Efficacy of endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device for removing small rectal carcinoid tumor compared with endoscopic mucosal resection: analysis of 100 cases

Aim Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of carcinoid tumors is often associated with involvement of the resection margin, which necessitates further intervention. Endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device (ESMR‐L) is a novel technique for the removal of carcinoid tumors. The aim of the present study was to compare the clinical usefulness of endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device with that of EMR for the complete resection of rectal carcinoid tumors. Methods Between January 2001 and October 2010, a total of 100 patients with 100 rectal carcinoid tumors that were estimated to be 10 mm or less in diameter and that were resected either using ESMR‐L or EMR were recruited for this study. The complete resection rate and complications associated with these two procedures were analyzed. Results Forty‐five out of 100 lesions were resected using ESMR‐L, and 55 lesions were resected using EMR. Histopathologically, all tumors were free from lymphovascular and perineural invasion. The overall ESMR‐L complete resection rate was higher than that of EMR (93.3% vs 65.5%, respectively, P = 0.001). Furthermore, the location of the tumors had no influence on the complete resection rate when ESMR‐L was carried out, in contrast to the results of EMR. The procedure‐related variables of procedure time and complication rate were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion ESMR‐L is a significantly superior modality to EMR for the complete removal of small rectal carcinoid tumors that are 10 mm or less in diameter.     

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.     

Usefulness of sodium hyaluronate solution in colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection

Background: In endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), it is essential to inject submucosal fluid to prevent complications and ensure safe and complete en bloc resection of tumors. Sodium hyaluronate (SH) solution, which is effective in forming and maintaining a mucosal lift and is innocuous to mucosal tissue, is considered a useful injection solution for endoscopic submucosal dissection, a procedure associated with a high risk of perforation. This study was undertaken to assess the usefulness of this solution in EMR. Methods: Ninety‐four patients with colorectal tumors of ≤20 mm in diameter were enrolled for this study and randomized to a SH solution group (0.2% two‐fold diluted MucoUp) or to a normal saline group (control). Ease of EMR was primarily assessed based on ease of submucosal injection, ease of snaring and injection time. Results: SH solution was superior to normal saline for ease of submucosal injection (57 ± 0.7 vs 50 ± 0.7; P < 0.05), and it showed better results for ease of snaring with less variability (63 ± 0.8 vs 51 ± 1.0; P < 0.05). The mean injection time was similar between the two groups (3.0 ± 9.0 s and 3.0 ± 2.7 s, respectively). Post‐procedural hemorrhage occurred in 7% patients (3/46) injected with SH solution and in 6% of patients (3/48) in the control group; there was no significant difference between the groups. Conclusions: Use of two‐fold diluted MucoUp facilitated colorectal EMR.     

Beyond the snare: technically accessible large en bloc colonic resection in the West: an animal study

Background: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and circumferential submucosal incision endoscopic mucosal resection (CSI‐EMR) are techniques for en bloc excision of large sessile colonic lesions. Our aims were to compare the efficacy, safety and learning curve of colonic hybrid knife (HK) ESD versus CSI‐EMR for en bloc excision of 50 mm diameter hemi‐circumferential artificial lesions in a porcine model. Patients and Methods: Two separate 50 mm diameter areas of normal recto‐sigmoid mucosa were marked out in each of ten pigs. One was excised with HK‐ESD using succinylated gelatin (SG) submucosal injection. The other was isolated with CSI with the Insulated Tip Knife 2 followed by SG submucosal injection then EMR with a large snare. Euthanasia and colectomy was performed at 72 h followed by blinded histopathology assessment. Results: En bloc excision rates were: HK‐ESD 100% versus CSI‐EMR 20% (P = 0.008). The mean number of resections per lesion was HK‐ESD 1 versus CSI‐EMR 3 (P = 0.001). The mean dimensions of the largest specimen per technique were HK‐ESD 63 × 54 mm versus CSI‐EMR 49 × 41 mm (P = 0.005). Procedure duration mean was HK‐ESD 54 min versus CSI‐EMR 22 min (P < 0.001). When procedure duration was adjusted for the size of the resected en bloc specimen, a statistically significant and accelerated learning effect was noted for HK‐ESD (r = ?0.83, P = 0.003). There were no perforations and no significant bleeding. Conclusions: HK‐ESD with SG submucosal injection is superior to CSI‐EMR for en bloc excision of 50 mm diameter lesions in a porcine model. The technique is rapidly learnt. This novel approach may lower the barrier to colonic ESD for Western endoscopists.     

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.     

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.     

EN BLOC REMOVAL OF A GASTRIC CARCINOID TUMOR USING ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION TECHNIQUES

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has recently been applied to the resection of gastric submucosal tumors other than carcinoid tumors. We describe a case of gastric carcinoid tumor enucleated with ESD. An 82‐year‐old woman was referred for treatment of a gastric tumor. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy revealed a solitary submucosal tumor in the greater curvature of the gastric body. We diagnosed a carcinoid tumor by histological examination of biopsy specimens. Endoscopic ultrasound revealed a hypoechoic mass in the submucosal layer. Neither lymph node nor liver metastasis was recognized. The serum gastrin level was normal, and this tumor was classified as a type III (sporadic) carcinoid tumor. Endoscopic resection was decided on considering her age, general status, and wishes. We used ESD techniques, because the tumor was too large to be resected by conventional endoscopic mucosal resection. En bloc resection was performed. Histological examination of the 13 × 19 × 11 mm resected specimen showed that the cut end was free of tumor cells. Type III carcinoid tumor is usually treated by surgical resection with lymph node dissection. However, in high‐risk elderly patients we consider ESD to be a therapeutic option for local control of gastric carcinoid tumors.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for residual/locally recurrent lesions after endoscopic therapy for colorectal tumors

Background and Study Aim: Residual or locally recurrent lesions may occur after endoscopic therapy for epithelial colorectal tumors. Additional endoscopic mucosal resection is difficult for large lesions. Endoscopic submucosal dissection may be useful for such lesions, but may be more technically difficult for residual/locally recurrent lesions than for primary lesions. This study evaluated the efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for residual/locally recurrent lesions in comparison with primary lesions. Method: This retrospective case‐control investigated 34 residual/locally recurrent lesions and 384 primary lesions treated using endoscopic submucosal dissection. Tumor size, resected specimen size, procedure duration, en bloc resection rate, curative resection rate, histology, associated complications, and recurrence rate were compared between groups. Results: Procedure duration tended to be longer (85 ± 53 min vs 73 ± 55 min) and tumors were significantly smaller (20 ± 13 mm vs 33 ± 20 mm; P < 0.001) in the residual/locally recurrent group, compared with primary lesions. Both groups showed similar percentages of en bloc (100% vs 97.4%) and curative resection (88.4% vs. 83.6%). Perforation rate was significantly higher in the residual/locally recurrent group (14.7% vs 4.4%, P < 0.05). However, emergency surgery was only needed in 1 of 5 cases in the residual/locally recurrent group, with the remaining 4 cases conservatively managed using endoclips. Conclusions: Endoscopic submucosal dissection for residual/locally recurrent lesions was curative and efficacy. This procedure could help to avoid surgical resection and frequent follow‐up examinations in many patients.     

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.     

Endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device is an effective and safe treatment for carcinoid tumors in the lower rectum

Background and Aims: Various methods for complete endoscopic resection of rectal carcinoid tumors have been reported; however, the number of cases investigated in each study has been limited. The aim of the present study was to clarify the clinical usefulness of a novel technique named endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device (ESMR‐L) in a large number of rectal carcinoid tumors. Patients and methods: Between January 1999 and March 2005, a total of 61 patients with 63 rectal carcinoid tumors estimated at 10 mm or less in diameter, without atypical features and resected by ESMR‐L were recruited for this analysis. The complete resection rate, complications associated with the procedure, local recurrence, and distant metastases were evaluated. Results: Sixty‐one patients were 36 males and 25 females with a mean age of 59 ± 11 years (24–76 years). Tumor size ranged from 2 to 12 mm in diameter, with an average size of 6.4 ± 2.4 mm. Fifty‐nine lesions (93.6%) were located in the lower rectum (Rb), three in the upper rectum (Ra) and one in the recto‐sigmoid colon (Rs). In total, 60 out of 63 lesions (95.2%) were histologically determined to be completely resected. The complete resection rate for lesions located in the Rb was 98.3%, which was significantly higher than that for lesions in Ra and Rs (50%). Minor bleeding associated with the procedure occurred in five lesions (7.9%), but all cases were successfully managed with hemoclips. Histopathologically, all tumors were located in the submucosal layer, and all were classified as classical‐type carcinoids without lymphovascular invasion. Neither local recurrence nor distant metastasis was detected during a median follow‐up period of 24 months. Conclusion: In a large number of cases, ESMR‐L proved to be a useful and safe procedure to resect rectal carcinoid tumors 10 mm or less in diameter, especially for those located in the Rb.     

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.     

RISK MANAGEMENT OF THERAPEUTIC COLONOSCOPY (HOT BIOPSY,POLYPECTOMY, ENDOSCOPIC MUCOSAL RESECTION AND ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION)

The concept of an adenoma–carcinoma sequence has been widely accepted in the colon and rectum, contrary to that in gastric cancer. Consequently, most target lesions for endoscopic resection using these newly developed techniques are histologically assessed as adenoma or intramucosal carcinoma in adenoma. Based on results in conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), almost all remnant or recurrent tumors can be successfully managed by salvage EMR, and all materials resected by salvage EMR also showed adenoma or intramucosal cancer. These results suggest that en bloc resection is not always clinically necessary to obtain complete cure for all colorectal neoplasia. However, larger lesions tend to be resected in a piecemeal fashion; it is difficult to confirm whether EMR has been completed or not. For precise histopathological assessment of the resected specimen, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for en bloc resection is desirable, although further experience is needed to establish its safety and efficacy. The present review contains a summary of the risk management of therapeutic colonoscopy including ESD for large colorectal mucosal neoplasia, debated at the Endoscopic Forum Japan 2006, Hakone, and discussion of the problems and future prospects of these procedures.     

LOW‐FREQUENCY OF BACTEREMIA AFTER ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION OF THE STOMACH

Background: Mainstream therapy for early gastric cancer in Japan has now shifted from endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Although bacteremia is reported as being infrequent and transient in gastric EMR, there are no reports of it being investigated in gastric ESD. This study aimed to determine the frequency of bacteremia in gastric ESD. Patients and Methods: A prospective study, in 46 consecutive patients who underwent gastric ESD, investigated the frequency of bacteremia before and after the procedure. Results: The median time for the total ESD procedure was 105 min (range 30–400). The median volume of the submucosal injection was 80 ml (range 20–260). The mean size of the resected specimen was 40 ± 9.7 mm. Blood cultures obtained before ESD were positive in 4.4% (2/45) of cases. Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus spp. were the isolated microorganisms. Blood cultures obtained 10 min after ESD were positive in 4.3% (2/46) of cases; with the same microorganisms being isolated. Blood cultures obtained 3 h after ESD were all negative. No signs of sepsis were seen in the two patients with a positive blood culture 10 min after ESD. Conclusions: The frequency of bacteremia after gastric ESD was low and transient. ESD for gastric lesions is thought to have a low risk of infectious complications; therefore, prophylactic administration of antibiotics may not be warranted.     

Single‐center implementation of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the colorectum: Low recurrence rate after intention‐to‐treat ESD

Background and Aim

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) shows higher R0 resection and lower local recurrence rates than endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in Japan. In Europe, independent learning of ESD in the colorectum is feasible, but yet to be analyzed for curative resection and recurrence rates.

Methods

After experimental training under supervision by Japanese experts (T.O., N.Y.), three endoscopists independently carried out 83 ESD procedures intention‐to‐treat for lesions in the entire colorectum of 67 patients in a prospective registry (November 2009 to June 2016).

Results

ESD was feasible in 80 (96%) colorectal neoplasias (mean diameter 33.6 [± 1.8] mm), and three more required conversion to piecemeal EMR. The lesions were adenomas in 66% with low‐grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN), 29% with high‐grade intraepithelial neoplasia, and 5% with carcinomas (G2, pT1). ESD had to be facilitated by the final use of snaring (hybrid‐ESD, n = 45), especially in the initial learning period. En‐bloc resection rate was 85%. Complications were microperforations (7%, conducive to one hemicolectomy), and delayed bleeding (1%) without mortality or long‐term morbidity. Residual adenomas with LGIN (5%) after hybrid‐ESD did not recur after endoscopic ablation. All malignant neoplasias (34%) were curatively resected without recurrence after a mean follow up of 19.5 (± 3.2) months.

Conclusions

During independent ESD learning in the colorectum, ESD intention‐to‐treat showed a low recurrence rate after appropriate training, and hybrid‐ESD showed acceptable complication and recurrence rates, justifying hybrid‐ESD as a strategy for self‐completion and rescue.     

CURRENT TECHNIQUES AND DEVICES FOR SAFE AND CONVENIENT ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION (ESD) AND KOREAN EXPERIENCE OF ESD

Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) technique has limitations in its capacity of achieving en bloc resection and, for lesions greater than 20 mm, removal in a piecemeal resection is often required. This leads to uncertainty as to whether or not the lesion has been completely removed and to an increase in local recurrence. To overcome this limitation, a new technique using specifically designed cutting devices, termed endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been developed. The present article discuss the current indication, new diagnostic, cutting and hemostatic devices and long‐term outcomes of EMR and ESD in early gastric cancer in Korea.     

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.     

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.