Impact of endoscopic submucosal dissection for the therapeutic strategy of large colorectal tumors

Background and Aims: The change of therapeutic strategy for large colorectal tumors after the introduction of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has not yet been clarified. The aim of this study was to estimate the impact of ESD as an initial treatment strategy. Methods: A questionnaire was administered to nine expert panelists in colorectal ESD. The questionnaire used retrospective data from consecutive case series. Forty‐seven cases of early colorectal tumors (≥ 20 mm) were included. Endoscopic growth types were 25 laterally‐spreading tumors (LST) of granular type (G), 15 LST of non‐granular types (NG), and seven protruded types. Pathological diagnoses included 15 adenomas (Ad), 18 intramucosal cancers (M), three submucosally‐shallow invasive cancers (< 1000 µm) (SMs), and 11 submucosally‐deep invasive cancers (≥ 1000 µm) (SMd). The expert panelists completed questionnaires about recommended initial treatment under suppositions of before and after the introduction of ESD. Over‐surgery was defined as surgery for Ad, M, and SMs. Non‐curative endoscopic resection (ER) was defined as ER for SMd. Results: After the introduction of ESD, the reduction in the over‐surgery rate was estimated at 10.8% for Ad, M, and SMs, and the increase in the non‐curative ER rate was estimated at 27.2% for SMd. By endoscopic growth type, the reduction of over‐surgery rates for LST–NG, LST–G, and protruded type was 15.5%, 10.5%, and 2.2%, respectively. Conclusions: The endoscopists changed their therapeutic strategy for large colorectal tumors to reduce over‐surgery, especially in LST–NG, demonstrating the impact of ESD.     

ADVANTAGES OF USING THIN ENDOSCOPE‐ASSISTED ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION TECHNIQUE FOR LARGE COLORECTAL TUMORS

Background: Our purpose was to evaluate the effectiveness of a newly developed non‐invasive traction technique known as thin endoscope‐assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection (TEA‐ESD) procedure for the removal of colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LST). Patients and Methods: A total of 37 LST located in the rectum and distal sigmoid colons of 37 patients were eligible for outcome analysis. Twenty‐one LST were treated with TEA‐ESD and were then retrospectively compared to 16 LST that had previously been treated with standard ESD. Tumor size, en bloc resection rate, procedure time, combined number of different electrical surgical knives used during each procedure and associated complications were evaluated in this case–control study. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in tumor size between the TEA‐ESD group and the ESD control group (43.6 ± 16 mm and 42.4 ± 14 mm, respectively). All LST were successfully resected en bloc in both groups. Procedure duration was shorter for the TEA‐ESD group than the ESD control group, although the difference was not statistically significant (96 ± 53 minutes vs 116 ± 74 minutes; P = 0.18). The percentage of cases in which only one electrical surgical knife was used during the entire procedure was significantly higher in the TEA‐ESD group compared to the ESD control group (85.7% vs 31.3%; P = 0.0005). There were no perforations in the TEA‐ESD group while the ESD control group experienced one perforation. At the present time, TEA‐ESD is limited to the rectum and distal sigmoid colon. Conclusion: It was technically easier, safer and more cost‐effective to perform ESD for LST in the rectum and the distal sigmoid colon using the newly developed TEA‐ESD traction technique.     

Matched case-control study comparing endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal tumors

Background and Aim: For large colorectal tumors, the en bloc resection rate achieved by endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is insufficient, and this leads to a high rate of local recurrence. As endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been reported to achieve a higher rate of en bloc resection and a lower rate of local recurrence in the short‐term, it is expected to overcome the limitations of EMR. We conducted a matched case‐control study between ESD and EMR to clarify the effectiveness of ESD for colorectal tumors. Methods: Between April 2005 and February 2009, a total of 28 colorectal tumors in 28 patients were resected by ESD and were followed up by colonoscopy at least once. As a control group, 56 EMR cases from our prospectively completed database were matched. En bloc resection, complication and recurrence rates were compared between the two groups. Results: The mean sizes of the lesions were 27.1 mm in the ESD group and 25.0 mm in the EMR group. The en bloc resection rate was significantly higher in the ESD group (92.9% vs 37.5% with ESD vs EMR), and the rate of perforation was also significantly higher (10.7% vs 0%). All cases of perforation were managed conservatively. No recurrence was observed in the ESD group, whereas local recurrences were detected in 12 EMR cases (21.4%). Eleven of the 12 recurrences (91.7%) were managed endoscopically, and one required surgical resection. Conclusions: Endoscopic submucosal dissection is a promising technique for the treatment of colorectal tumors, giving an excellent outcome in comparison with EMR.     

Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for laterally spreading tumors larger than 20 mm

Background and Aims: Colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LST) > 20 mm are usually treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection (EPMR) is sometimes required. The aim of our study was to compare the outcomes of ESD and EMR, including EPMR, for such LST. Methods: A total of 269 consecutive patients with a colorectal LST > 20 mm were treated endoscopically at our hospital from April 2006 to December 2009. We retrospectively evaluated the complications and local recurrence rates associated with ESD, hybrid ESD (ESD with EMR), EMR, and EPMR. Results: ESD and EMR were performed successfully for 89 and 178 LST, respectively: 61 by ESD; 28 by hybrid ESD; 70 by EMR; and 108 by EPMR. Between‐group differences in perforation rates were not significant. Local recurrence rates in cases with curative resection were as follows: 0% (0/56) in ESD; 0% (0/27) in hybrid ESD; 1.4% (1/69) in EMR; and 12.1% (13/107) in EPMR; that is, significantly higher in EPMR. No metastasis was seen at follow up. The recurrence rate for EPMR yielding ≥ three pieces was significantly high (P < 0.001). All 14 local recurrent lesions were adenomas that were cured endoscopically. Conclusions: As for safety, ESD/hybrid ESD is equivalent to EMR/EPMR. ESD/hybrid ESD is a feasible technique for en bloc resection and showed no local recurrence. Although local recurrences associated with EMR/EPMR were seen, which were conducted based on our indication criteria, all local recurrences could obtain complete cure by additional endoscopic treatment.     

Warning for unprincipled colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: Accurate diagnosis and reasonable treatment strategy

Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is generally indicated for laterally spreading tumors (LST) >2 cm in diameter. However, the segmentation of adenomatous parts does not affect the histopathological diagnosis and completeness of cure. Thus, possible indications for piecemeal EMR are both adenomatous homogenous‐type granular‐type LST (LST‐G) and LST‐G as carcinoma in adenoma without segmentalizing the carcinomatous part. Diagnosis of the pit pattern using magnifying endoscopy is essential for determining the correct treatment and setting segmentation borders. In contrast, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is indicated for lesions requiring endoscopic en bloc excision, as it is difficult to use the snare technique for en bloc excisions such as in non‐granular‐type LST (LST‐NG), especially for the pseudodepressed type, tumors with a type V_I pit pattern, shallow invasive submucosal carcinoma, largedepressed tumors and large elevated lesions, which are often malignant (e.g. nodular mixed‐type LST‐G). Other lesions, such as intramucosal tumor accompanied by submucosal fibrosis, induced by biopsy or peristalsis of the lesion; sporadic localized tumors that occur due to chronic inflammation, including ulcerative colitis; and local residual early carcinoma after endoscopic treatment, are also indications for ESD. In clinical practice, an efficient endoscopic treatment with segregation of ESD from piecemeal EMR should be carried out after a comprehensive evaluation of the completeness of cure, safety, clinical simplicity, and cost–benefit, based on an accurate preoperative diagnosis.     

ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION FOR THE RELIABLE EN BLOC RESECTION OF COLORECTAL MUCOSAL TUMORS

Scheduled piecemeal resection has been actively conducted for granular type laterally spreading tumor (LST‐G) in Japan, as long as a definite preoperative diagnosis is made. However, en bloc resection is desirable for depressed lesions (e.g. IIc lesion) as well as non‐granular type laterally spreading tumor (LST‐NG) since they have considerable high risk for submucoasl invasion and require precise histopathological evaluation. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been developed for the en bloc resection of mucosal tumors of gastrointestinal tract and widely applied especially in gastric lesions. Although the large intestine involves structural and technical difficulties, we conducted en bloc resection by ESD while exercising sorts of ingenuity for preparation; endoscopes, instruments, local injections, and others. ESD is a reliable technique that allows en bloc resection of gastrointestinal mucosal lesions, and even has a splendid possibility for the treatment of early stage colorectal cancer.     

ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION FOR RECURRENT GASTRIC TUMORS

Endoscopic resection has been accepted as the standard treatment for intramucosal gastric tumors of differentiated type. However, the indication was limited to small tumors to achieve en bloc resection and prevent local recurrence in cases of conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) such as the strip biopsy and the cap technique. To avoid multi‐fragmental resection, we have developed endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as a new endoscopic resection technique. ESD is a remarkable technique, because we make it possible to remove the lesions en bloc regardless of size, shape, coexisting ulcer, and location. However, it is difficult or impossible to resect recurrent tumors en bloc in conventional EMR owing to hard fibrosis, and some patients need laparotomy. Using ESD, we can dissect the submucosal layer as we directly look at the submucosa, and remove the lesion safely and reliably even in cases of hard fibrosis. The key to treatment of recurrent tumors in ESD are as follows: (i) using enough submucosal injection solution (we use a mixture of Glyceol and 1% 1900 kDa hyaluronic acid preparation); (ii) incising the mucosa without fibrosis; (iii) understanding characteristics of various cutting devices, and changing other devices in difficult situations. In these ways we can remove the majority of the recurrent tumors en bloc. Hence, we consider that ESD is a very effective treatment which achieves excellent en bloc and complete resection rates and enables patients with intramucosal gastric tumors to a recurrent‐free survival even in recurrent tumors.     

Endoscopic submucosal dissection with internal traction for early gastric cancer (with video)

BACKGROUND: EMR techniques have high success rates for treating small lesions of the upper-GI tract; however, tumors larger than 15 mm are frequently removed by piecemeal resection, which is associated with an increased rate of disease recurrence and difficulty in histologically evaluating the specimen. OBJECTIVE: To describe a simple technique of using internal traction to facilitate endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures in the excision of large, early gastric cancers. DESIGN: Case series. SETTING: A tertiary medical center in Taiwan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eight patients with early gastric cancers larger than 20 mm underwent ESD. INTERVENTIONS: A standard hemoclip modified with surgical suture was used to provide traction to improve visualization of the dissection plane during ESD. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Proportion with complete en bloc resection. RESULTS: En bloc resection of the lesion was achieved in 8 patients. One patient underwent additional surgery because an adequate safe margin was not obtained by ESD. LIMITATIONS: One endoscopist performed all procedures, and only 8 patients were studied in an uncontrolled manner. CONCLUSIONS: The internal traction method appears to facilitate en bloc ESD of early gastric cancers larger than 20 mm.     

Benefits of endoscopic submucosal dissection according to size and location of gastric neoplasm, compared with conventional mucosal resection

Background and Aims:  To clarify optimal therapeutic strategies for early gastric cancers without vestigial remnant or recurrence, we evaluated the benefits of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) according to tumor size and location.
Methods:  From January 2000 to December 2007, a total of 328 gastric lesions were treated using conventional EMR, while 572 lesions were treated by ESD. Patients who underwent surgery on the upper gastrointestinal tract before EMR or ESD were excluded from the study. We compared tumor size, location and rates of complete resection, curative resection, postoperative bleeding, perforation and local recurrence between EMR and ESD according to tumor situation.
Results:  Overall local complete resection rate (EMR, 64.2%; ESD, 95.1%) and overall curative resection rate (EMR, 59.5%; ESD, 82.7%) were significantly higher in ESD than in EMR. No significant differences were seen in complication rates between EMR and ESD. Local recurrence was detected in 13 lesions (4.0%) of the EMR group during follow up. In contrast, no local recurrence was detected in the ESD group. For lesions 5 mm or less in diameter, complete resection rate in the EMR group was not significantly inferior to that in the ESD group at any location. However, rates were overwhelmingly better in the ESD group than in the EMR group for lesions more than 5 mm in diameter, regardless of location.
Conclusion:  We concluded that lesions exceeding 5 mm in diameter should be treated by ESD, although a high resection rate is obtained also with EMR for lesions of 5 mm or less in diameter.     

Safety and curative ability of endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal cancers at least 50 mm in diameter

Background and Aim: Limited data are available regarding the use of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for superficial esophageal cancers ≥50 mm in diameter. The aim of the present study was to investigate the safety and success of ESD for superficial esophageal cancers ≥50 mm. Methods: A total of 39 patients with superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma ≥50 mm were treated with ESD at Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases between January 2004 and April 2011, and were analyzed in a retrospective study. Results: En bloc resection was achieved in all patients. One mediastinal emphysema without perforation occurred during the procedure. Stricture developed in 11 of 39 patients, requiring a median of five endoscopic balloon dilatation procedures. Thirty‐three clinical epithelial or lamina propria mucosal cancers were treated by ESD with curative intent, of which invasion into the muscularis mucosa or deeper was detected in seven and lymphovascular involvement in three. The en bloc resection rate was 100% with a tumor‐free margin achieved in 92% of lesions. The curative resection and complication rates during ESD were 70% and 2.5%, respectively. Conclusion: ESD achieved a high en bloc resection rate of 92% with a tumor‐free margin. Curative resection rate of ESD in patients with clinical epithelial or lamina propria mucosal cancers was not low at 70%. However, the risk of stricture must be taken into account when considering the use of ESD in lesions ≥50 mm.     

Technical feasibility of endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric neoplasms in the elderly Japanese population

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is gaining acceptance among endoscopists for its efficacy, especially in Japan. Elderly patients often have operative risk due to comorbid diseases, and the feasibility of this treatment for such patients should be investigated. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ESD in elderly patients. METHODS: Among 308 gastric neoplasms treated by ESD from 2000 to 2004 in one hospital, 49 lesions were discovered in 42 elderly patients who were 75 years of age or older. Indication criteria for ESD were gastric neoplasms with no apparent massive submucosal invasion diagnosed by endoscopy. The en bloc plus R0 resection rate and complications were assessed in comparison with younger patients. RESULTS: The average age of the patients was 78.9 years (range 75-88 years). Of these patients, 24 (57%) had comorbid diseases. The complete en bloc plus R0 resection rate was 96% (47/49). Postoperative bleeding requiring emergency endoscopy occurred in three patients (7%). Perforation during ESD occurred in one patient (2%), and was immediately closed with endoclips and managed by conservative medical treatment. The en bloc plus R0 resection rate and complication rate in elderly patients were not significantly different from those of younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that ESD could be a safe and reliable treatment for gastric neoplasms in elderly patients.     

Treatment outcomes of endoscopic resection for rectal carcinoid tumors: an analysis of the resectability and long-term results from 46 consecutive cases

Aim: In Japan, most of colorectal carcinoid tumors developed in rectum. The choice of treatment is important because surgical treatment may need to construct artificial anus. Although curative endoscopic resection (ER) is desirable from the point of quality of life, sufficient evidence of endoscopic treatment for rectal carcinoid tumors is not fully obtained.

Methods: Between April 2001 and August 2013, 46 rectal carcinoid tumors in 46 patients who underwent either with endoscopic mucosal resection with a ligation device (EMR-L) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) were analyzed retrospectively. The rates of en bloc resection, positive for lateral and/or vertical margin, curative resection, local recurrence, additional treatments, overall and disease-specific survival rate after ER were evaluated during follow-up (median observation period 61.6 months).

Results: Twenty-two lesions were treated by EMR-L and 24 lesions were treated by ESD. Both groups had similar mean tumor size (EMR-L: 6.2?mm, ESD: 6.0?mm). The rate of en bloc resection, negative for both lateral and vertical margins, and curative resection were, respectively, 73%, 63%, and 50% for EMR-L, 100%, 100%, and 83% for ESD. These results suggested that the rate of resectability and curability for ESD was significantly higher than EMR-L (p?Conclusion: The long-term outcomes of ER for rectal carcinoid tumors were excellent. ESD has advantage for resectability and curability compared with EMR-L; therefore, ESD is more favorable procedure as treatment for rectal carcinoid tumors.     

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: Systematic review of mid‐term clinical outcomes

With a drive towards minimally invasive surgery, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is now gaining popularity. In a number of East Asian countries, ESD is now the treatment of choice for early non‐metastatic gastric cancer, but the outcomes of ESD for colorectal lesions are unclear. The present review summarizes the mid‐term outcomes of colorectal ESD including complication and recurrence rates. A systematic literature search was done in May 2014, identifying 20 publications reporting the outcomes of colorectal ESD which were included in this review. En‐bloc resection rates, complete (R0) resection rates, endoscopic clearance rates, complication and recurrences rates were analyzed. Statistical pooling was done to calculate weighted means using random effects modeling. Twenty studies reporting the outcomes of 3060 colorectal ESD procedures were reported. Overall weighted en‐bloc resection rate was 89% (95% CI: 83–94%), R0 resection rate 76% (95% CI: 69–83%), endoscopic clearance rate 94% (95% CI: 90–97%) and recurrence rate 1% (95% CI: 0.5–2%). Studies that followed up patients for over 1 year were found to have an en‐bloc resection rate of 91% (95% CI: 86–96%), R0 resection rate of 81% (95% CI: 75–88%), endoscopic clearance rate 93% (95% CI: 90–97%) and recurrence rate of 0.8% (95% CI: 0.4–1%). Colorectal ESD can be carried out effectively and safely with a 1% recurrence rate. Further studies with longer follow‐up periods are required to determine whether colorectal ESD is a viable alternative to conventional surgical therapy.     

Comparing endoscopic submucosal dissection with transanal resection for non-invasive rectal tumor: a retrospective study

Background and Aim: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an alternative to transanal resection (TAR) in treating rectal adenomas, intramucosal cancers, and superficial submucosal cancers. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy between ESD and TAR for non‐invasive rectal tumors. Methods: Between January 1998 and December 2006, 85 patients with preoperative diagnosis of non‐invasive rectal tumors were treated by ESD or TAR. En‐bloc resection, local recurrence, complication, procedure time, and hospital stay were evaluated retrospectively using a prospectively‐completed database. Results: Mean resection sizes were 40 mm and 39 mm in diameter for the ESD and TAR groups, respectively. En‐bloc resections with a negative resection margin were achieved in 67% (35/52) of the ESD group, which was significantly higher than the 42% (14/33) in the TAR group. Sixty‐three lesions were diagnosed as curative resection, histopathologically. There was no local recurrence in the ESD group, but five local recurrences developed in the TAR group. Two rectal perforations, one minor delayed bleeding, and one subcutaneous emphysema in the ESD group were successfully managed conservatively. There were one minor delayed bleeding and two anesthesia‐related complications in the TAR group. The ESD group had a shorter hospital stay than the TAR group (4.9 days vs 7 days), but a longer procedure time (131 min vs 63 min). Conclusion: ESD was more effective than TAR in treating non‐invasive rectal tumors, with a lower recurrence rate and shorter hospital stay.     

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: present status and future perspective,including its differentiation from endoscopic mucosal resection

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) allows en bloc resection of a lesion, irrespective of the size of the lesion. ESD has been established as a standard method for the endoscopic ablation of malignant tumors in the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract in Japan. Although the use of ESD for colorectal lesions has been studied via clinical research, ESD is not yet established as a standard therapeutic method for colorectal lesions because colorectal carcinoma has unique pathological, organ specific characteristics that differ radically from those of the esophagus and stomach, and scope handling and control is more difficult in the colorectum than in the upper GI tract. Depending on the efficacy of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and the clinicopathological characteristics of the colorectal tumor, the proposed indications for colorectal ESD are as follows: (1) lesions difficult to remove en bloc with a snare EMR, such as nongranular laterally spreading tumors (particularly the pseudo depressed type), lesions showing a type VI: pit pattern, and large lesions of the protruded type suspected to be carcinoma; (2) lesions with fibrosis due to biopsy or peristasis; (3) sporadic localized lesions in chronic inflammation such as ulcerative colitis; and (4) local residual carcinoma after EMR. Colorectal ESD is currently in the development stage, and a standard protocol will be available in the near future. We hope that colorectal tumors will be efficiently treated by a treatment method appropriately selected from among EMR, ESD, and surgical resection after precise preoperative diagnosis based on techniques such as magnifying colonoscopy.     

Advantages of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic oblique aspiration mucosectomy for superficial esophageal tumors

Background and Aim: In the treatment of superficial esophageal tumors (SET), en bloc histologically‐complete resection reduces the risk of local recurrence. Endoscopic oblique aspiration mucosectomy (EOAM) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) have been applied to resect SET. The aim of this study was to retrospectively determine whether ESD is more advantageous than EOAM for SET. Methods: In the present study, there was a total of 122 patients in whom 162 SET were resected endoscopically at Hiroshima University Hospital. EOAM (83 lesions/63 patients) or ESD (79 lesions/59 patients) was performed. En bloc histologically‐complete resection rates, operation time, complications, and the local recurrence rate were studied. Results: In SET > 20 mm, the en bloc histologically‐complete resection rate was significantly higher with ESD than with EOAM (94% vs 42%, P < 0.001). In SET of 16–20 mm, the rate tended to be higher with ESD than with EOAM (100% vs 81%, P = 0.08). In SET < 15 mm, the rates did not differ significantly between groups. The average operation time was significantly longer for ESD than for EOAM, regardless of tumor size (49.7 ± 33.0 min vs 19.1 ± 6.1 min, P < 0.001). Complication rates did not differ significantly between groups. The local recurrence rate was significantly lower with ESD than with EOAM (0%, mean observation period: 18.9 months vs 9%, mean observation period: 30.7 months, P = 0.03). Conclusion: Although increased operation time with ESD remains problematic, SET >15 mm should be treated with ESD to reduce local recurrence. In lesions ≤15 mm, EOAM might be preferable, especially in high‐risk patients.     

Risk factors for incomplete resection and complications in endoscopic mucosal resection for lateral spreading tumors

Aim: Lateral spreading tumors (LST) are relatively large flat lesions with diameters exceeding 10 mm in length. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a commonly used technique for removing LST. We aimed to evaluate the risk factors for incomplete resection and complications of EMR for LST. Method: Between January 2004 and December 2010, 497 patients who underwent EMR for LST were retrospectively reviewed. Risk factors for endoscopic and histopathological complete resection, complications, and clinical outcomes were investigated. Results: Risks for incomplete resection by piecemeal resection and en bloc resection of a lesion ≥30 mm were higher than for en bloc resection of a lesion <30 mm (OR = 2.688, CI 1.036–6.993; OR = 4.982, CI 1.894–13.101). Risks of post‐EMR bleeding for piecemeal resection and en bloc resection for a lesion ≥40 mm were higher than for en bloc resection of a lesion < 40 mm (OR = 15.231, CI 1.816–127.744; OR = 43.043, CI 4.306–430.314). Conclusion: We found risk factors of EMR for LST and tentatively suggest a protocol for EMR adapted to the size of LST and resection methods. (i) Following piecemeal resection and en bloc resection for LST ≥ 40 mm, hospitalize patients for 36 h and note risk for incomplete resection and delayed bleeding. (ii) After en bloc resection for 40 mm > LST ≥ 30 mm, hospitalize patients for 12 h and note risk for incomplete resection. (iii) Following en bloc resection for LST < 30 mm, hospitalize the patient for 12 h and expect complete resection.     

Local recurrence of large squamous-cell carcinoma of the esophagus after endoscopic resection

BACKGROUND: A new technique, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), which uses specially developed endoscopic knives, was recently developed for en bloc resection of large lesions. Despite increasing indications for endoscopic resection (ER), there are limited data available regarding the outcome of ER for lesions 20 mm or more in diameter. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the risk factors for local recurrence. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A cancer-referral center. PATIENTS: Seventy patients, who presented between September 1994 and April 2006, with a total of 78 lesions that measured 20 mm or more in diameter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Local recurrence rate after ER was assessed. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 32 months (range 12-121 months), there were 12 local recurrences (15.4%). There was no significant association between local recurrence and multiple iodine-voiding lesions, tumor size, or tumor location. The number of resections and the resection method, however, were significantly associated with local recurrence. There was no recurrence of lesions treated by en bloc resection. Lesions resected in 5 or more pieces had a significantly higher recurrence rate than lesions resected in 2 to 4 pieces. Lesions treated by EMR had a significantly higher recurrence rate than lesions treated by ESD. LIMITATIONS: Single-center retrospective analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma that measured 20 mm or more in diameter should be resected en bloc by ESD. Lesions treated by resection in 5 or more pieces have a higher risk for local recurrence.     

Endoscopic mucosal resection with a ligation device or endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal carcinoid tumors: An analysis of 24 consecutive cases

Aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has several advantages over conventional endoscopic mucosal resection, including a higher en bloc resection rate and more accurate pathological estimation. However, ESD is a complex procedure that requires advanced endoscopic skills. The aim of our study is to evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic mucosal resection with a ligation device (EMR‐L) compared to ESD for rectal carcinoid tumors. Methods: Between September 2003 and April 2011, 24 rectal carcinoid tumors in 24 patients treated by ESD or EMR‐L were retrospectively analyzed. The indications for endoscopic treatment were node‐negative rectal carcinoid tumors. We compared the therapeutic outcomes of the ESD group (n = 13) and the EMR‐L group (n = 11). Results: Both groups had similar mean tumor sizes (ESD: 5.5 ± 2.1 mm; EMR‐L: 4.4 ± 2.2 mm). The rates of en bloc and complete resection were, respectively, 100% and 92.3% for ESD, and 100% and 100% for EMR‐L. Perforations did not occur in either group. Postoperative bleeding occurred in one EMR‐L case, and it was endoscopically managed. However, there were no differences in therapeutic outcomes between the two groups. The mean procedure time was longer in the ESD group (28.8 ± 16.2 min) than in the EMR‐L group (17.4 ± 4.4 min), without a significant difference. The mean hospitalization period was significantly shorter in the EMR‐L group (1.8 ± 3.1 day) than in the ESD group (6.2 ± 2.1 day), and eight EMR‐L cases were treated in an outpatient setting. Conclusions: EMR‐L is a simple and effective procedure that compares favorably to ESD for small rectal carcinoid tumors.     

内镜黏膜下剥离术治疗直肠侧向发育型肿瘤的临床价值(附视频)

目的研究直肠侧向发育型肿瘤(LST)的临床病理学特征,并评价内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)治疗直肠LST的疗效及安全性。 方法收集2008年4月至2012年1月期间,复旦大学附属中山医院内镜中心行ESD治疗的120例直肠LST患者的临床资料。首先按内镜下表面形态将120例LST进行分型,统计各型LST的部位、大小、形态特征,然后对LST的临床病理特点以及ESD治疗的切除率、手术时间、并发症和复发情况进行分析。 结果120例直肠LST病变中84例为颗粒型(84/120,70%),36例为非颗粒型(36/120,30%),平均病变大小为35 mm。其中绒毛状管状腺瘤占38.3%,高级别上皮内瘤变28.3%,黏膜下癌7.5%。平均手术时间为：51.8±28.16(17～110)min,整块切除率为98.3%,完整切除率为95.0%,完整治愈切除率为90.8%。ESD术后出血发生率为4.2%,穿孔发生率为3.3%。平均随访时间为32.6个月,复发率为0.8%。 结论直肠LST病变大于2 cm,存在较高的恶变潜能。ESD治疗LST病变整块切除率高,复发率较低,是直肠LST病变安全且有效的治疗方法。