Construction of a preoperative scoring system to predict the difficulty level of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Risk factors for unsuccessful colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Despite its growing popularity, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal neoplasms is still technically challenging. The factors contributing to the failure of ESD are not yet comprehensively elucidated. Therefore, this systematic review was conducted to explore the potential risk factors associated with unsuccessful colorectal ESD.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of Medline and Embase databases was conducted to identify relevant publications from inception until March 14, 2023. Unsuccessful ESD was defined as cases involving incomplete resection or the occurrence of adverse events, such as perforation and delayed bleeding.

RESULTS

Among the 2067 citations initially identified, a total of 23 cohort studies and 16 case-control studies met the inclusion criteria. Following meta-analyses, several significant risk factors for incomplete resection were identified, including lesion diameter ≥40 or 50 mm, right-side colonic location, deeper submucosal invasion, and severe fibrosis. Similarly, lesion diameter ≥40 or 50 mm and severe fibrosis emerged as risk factors for perforation. However, no individual factor was found to be statistically associated with delayed bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis identified risk factors correlated with incomplete resection and adverse events following ESD. The findings provide valuable insights that can guide clinical decision-making, aiding gastroenterologists in accurately identifying high-risk individuals.

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.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for challenging colorectal lesions: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The optimal endoscopic resection method of challenging colorectal lesions (ie, adenomatous recurrences, nongranular laterally spreading tumors [LST-NGs], lesions without lifting sign <30 mm) is still under debate. The aim of this study was to directly compare endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) for the resection of challenging colorectal lesions in a randomized trial.

METHODS

A multicenter, prospective, randomized study was performed in 4 Italian referral centers. Consecutive patients referred for endoscopic resection of challenging lesions were randomly assigned to undergo EFTR or ESD. Primary outcomes were complete (R0) resection and en bloc resection of lesions. Technical success, procedure time, procedure speed, area of the resected specimen, adverse event rate, and local recurrence rate at 6 months were also compared.

RESULTS

Overall, 90 patients were included in the study, equally representing the 3 challenging lesion types. Age and sex were comparable in the 2 groups. En bloc resection was obtained in 95.5% of the EFTR group and in 93.3% of the ESD group. R0 resection rate was comparable in the 2 groups (EFTR vs ESD, 42 [93.3%] vs 36 [80%]; P = .06). The EFTR group exhibited a significantly shorter total procedure time (25.6 ± 10.6 minutes vs 76.7 ± 26.4 minutes, P ≤ .01), as well as overall procedure speed (16.8 ± 11.8 mm2/min vs 11.9 ± 9.2 mm2/min, P = .03). The EFTR group had a significantly smaller mean lesion size (21.6 ± 8.3 mm vs 28.7 ± 7.7 mm, P ≤ .01). Adverse events were reported less frequently in patients in the EFTR group (4.44% vs 15.5%, P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

EFTR is comparable to ESD in the treatment of challenging colorectal lesions in terms of safety and efficacy. EFTR is considerably faster than ESD in the treatment of nonlifting lesions and adenoma recurrences. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT05502276.).

Is colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection safe and effective for 15-19-mm tumors?

PURPOSE

The outcomes of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in 15-19-mm tumors are unclear. This study compared the effectiveness and safety of colorectal ESD for 15-19-mm tumors and tumors exceeding that size.

METHODS

From August 2018 to December 2020, 213 cases of colorectal tumors removed by colorectal ESD at a tertiary hospital were enrolled in this study. The cases were divided into two groups according to the pathologically measured size of the resected lesion: an intermediate group (15-19 mm, n = 62) and a large group (≥ 20 mm, n = 151). The en bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, and complications were investigated retrospectively.

RESULTS

The en bloc resection rate was significantly higher in the intermediate than large group (100% vs. 94%, p = 0.049), and the mean total procedure time was shorter in the intermediate than large group (29.2 [Formula: see text] 12.6 vs. 48.4 [Formula: see text] 28.8 min, p < 0.001). However, the mean procedure speed was significantly lower in the intermediate than large group (0.25 [Formula: see text] 0.10 vs. 0.28 [Formula: see text] 0.11 cm2/min, p = 0.031). The complete resection rate, post-procedural bleeding, and perforation rate were not significantly different between the two groups. In multivariate analyses, the total procedure time and mean procedure speed were significantly associated with lesion size.

CONCLUSION

Colorectal ESD of 15-19-mm lesions is effective, and has a shorter procedure time and higher en bloc resection rate than the same procedure for larger lesions.

Randomized controlled trial comparing conventional and traction endoscopic submucosal dissection for early colon tumor (CONNECT-C trial)

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a widely used treatment for early gastrointestinal cancer. However, colon ESD remains challenging. Previous studies on colon ESD using the traction method used a small sample, single-center design, providing insufficient evidence of this procedure's efficacy. We thus aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of the traction method in colon ESD in this multicenter randomized trial.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized, two-arm controlled trial at 10 facilities in Japan. A 1:1 allocation was conducted for the conventional ESD (C-ESD) and traction ESD (T-ESD) groups. The primary end-point was ESD procedure time.

RESULTS

We included 128 C-ESD and 123 T-ESD cases from April 2020 to August 2021. The median procedure times for C-ESD and T-ESD were 61 (40-100) and 53 (40-76) min (P = 0.18), respectively, and no significant differences were observed between the groups. Subgroup analysis showed that the median procedure times for patients with a lesion diameter of ≥30 mm in the C-ESD and T-ESD groups were 89 (57-80) and 69 (50-104) min (P = 0.05), respectively, and for nonexpert operators were 81 (62-120) and 64 (52-109) min (P = 0.07), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The traction method did not contribute to a significantly shortened ESD procedure time. However, this method may be useful when the tumor diameter is large or if the procedure is conducted by nonexpert endoscopists.

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.

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.

Double-clip traction for colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter study of 599 consecutive cases (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is particularly challenging and limited to a few expert centers. We recently conducted a pilot study on improvement of colonic ESD with systematic use of a countertraction device (double-clip traction with rubber band [DCT-ESD]).

METHODS

A French prospective multicenter study was conducted between March 2017 and September 2019, including all consecutive cases of naive colonic ESD. Since the first case of DCT-ESD in March 2017, all cases of colonic ESD have been performed using the DCT-ESD strategy in the 3 centers involved in the study.

RESULTS

Five hundred ninety-nine lesions with a mean size of 53 mm were included in this study, resected by 5 operators in 3 centers. The en bloc, R0, and curative resection rates were 95.7%, 83.5%, and 81.1%, respectively. The adverse event rates were 4.9% for perforation and 4.2% for postprocedure bleeding. Between 2017 and 2019, the rates of R0 and curative resections increased significantly from 74.7% in 2017 to 88.4% in 2019 (P = .003) and from 72.6% in 2017 to 86.3% in 2019 (P = .004), respectively. Procedure duration and speed of resection were 62.4 minutes and 39.4 mm²/minute, respectively. No differences were noted between operators.

CONCLUSION

DCT-ESD is a safe and reproducible technique, with results comparable with those of the large Japanese teams with speed of resection twice as high as previously reported studies. The DCT strategy is promising, cheap, and seems to be reproducible. Physicians performing colonic ESD should be aware of this promising tool to improve their results in ESD.

Revising the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) research priorities: a research progress update

BACKGROUND

One of the aims of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is to encourage high quality endoscopic research at a European level. In 2016, the ESGE research committee published a set of research priorities. As endoscopic research is flourishing, we aimed to review the literature and determine whether endoscopic research over the last 4 years had managed to address any of our previously published priorities.

METHODS

As the previously published priorities were grouped under seven different domains, a working party with at least two European experts was created for each domain to review all the priorities under that domain. A structured review form was developed to standardize the review process. The group conducted an extensive literature search relevant to each of the priorities and then graded the priorities into three categories: (1) no longer a priority (well-designed trial, incorporated in national/international guidelines or adopted in routine clinical practice); (2) remains a priority (i. e. the above criterion was not met); (3) redefine the existing priority (i. e. the priority was too vague with the research question not clearly defined).

RESULTS

The previous ESGE research priorities document published in 2016 had 26 research priorities under seven domains. Our review of these priorities has resulted in seven priorities being removed from the list, one priority being partially removed, another seven being redefined to make them more precise, with eleven priorities remaining unchanged. This is a reflection of a rapid surge in endoscopic research, resulting in 27 % of research questions having already been answered and another 27 % requiring redefinition.

CONCLUSIONS

Our extensive review process has led to the removal of seven research priorities from the previous (2016) list, leaving 19 research priorities that have been redefined to make them more precise and relevant for researchers and funding bodies to target.

The efficacy of the submucosal injection of lidocaine during endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasms: a multicenter randomized controlled study

Background

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is currently a common procedure although it requires a long procedural time. We conducted a prospective study to determine the efficacy and safety of lidocaine injection for shortening the procedural time and relieving bowel peristalsis during ESD.

Methods

A multicenter randomized controlled study was conducted in three hospitals. Ninety-one patients who underwent colorectal ESD were enrolled. Patients were randomly divided into two groups using the envelope method: the lidocaine group and saline group. The primary endpoint was the procedural time, and the secondary endpoints were the procedural time in each part of the colon and the grade of bowel peristalsis and the incidence and amounts of antispasmodic drugs use and adverse events.

Results

The patients’ demographics were not markedly different between the two groups. The mean procedural time in the lidocaine group was not markedly different from that in the saline group. In contrast, at the proximal site, the procedural time in the lidocaine group (57 min) was significantly shorter in the saline group (80 min). The grade of bowel peristalsis in the lidocaine group (0.67) was significantly lower than in the saline group (1.17). Antispasmodic drug use was significantly rarer in the lidocaine group than in the saline group. The incidence of adverse events was not markedly different between the two groups.

Conclusions

Local lidocaine injection is a feasible option for preventing bowel peristalsis, particularly in the proximal colon, leading to a reduced procedural time for ESD and decreased antispasmodic drug use.

University Hospital Medical Information Network Center (UMIN number: 000022843).