Multiband mucosectomy versus endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic submucosal excavation for GI submucosal tumors: short and long term follow-up

Comparison of Modified Cap-Assisted Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Treating Intraluminal Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor (≤20 mm)

INTRODUCTION

A modified cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (mEMR-C), introduced in this study, was a novel variation of the standard EMR. We aimed to compare the outcomes of mEMR-C and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for the treatment of small (≤20 mm) intraluminal gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (gGISTs).

METHODS

This retrospective study included 43 patients who underwent mEMR-C and 156 patients who received ESD at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital. Baseline characteristics, adverse events, and clinical outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. Univariate and multivariable analyses were conducted to adjust for confounders. After propensity score matching using sex, year, location, and tumor size, outcomes were compared with 41 patients in each group.

RESULTS

A total of 199 patients underwent endoscopic resection and the en bloc resection rate was 100%. The complete resection rate was comparable in both groups ( P = 1.000). Approximately 9.5% of all patients had a positive margin. There was no significant difference in positive margin for patients undergoing mEMR-C or ESD (9.3% vs 9.6%, P = 1.000). No difference in adverse events in both groups ( P = 0.724). The mEMR-C was associated with shorter operation time and lower cost than the ESD. Recurrence was reported in 2 patients at 1 and 5 years after ESD during a median follow-up of 62 months. No metastasis and disease-related death were identified in both groups. Propensity score matching analysis revealed similar results.

DISCUSSION

The mEMR-C was found to be the preferable technique for small (≤20 mm) intraluminal gGISTs with shorter operation time and lower cost as compared with ESD.

Clinical Adverse Events and Device Failures Reported for the Captivator and Duette Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) Systems: A MAUDE Database Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a widely used technique for the removal of precancerous or select cancerous mucosal-based lesions. Two systems used for EMR of upper gastrointestinal lesions are the Duette EMR kit and the Captivator EMR kit. The aim of this study is to analyze the reports submitted to the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database for patient-related adverse events and device failures associated with these EMR kits.

METHODS

We analyzed postmarketing data from the FDA MAUDE from August 2004 to August 2021.

RESULTS

Eighty-four MAUDE reports were found in the study period from August 2004 to August 2021. In total, device issues comprised 36.9% of the reports (n=31) and patient adverse events comprised 63.09% of the reports (n=53). Device issues that were reported included, but were not limited to, band placement/deployment failure (8.1%), suture breakage (7.31%), and snare breakage (4.94%). Patient adverse events that were reported included, but were not limited to, bleeding (25.9%), perforation (7.31%), and snare breakage (4.94%).

CONCLUSION

Captivator EMR and Duette EMR have similar patterns of technical failure and clinical adverse events. More MAUDE reports exist for Duette EMR, possibly due to its longer duration of commercial availability.

Endoscopic management of subepithelial lesions including neuroendocrine neoplasms: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as the best tool to characterize subepithelial lesion (SEL) features (size, location, originating layer, echogenicity, shape), but EUS alone is not able to distinguish among all types of SEL.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests providing tissue diagnosis for all SELs with features suggestive of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) if they are of size > 20 mm, or have high risk stigmata, or require surgical resection or oncological treatment.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) or mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) equally for tissue diagnosis of SELs ≥ 20 mm in size.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends against surveillance of asymptomatic gastrointestinal (GI) tract leiomyomas, lipomas, heterotopic pancreas, granular cell tumors, schwannomas, and glomus tumors, if the diagnosis is clear.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests surveillance of asymptomatic esophageal and gastric SELs without definite diagnosis, with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at 3-6 months, and then at 2-3-year intervals for lesions < 10 mm in size, and at 1-2-year intervals for lesions 10-20 mm in size. For asymptomatic SELs > 20 mm in size that are not resected, ESGE suggests surveillance with EGD plus EUS at 6 months and then at 6-12-month intervals.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for type 1 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (g-NENs) if they grow larger than 10 mm. The choice of resection technique should depend on size, depth of invasion, and location in the stomach.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7: ESGE suggests considering removal of histologically proven gastric GISTs smaller than 20 mm as an alternative to surveillance. The decision to resect should be discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting. The choice of technique should depend on size, location, and local expertise.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests that, to avoid unnecessary follow-up, endoscopic resection is an option for gastric SELs smaller than 20 mm and of unknown histology after failure of attempts to obtain diagnosis.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends basing the surveillance strategy on the type and completeness of resection. After curative resection of benign SELs no follow-up is advised, except for type 1 gastric NEN for which surveillance at 1-2 years is advised.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 10: For lower or upper GI NEN with a positive or indeterminate margin at resection, ESGE recommends repeating endoscopy at 3-6 months and another attempt at endoscopic resection in the case of residual disease.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

[Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection for large esophageal leiomyoma: technical aspects and risk of complications]

We analyzed the technical aspects and risk of possible complications after submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection for large esophageal leiomyoma. A patient with a 4-cm non-epithelial esophageal tumor underwent STER procedure in June 2018. Surgery time was 130 min. There were no intraoperative complications. Postoperative period was complicated with mediastinitis with reactive pneumonia and pleural effusion accompanied by episodes of hyperthermia up to 38°C for 5 days. The patient was discharged in 12 days after complete resolution of pneumonia confirmed by chest X-ray. Contrast-enhanced examination after 3 postoperative days revealed no contrast agent leakage outside the esophagus. The previously applied clips were visualized. Endoscopic examination in 3 months after surgery visualized postoperative scar without signs of deformation and narrowing of the esophagus. No complaints were observed throughout 3.5-year follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

This report demonstrates the advantages of tunnel dissection ensuring organ-sparing procedure with the best functional result. However, intra- and postoperative complications are possible after STER. The risk of complications and complexity of surgery depend on transverse size (>3.5 cm), shape and localization of tumor. Larger neoplasm is accompanied by more difficult surgery and higher risk of complications. Therefore, adequate selection of patients for STER is essential.

Factors predicting technical difficulties during endoscopic submucosal excavation for gastric submucosal tumor

Objective

Endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE) has been established as an effective method for removal of gastric submucosal tumors (SMTs). The aim of the present study was to explore risk factors for technical difficulties in ESE.

Methods

In this retrospective study, we collected clinical data from patients who underwent ESE for gastric SMTs. Difficult ESE was defined as a procedure time ≥90 minutes, piecemeal resection, and/or occurrence of major adverse events. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to explore the risk factors for a difficult ESE.

Results

ESE was successfully performed in 96.5% (195/202) of patients from April 2011 to December 2019. The average tumor size was 17.41 mm, and en bloc resection was achieved in 97.4% of patients (190/195). Five patients (2.56%, 5/195) had complications, including two with delayed bleeding, two with fever, and one with chest pain accompanying ST-T changes in an electrocardiogram. Twenty-four patients (11.88%, 24/202) had a difficult ESE. Logistic analysis showed that outgrowth behavior and an inexperienced surgeon were risk factors for a difficult ESE.

Conclusion

ESE may be safe and effective to treat patients with gastric SMTs. Outgrowth behavior and an inexperienced surgeon were risk factors for a difficult ESE.