Tu1551 Comparison of Efficacy Between the Different Endoscopic Resection Methods for the Treatment of Colorectal Neoplasia

Abstract

Backgrounds/AimEndoscopic treatments have yet to be standardized for the management of colorectal neoplasia. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy and tolerability of different endoscopic resection methods for the treatment of colorectal epithelial tumors.MethodsPatients with colorectal tumors undergoing endoscopic treatments were consecutively enrolled and their medical records were reviewed retrospectively. The resection methods were classified into three groups; endoscopic mucosal resection with precutting (EMR-P), endoscopic submucosal dissection with snare (ESD-S), and only endoscopic submucosal dissection (only ESD). We compared en bloc resection rate, pathologic complete resection rate, and complication rate between these different resection methods.ResultsOne hundred fifty four lesions from 154 patients were included (men, 96; mean age, 62.7±9.9 years). The number of patients allocated in EMR-P, ESD-S, and only ESD were 64 (41.6%), 51 (33.1%), and 39 (25.3%), respectively. The mean procedure time (min) was longer in ESD group than EMR-P group (EMR-P 40.6, ESD-S 67.2, only ESD 69.8%, p=0.001). There were significant differences in en bloc resection rate (EMR-P 51.6%, ESD-S 68.6%, only ESD 100%, p=0.001) and complete resection rate (EMR-P 37.5%, ESD-S 58.8%, only ESD 69.2%, p=0.044) between groups. Perforation appeared to be more observed in ESD group than EMR-P group (EMR-P 9.2%, ESD-S 21.6%, only ESD 13.1%, p=0.071). During mean follow-up period 16.7 months (6-30), there was no recurrence in any patient.ConclusionEMR-P method with good feasibility may take a transitional role before initiating ESD method in the treatment of colorectal neoplasia. Backgrounds/AimEndoscopic treatments have yet to be standardized for the management of colorectal neoplasia. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy and tolerability of different endoscopic resection methods for the treatment of colorectal epithelial tumors. Endoscopic treatments have yet to be standardized for the management of colorectal neoplasia. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy and tolerability of different endoscopic resection methods for the treatment of colorectal epithelial tumors. MethodsPatients with colorectal tumors undergoing endoscopic treatments were consecutively enrolled and their medical records were reviewed retrospectively. The resection methods were classified into three groups; endoscopic mucosal resection with precutting (EMR-P), endoscopic submucosal dissection with snare (ESD-S), and only endoscopic submucosal dissection (only ESD). We compared en bloc resection rate, pathologic complete resection rate, and complication rate between these different resection methods. Patients with colorectal tumors undergoing endoscopic treatments were consecutively enrolled and their medical records were reviewed retrospectively. The resection methods were classified into three groups; endoscopic mucosal resection with precutting (EMR-P), endoscopic submucosal dissection with snare (ESD-S), and only endoscopic submucosal dissection (only ESD). We compared en bloc resection rate, pathologic complete resection rate, and complication rate between these different resection methods. ResultsOne hundred fifty four lesions from 154 patients were included (men, 96; mean age, 62.7±9.9 years). The number of patients allocated in EMR-P, ESD-S, and only ESD were 64 (41.6%), 51 (33.1%), and 39 (25.3%), respectively. The mean procedure time (min) was longer in ESD group than EMR-P group (EMR-P 40.6, ESD-S 67.2, only ESD 69.8%, p=0.001). There were significant differences in en bloc resection rate (EMR-P 51.6%, ESD-S 68.6%, only ESD 100%, p=0.001) and complete resection rate (EMR-P 37.5%, ESD-S 58.8%, only ESD 69.2%, p=0.044) between groups. Perforation appeared to be more observed in ESD group than EMR-P group (EMR-P 9.2%, ESD-S 21.6%, only ESD 13.1%, p=0.071). During mean follow-up period 16.7 months (6-30), there was no recurrence in any patient. One hundred fifty four lesions from 154 patients were included (men, 96; mean age, 62.7±9.9 years). The number of patients allocated in EMR-P, ESD-S, and only ESD were 64 (41.6%), 51 (33.1%), and 39 (25.3%), respectively. The mean procedure time (min) was longer in ESD group than EMR-P group (EMR-P 40.6, ESD-S 67.2, only ESD 69.8%, p=0.001). There were significant differences in en bloc resection rate (EMR-P 51.6%, ESD-S 68.6%, only ESD 100%, p=0.001) and complete resection rate (EMR-P 37.5%, ESD-S 58.8%, only ESD 69.2%, p=0.044) between groups. Perforation appeared to be more observed in ESD group than EMR-P group (EMR-P 9.2%, ESD-S 21.6%, only ESD 13.1%, p=0.071). During mean follow-up period 16.7 months (6-30), there was no recurrence in any patient. ConclusionEMR-P method with good feasibility may take a transitional role before initiating ESD method in the treatment of colorectal neoplasia. EMR-P method with good feasibility may take a transitional role before initiating ESD method in the treatment of colorectal neoplasia.