigned to each group. The Planned H-ESD group has lower en bloc rate but similar R0 resection rate compared to the C-ESD group (90.9% vs 98.1%, P = 0.001; 77.2% vs 77.9%, P = 0.917). The median procedure time was shorter in the Planned H-ESD group (27.0 min vs 35.0 min, P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in adverse events rates or local recurrence rate. Subgroup analysis based on lesion size revealed that a significantly lower en bloc resection rate in the Planned H-ESD group compared to the C-ESD group for lesions ≥ 40 mm (71.0% vs 94.3%, P = 0.027), but there was no significant difference for lesions < 40 mm.

CONCLUSION

The Planned H-ESD has a lower en bloc resection rate but a similar R0 resection rate, adverse event rates, local recurrence rate, and shorter procedure duration. Compared to C-ESD, Planned H-ESD presents advantages for managing colorectal neoplasms below 40 mm.

Complications after endoscopic submucosal dissection for early colorectal cancer (Review)

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a gastrointestinal malignancy that seriously threatens human life and health, resulting in a heavy disease burden. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely used in clinical practice and is an effective treatment for early CRC (ECC). Colorectal ESD is a challenging operation, and the incidence of postoperative complications is relatively high because of the thin intestinal wall and limited space for endoscopic operations. Systematic reports on the postoperative complications of colorectal ESD, such as fever, bleeding and perforation, from both China and elsewhere are lacking. In the present review, progress in research on postoperative complications after ESD for ECC is summarized.

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.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection in colorectal neoplasia performed with a waterjet system-assisted knife: higher en-bloc resection rate than conventional technique

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is burdened by its associated high risk of adverse events and long procedure time. Recently, a waterjet-assisted knife was introduced to simplify and speed up the procedure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of waterjet-assisted ESD (WESD) compared to that of the conventional ESD (CESD) technique.

METHODS

The charts of 254 consecutive patients who underwent colorectal ESD between January 2014 and February 2021 for colorectal neoplasms were analyzed. The primary outcome was the en-bloc resection rate. Secondary outcomes were complete and curative resection rates, the need to switch to a hybrid ESD, procedure speed, the adverse event rates, and the recurrence rates.

RESULTS

Approximately 174 neoplasias were considered, of which, 123 were removed by WESD and 51 by CESD. The en-bloc resection rate was higher in the WESD group (94.3% vs. 84.3%). Complete resection rates and curative resection rates were similar. The need to switch to a hybrid ESD was greater during CESD (39.2% vs. 13.8%). Procedure speed and adverse event rates were similar. During follow-up, one recurrence occurred after a WESD.

CONCLUSION

WESD allows a high rate of en-bloc resections and less frequently requires a rescue switch to the hybrid ESD compared to CESD.

Tip-in EMR as an alternative to endoscopic submucosal dissection for 20- to 30-mm nonpedunculated colorectal neoplasms

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Tip-in EMR, which includes anchoring the snare tip, has recently shown a favorable en-bloc and R0 resection rate for colorectal neoplasms. Thus, Tip-in EMR may be an alternative to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to compare clinical outcomes between Tip-in EMR and ESD for large colorectal neoplasms.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated consecutive patients who underwent Tip-in EMR or ESD for 20- to 30-mm nonpedunculated colorectal neoplasms at a Japanese tertiary cancer center between January 2014 and December 2019. Baseline characteristics, treatment results, and long-term outcomes were analyzed using 1:1 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Seven hundred nine lesions were evaluated. The Tip-in EMR group included 1 lesion with a nonlifting sign but no lesions with fold convergence. After propensity score matching, each group included 140 lesions. The ESD group showed significantly higher en-bloc resection rates (99.3% vs 85.0%) and R0 resection rates (90.7% vs 62.9%). Procedure time was significantly shorter in the Tip-in EMR group (8 minutes vs 60 minutes). The Tip-in EMR and ESD groups did not differ significantly with respect to local recurrence rate (2.1% vs 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Tip-in EMR is comparable with ESD with respect to the local recurrence rate but has a shorter procedure time, despite the lower en-bloc and R0 resection rates for 20- to 30-mm nonpedunculated colorectal neoplasms without fold convergence or nonlifting sign. Thus, Tip-in EMR could be a feasible alternative to ESD in these lesions.

Self-completion method of endoscopic submucosal dissection using the Endosaber for treating colorectal neoplasms (with video)

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is effective for the treatment of colorectal neoplasms. We have developed a self-completion ESD (S-ESD) using Endosaber without requiring additional instruments or assistance. This prospective cohort study was conducted to investigate the feasibility of S-ESD for colorectal neoplasms. Patients with colorectal neoplasms measuring 20–40 mm in size were enrolled. A single operator, without assistance, performed ESD using only the Endosaber. The primary outcome was the success rate of S-ESD. Secondary outcomes included procedure time, the rates of en bloc, complete, and curative resection, and complication rates, including the incidence of perforation and delayed bleeding. In total, 15 patients with 15 lesions were enrolled. The median size of the resected lesions was 28 mm (interquartile range 25–29 mm). S-ESD success rate of 100% was achieved. The median procedure time was 44 min (29.5–53.5 min). We observed en bloc, complete, and curative resection rates of 100%, 93.3%, and 86.7%, respectively, and a complication rate of 6.7% (perforation: 0%, delayed bleeding: 6.7%). S-ESD for colorectal neoplasms was successfully performed with favorable treatment outcomes and low complication rates. S-ESD reduces the number of devices and extent of assistance, making S-ESD a simple and cost-effective procedure.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal laterally spreading tumors: Clinical outcomes and predictors of technical difficulty

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for the treatment of colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) and the factors related to technical difficulty.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent ESD for colorectal LSTs between June 2013 and January 2019 were retrospectively included. Factors associated with difficult ESD procedures (defined as conversion to piecemeal resection or discontinuation of endoscopic procedure), and dissection with a slow speed (<8 mm² /min), were determined using the logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 325 patients with 342 colorectal LSTs (median size 20.0 mm) were enrolled. The proportions of granular (LST-G) and non-granular LST (LST-NG) were 62.9% and 37.1%, respectively. The overall en bloc and complete resection rates were 89.8% and 81.9%, respectively. The endoscopic procedure was discontinued in four lesions (1.2%), and 31 (9.1%) converted to piecemeal resection because of technical difficulty. Using multivariate analysis, positive non-lifting sign (odds ratio [OR] 19.9, P < 0.001), tumor size ≥20 mm (OR 10.0, P < 0.001), and less experienced endoscopists (OR 3.7, P = 0.005) were independent factors for technically difficult procedure. Positive non-lifting sign (OR 3.7, P = 0.004), lesion size <20 mm (OR 3.7, P < 0.001), LST-NG type (OR 1.8, P = 0.034), and less colorectal ESD experience (OR 1.9, P = 0.016) were independent factors of slow-speed dissection.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD was feasible and safe for treating colorectal LSTs. Positive non-lifting sign and tumor ≥20 mm indicated difficult ESD procedures. Technical failure was more likely to occur in lesions resected by less-experienced endoscopists. Dissection speed might be improved with more experienced operators.

Predictors of the difficulty for endoscopic resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor and follow-up data

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are among the most common submucosal tumors in the stomach that require therapeutic intervention. We aim to identify the predictors of technical difficulty during endoscopic resection of gastric GIST and to investigate follow-up outcomes.

METHODS

Patients with gastric GISTs were reviewed from June 2009 to June 2020 at Zhongshan Hospital. Clinical and pathological features, endoscopic procedure information, and follow-up data were collected and analyzed. A nomogram was developed and validated internally and externally.

RESULTS

A total of 628 GISTs were finally analyzed. The difficulty was experienced in 66 cases. GISTs size (2-3 cm: OR 2.431 P = 0.018 and > 3 cm: OR 9.765 P < 0.001), invasion depth beyond submucosal (MP: OR 2.280, P = 0.038 and MP-ex: OR 4.295, P = 0.002), and lack of experience (OR 2.075, P = 0.016) were independent risk factors of difficulty. The nomogram prediction model showed a bias-corrected C-index value of 0.778 and acquired an area under curve (AUC) of 0.756 on the external validation cohort. At the cut-off of 0.15, the nomogram's negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy (ACC) were 94.9% and 79.8% in identifying non-difficult GISTs. Follow-up results showed that only five GIST patients had local recurrence after endoscopic resection.

CONCLUSIONS

Tumor size, invasion depth, and endoscopists' experience were risk factors for the difficulty of endoscopic GIST resection. Our nomogram provided a valuable tool for screening non-difficult GIST resection.

Risk factors for adverse events of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is already an established treatment for superficial colorectal tumors. However, its technical difficulty and high adverse events rates, compared to endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection, are a concern to some specialists and have probably contributed to discouragement in its widespread adoption. The debate mentioned above stimulated us to perform a systematic review aiming to identify risk factors for colorectal ESD-related adverse events. We conducted this study following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement and registered in the PROSPERO (University of York) international database (CRD42016042625). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and LILACS for the publications focused on risk factors for colorectal ESD-related adverse events from inception until April 2020. We included a total of 22 qualified studies in this analysis. We found that fibrosis had an odds ratio (OR) for perforation of 2.90 [95% confidence interval, (1.83-4.59)], right colon location of 2.35 (1.58-3.50), colonic location of 2.20 (1.44-3.35) and larger size of 2.17 (1.47-3.21), as well as one protective factor, the endoscopist experience OR = 0.62 (0.45-0.86). For bleeding, we considered rectal location a risk factor [OR = 3.55 (2.06-6.12)]. Through the several meta-analyses that we performed in this article, we could summarize the main risk factors for perforation and bleeding on colorectal ESD. Therefore, we provide insightful information for clinical judgment on regions where colorectal ESD is already widespread and help in the learning process of this challenging technique.

Construction of a novel predictive nomogram for difficult procedure of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasms

OBJECTIVES

To determine the predictors of difficult colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and to develop a preoperative predictive model for difficult colorectal ESD procedures.

METHODS

Colorectal neoplasms intended to be resected by ESD in our center between August 2013 and February 2019 were retrospectively enrolled. An ESD procedure which took more than 30 min, failed to remove the lesions en bloc or converted to surgery was defined as difficulty. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to find out the predictors of difficult ESD. A nomogram integrating independent predictors was developed and validated with respect to its discrimination, calibration and clinical application, using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, calibration plot and decision curve analysis (DCA), respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 368 colorectal neoplasms in 355 patients were included. The independent predictors for difficult colorectal ESD were size ≥2 cm (odds ratio [OR] = 6.102, p < .001), positive non-lifting sign (OR = 6.569, p = .005), lesions located in left colon (OR = 2.475, p = .036) or rectum (OR = 2.183, p = .048), laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) (OR = 2.501, p = .008) and less colorectal ESD experience (≤20 cases) (OR = 2.3091, p = .028). The nomogram model incorporating the above predictors performed well in both of the training and validation sets (area under the cure [AUC] = 0.786 and 0.784, respectively). DCA demonstrated the clinical benefit of the nomogram was superior to that of each independent predictor alone.

CONCLUSIONS

The nomogram incorporating tumor size, location, morphology, non-lifting sign and ESD experience of operator can be conveniently used to facilitate the preoperative prediction of difficult colorectal ESD.

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for 20-30 mm colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for large polyps provides a high en bloc resection rate, accurate pathological diagnosis, and low recurrence rate. However, ESD requires advanced techniques, and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is an alternative. We investigated the efficacy and safety of UEMR for 20-30 mm colorectal lesions compared with ESD.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated systematically collected data of patients who underwent UEMR or ESD for 20-30 mm sessile colorectal lesions. Outcome measures were the incidence of local recurrence, procedure time, en bloc resection rate, and incidence of adverse events. We performed propensity score matching and inverse probability weighting adjustment to control for possible confounders.

RESULTS

We evaluated 125 patients undergoing UEMR and 306 patients undergoing ESD. Using propensity score matching, we analyzed 74 lesions in each group. UEMR had a shorter procedure time than ESD [6.7 min (95% confidence interval (CI), 5.3-8.1 min) vs 64.8 min (95% CI, 57.4-72.2 min), respectively]. Although the en bloc resection rate with UEMR was inferior to ESD [61% (95% CI, 49-72%) vs 99% (95% CI, 93-100%), respectively], there was no significant difference in the local recurrence rate between the procedures [0% (95% CI, 0-4.0%) in each group]. Inverse probability weighting adjustment revealed that neither ESD nor UEMR had a significant association with local recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for 20-30  mm colorectal lesions was comparable with ESD regarding long-term outcomes, with a shorter procedure time, despite the lower en bloc resection rate.

Tip-in Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for 15- to 25-mm Colorectal Adenomas: A Single-Center, Randomized Controlled Trial (STAR Trial)

INTRODUCTION

One-piece endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for lesions >15 mm is still unsatisfactory, and attempted 1-piece EMR for lesions >25 mm can increase perforation risk. Therefore, modifications to ensure 1-piece EMR of 15- to 25-mm lesions would be beneficial. The aim of this study was to investigate whether Tip-in EMR, which anchors the snare tip within the submucosal layer, increases en bloc resection for 15- to 25-mm colorectal lesions compared with EMR.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized controlled trial, patients with nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasms of 15-25 mm in size were recruited and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo Tip-in EMR or standard EMR, stratified by age, sex, tumor size category, and tumor location. The primary endpoint was the odds ratio of en bloc resection adjusted by location and size category. Adverse events and procedure time were also evaluated.

RESULTS

We analyzed 41 lesions in the Tip-in EMR group and 41 lesions in the EMR group. En bloc resection was achieved in 37 (90.2%) patients undergoing Tip-in EMR and 30 (73.1%) who had EMR. The adjusted odds ratio of en bloc resection in Tip-in EMR vs EMR was 3.46 (95% confidence interval: 1.06-13.6, P = 0.040). The Tip-in EMR and EMR groups did not differ significantly in adverse event rates (0% vs 4.8%) or median procedure times (7 vs 5 minutes).

DISCUSSION

In this single-center randomized controlled trial, we found that Tip-in EMR significantly improved the en bloc resection rate for nonpolypoid lesions 15-25 mm in size, with no increase in adverse events or procedure time.