Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Group Research Articles

Clip-and-snare method with a pre-looping technique versus conventional method in the treatment of precancerous lesion and early gastric cancer: a retrospective study

BackgroundLow grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN) and high grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIN) are potential precancerous lesion of gastric neoplasms. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the first option for the treatment of precancerous lesion and early gastric cancer (EGC). Traction is an effective method to improve efficiency, and reduce complications during ESD. In this study, we shared a useful traction method using the clip-and-snare method with a pre-looping technique (CSM-PLT) for precancerous lesion and EGC.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients received ESD combined with CSM-PLT or conventional ESD from June 2018 to December 2021 in Shenzhen People’s hospital. The primary outcome was resection speed.ResultsForty-two patients were enrolled in ESD combined with CSM-PLT group and sixty-five patients in conventional ESD group respectively. Baseline characteristics were comparable among two groups (P>0.05). There were no significant differences in terms of R0 resection rate, en bloc resection rate (97.6% vs. 98.5%, P = 1.000 and 97.6% vs. 96.9%, P = 1.000, respectively), operation costs (933.7 (644.1-1102.4) dollars vs. 814.7 (614.6-988.3) dollars, P = 0.107), and hospital stays (8.0 ± 3.1 days vs. 7.3 ± 3.2 days, P = 0.236). In addition, no significant difference was observed with respect to complications (P>0.05). However, the resection speed of ESD combined with CSM-PLT was faster than that of conventional ESD (11.3 (9.4–14.9) mm2/min vs. 8.0 (5.8–10.9) mm2/min, P < 0.001), particularly lesions located in anterior wall and lesser curvature. In addition, the association between ESD combined with CSM-PLT and resection speed was still supported after propensity matching scores (PMS).ConclusionsCSM-PLT can help to improve ESD efficiency without reducing the en bloc resection rate or increasing the incidence of complications.

Rates of Recurrent Intestinal Metaplasia and Dysplasia After Successful Endoscopic Therapy of Barrett's Neoplasia by Endoscopic Mucosal Resection vs Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Ablation: A Large North American Multicenter Cohort.

Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) combining endoscopic resection (ER) with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) followed by ablation is the standard of care for the treatment of dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE). We have previously shown comparable rates of complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) with both approaches. However, data comparing recurrence after CRIM are lacking. We compared rates of recurrence after CRIM with both techniques in a multicenter cohort. Patients undergoing EET achieving CRIM at 3 academic institutions were included. Demographic and clinical data were abstracted. Outcomes included rates and predictors of any BE and dysplastic BE recurrence in the 2 groups. Cox-proportional hazards models and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis were used for analysis. A total of 621 patients (514 EMR and 107 ESD) achieving CRIM were included in the recurrence analysis. The incidence of any BE (15.7, 5.7 per 100 patient-years) and dysplastic BE recurrence (7.3, 5.3 per 100 patient-years) were comparable in the EMR and ESD groups, respectively. On multivariable analyses, the chances of BE recurrence were not influenced by ER technique (hazard ratio 0.87; 95% confidence interval 0.51-1.49; P = 0.62), which was also confirmed by IPTW analysis (ESD vs EMR: hazard ratio 0.98; 95% confidence interval 0.56-1.73; P = 0.94). BE length, lesion size, and history of cigarette smoking were independent predictors of BE recurrence. Patients with BE dysplasia/neoplasia achieving CRIM, initially treated with EMR/ablation, had comparable recurrence rates to ESD/ablation. Randomized trials are needed to confirm these outcomes between the 2 ER techniques.

Management of giant colorectal polyps (≥3 cm) by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) versus surgery: a propensity score–based analysis

AbstractAimGiant colorectal polyps (≥3 cm) can be managed by endoscopic excision or surgical resection. There has been a shift to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for the treatment of such lesions as the expertise in advanced therapeutic endoscopy develops. This study aims to compare the outcome and safety profile of ESD against surgical resection for patients with giant colorectal polyps.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review on patients with giant colorectal polyps removed by either ESD or surgery over a 10‐year period (from May 2010 to September 2020) in a regional hospital in Hong Kong. Propensity score matching was performed based on patient demographics and polyp characteristics. Outcomes including polyp histology, complication rates, length of hospital stay, and re‐admission rates were analysed.ResultsFifty‐one patients (ESD group: 34, surgery group: 17) were included in the analysis. The mean polyp diameter was 3.35 cm (ESD group) and 3.53 cm (surgery group). The median procedure time was comparable (160 vs 167 min; P = .251) and the most common polyp histological type was tubulovillous adenoma (44.1% vs 47.1%; P = .130) for both groups. A shorter median length of stay (1 day vs 6 days; P = .028) and lower re‐admission rate (0% vs 5.9%; P &lt; .001) were observed in the ESD group, whereas a higher major complication rate (Clavien–Dindo classification grade IIIa or above; 2.9% vs 11.7%; P = .013) was observed in the surgery group.ConclusionsESD is a safe and effective treatment for giant colonic polyps with ESD size ≥3 cm. It has the advantage of lower complication rates, shorter length of hospital stays, and lower re‐admission rates compared with surgical resection.

Therapeutic efficacy analysis of endoscopic combined with serological diagnosis strategy and endoscopic in G1 and G2 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms

Objective: To investigate the endoscopic combined serological diagnosis strategy for G1 and G2 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (G-NENs), and to evaluate the safety, short-term, and long-term efficacy of two endoscopic treatment procedures: endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 100 consecutive patients with G-NENs who were hospitalized at the Cancer Hospital of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences from January 2011 to October 2023. These patients underwent endoscopic treatment, and propensity score matching (PSM) was used to compare clinicopathological characteristics, as well as short-term and long-term efficacy of lesions in the EMR group and ESD group before and after treatment. Results: Among the 100 patients with G-NENs, the median age was 54 years old. Before surgery, 29 cases underwent endoscopic combined serological examination, and 24 of them (82.2%) had abnormally elevated plasma chromogranin A. The combined diagnostic strategy for autoimmune atrophic gastritis (AIG) achieved a diagnostic accuracy of 100%(22/22). A total of 235 G-NEN lesions were included, with 84 in the ESD group and 151 in the EMR group. The median size of the lesions in the ESD group (5.0 mm) was significantly larger than that in the EMR group (2.0 mm, P＜0.001). Additionally, the ESD group had significantly more lesions with pathological grade G2[23.8%(20/84) vs. 1.3%(2/151), P＜0.001], infiltration depth reaching the submucosal layer [78.6%(66/84) vs. 51.0%(77/151), P＜0.001], and more T2 stage compared to the EMR group[15.5%(13/84) vs. 0.7%(1/151), P＜0.001]. After PSM, 49 pairs of lesions were successfully matched between the two groups. Following PSM, there were no significant differences in the en bloc resection rate [100.0%(49/49) vs. 100.0%(49/49)], complete resection rate [93.9%(46/49) vs. 100.0%(49/49)], and complication rate [0(0/49) vs. 4.1%(2/49)] between the two groups. During the follow-up period, no recurrence or distant metastasis was observed in any of the lesions in both groups. Conclusions: The combination of endoscopy and serology diagnostic strategy has the potential to enhance the accuracy of diagnosing G1 and G2 stage G-NENs and their background mucosa. Endoscopic resection surgery (EMR, ESD) is a proven and safe treatment approach for G1 and G2 stage G-NENs.

Meta-Analysis of Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection Versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Complex Colorectal Lesions.

Studies evaluating endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for complex colorectal lesions have shown variable results. We conducted a meta-analysis of the available data. Online databases were searched for studies comparing EFTR versus ESD for complex colorectal lesions. The outcomes of interest were resection rates, procedure time (min), and complications. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) along with 95% CI were calculated. A total of 4 studies with 530 patients (n=215 EFTR, n=315 ESD) were included. The mean follow-up duration was 5 months. The mean age of the patients was 68 years and 64% were men. The EFTR and ESD groups had similar rates of en bloc resection (OR: 1.73, 95% CI: 0.60-4.97, P=0.31) and R0 resection (OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 0.55-4.14, P=0.42). The EFTR group had significantly reduced procedure time (SMD -1.87, 95% CI: -3.13 to -0.61, P=0.004), total complications (OR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.13-0.44, P<0.00001), perforation (OR: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.03-0.39, P=0.0005) and postresection electrocoagulation syndrome (OR: 0.06, 95% CI: 0.01-0.48, P=0.008). Delayed bleeding was similar in the 2 groups (OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.30-2.12, P=0.66). Residual/recurrent lesions were significantly higher in the EFTR group (OR: 4.67, 95% CI: 1.39-15.66, P=0.01). This meta-analysis of small studies with high heterogeneity showed that EFTR and ESD have comparable resection rates for complex colorectal lesions. EFTR is faster and has fewer complications, but it increases residual or recurrent lesions.

Comparison of endoscopic resection therapies for rectal neuroendocrine tumors

Aims This study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), clip-and-snare assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for the endoscopic resection of rectal NETs. Material and methods A retrospective analysis was performed on 47 patients with rectal NETs who underwent endoscopic treatment in The Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University. Manifestations of clinic pathological characteristics, complications, procedure time and hospitalization costs were studied. Results The complete resection rates with CS-EMR and ESD were significantly higher than those with EMR (CS-EMR vs. EMR, p = 0.038; ESD vs. EMR, p = 0.04), but no significant difference was found between the CS-EMR and ESD groups (p = 0.383). The lateral margin was less distant in the CS-EMR group than in the ESD group and there was no difference with regard to vertical margin (lateral margin distance, 1500 ± 3125 vs.3000 ± 3000 μm; vertical margin distance, 400 ± 275 vs.500 ± 500 μm). Compared to ESD, CS-EMR required less operation time (p < 0.01) and money (p < 0.01) and reduced the length of hospital stays (p < 0.01). Conclusions The CS-EMR technique is more effective and efficient than EMR for small rectal NETs. In addition, CS-EMR reduces procedure time, duration of post-procedure hospitalization and decreases patients’ cost compared to ESD while ensuring sufficient vertical margin distances.

Comparison of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection With Endoscopic Mucosal Resection After Circumferential Precutting to Treat Gastric Adenomas ≤15 mm

Objectives: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a widely used approach for the resection of superficial gastric neoplastic lesions. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is acceptable for lesions &lt;10–15 mm in size. Herein, we compared the clinical outcomes of ESD with those of EMR after circumferential precutting (EMR-P) for gastric adenomas ≤15 mm.Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the data of 213 patients with 228 gastric adenomas ≤15 mm in size who were treated endoscopically at a single tertiary hospital in Korea between November 2018 and October 2022. We evaluated the complete endoscopic resection rate, recurrence rate, procedurer-elated complications, and procedure time according to the procedure used.Results: Among the 228 gastric adenomas, 49 were treated with EMR-P and 179 with ESD. The histological complete resection rate was higher in the ESD group than in the EMR-P group (87% vs. 57%, &lt;i&gt;p&lt;/i&gt;&lt;0.001). No significant between-group differences were observed in endoscopic en bloc resection rates (ESD vs. EMR-P, 96% vs. 90%; &lt;i&gt;p&lt;/i&gt;=0.081). The procedure time was significantly shorter in the EMR-P group than in the ESD group (28.9±19.7 min vs. 8.8±5.9 min, &lt;i&gt;p&lt;/i&gt;&lt;0.001). The local recurrence rate in patients with histologically incomplete resection did not differ between the two groups (ESD vs. EMR-P, 8.7% vs. 9.5%; &lt;i&gt;p&lt;/i&gt;=0.924).Conclusions: For gastric adenomas ≤15 mm, EMR-P may be the preferable treatment method considering the en bloc resection rate, procedure time, and local recurrence rate. However, considering the complete resection rate, ESD is recommended as the treatment of choice for high-grade adenomas and early gastric cancer lesions.

Comparison of prognostic outcomes between endoscopic submucosal dissection and surgical treatment for early gastric cancer: a retrospective cohort study

Background and aimThe optimal management strategy for early gastric cancer (EGC) a topic of contention. This study aims to compare the prognostic outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and surgical treatment in patients diagnosed with EGC.MethodsIn thisretrospective cohort study, we analyzed data from539 patients diagnosed with EGC between January 2012 and December 2020 from two centers. We compared Clinicopathological features, procedure-related complications, recurrence rate, overall survival, and disease specific survival between the 262 patients who underwent ESD and the 277 patients who underwent surgical treatment. ESD procedures were conducted using a dual knife by experienced endoscopists, while surgical treatments included laparoscopic or open gastrectomy. Regular ollow-up examinations were conducted post-treatment.ResultsThe two groups exhibited comparable baseline characteristics. Multivariable Cox regression analysis identified vascular invasion as a risk factor for worse recurrence-free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) in patients with early gastric cancer. The ESD group experienced fewer overall postoperative complications compared to the surgical treatment group. Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated no significant differences in recurrence rate or overall survival between the two groups.ConclusionsBoth ESD and surgical treatment emerged as safe and effective approaches for managing EGC. The choice of treatment should be tailored to individual patient factors. ESD can be considered an alternative treatment option for selected patients who are not suitable candidates for surgery. Further studies are warranted to determine the long-term outcomes of ESD and surgical treatment for EGC.

Comparative efficacy and safety between endoscopic submucosal dissection, surgery and definitive chemoradiotherapy in patients with cT1N0M0 esophageal cancer.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and surgical resection are the standard of care for cT1N0M0 esophageal cancer (EC), whereas definitive chemoradiotherapy (d-CRT) is a treatment option. Nevertheless, the comparative efficiency and safety of ESD, surgery and d-CRT for cT1N0M0 EC remain unclear. To compare the efficiency and safety of ESD, surgery and d-CRT for cT1N0M0 EC. We retrospectively analyzed the hospitalized data of a total of 472 consecutive patients with cT1N0M0 EC treated at Sun Yat-sen University Cancer center between 2017-2019 and followed up until October 30th, 2022. We analyzed demographic, medical recorded, histopathologic characteristics, imaging and endoscopic, and follow-up data. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards modeling were used to analyze the difference of survival outcome by treatments. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to minimize potential confounding factors. We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent ESD (n = 99) or surgery (n = 220) or d-CRT (n = 16) at the Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center from 2017 to 2019. The median follow-up time for the ESD group, the surgery group, and the d-CRT group was 42.0 mo (95%CI: 35.0-60.2), 45.0 mo (95%CI: 34.0-61.75) and 32.5 mo (95%CI: 28.3-40.0), respectively. After adjusting for background factors using IPTW, the highest 3-year overall survival (OS) rate and 3-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate were observed in the ESD group (3-year OS: 99.7% and 94.7% and 79.1%; and 3-year RFS: 98.3%, 87.4% and 79.1%, in the ESD, surgical, and d-CRT groups, respectively). There was no difference of severe complications occurring between the three groups (P ≥ 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that treatment method, histology and depth of infiltration were independently associated with OS and RFS. For cT1N0M0 EC, ESD had better long-term survival and lower hospitalization costs than those who underwent d-CRT and surgery, with a similar rate of severe complications occurring.

Efficacy and safety of precutting endoscopic mucosal resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for non-ampullary superficial duodenal lesions

BackgroundEndoscopic treatments for non-ampullary superficial duodenal lesions (NASDLs) are yet to be standardized. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for NASDLs demands advanced techniques and a long procedure time to prevent perforation and bleeding. Precutting endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a technical modification of ESD that overcomes the limitations of ESD. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of precutting EMR versus ESD for NASDLs. MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with NASDLs treated with either precutting EMR or ESD from January 2015 to March 2023. ResultsA total of 90 patients with NASDLs were analyzed, with 44 patients in the precutting EMR group and 46 patients in the ESD group. The endoscopic procedure achieved satisfactory outcomes in both groups, with en block resection rate of 100.0 %. The R0 resection rates in the precutting EMR and ESD groups were 95.5 % and 93.5 %, respectively. No delayed perforation occurred postoperatively in either group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in age, gender, lesion location, layer of lesion origin, macroscopic type, and lesion size. The procedure time was significantly shorter in the precutting EMR group than in the ESD group (22.9 ± 7.1 min vs 36.0 ± 10.6 min, p<0.001). The intraoperative perforation rate was significantly lower in the precutting EMR group compared to ESD group (4.5% vs 19.6 %, p = 0.030). ConclusionsPrecutting EMR is comparable to ESD for NASDLs, demonstrating a lower intraoperative perforation rate and shorter procedure time compared to ESD.

Endoscopic resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor using clip-and-cut endoscopic full-thickness resection: a single-center, retrospective cohort in Korea.

To overcome the technical limitations of classic endoscopic resection for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), various methods have been developed. In this study, we examined the role and feasibility of clip-and-cut procedures (clip-and-cut endoscopic full-thickness resection [cc-EFTR]) for gastric GISTs. Medical records of 83 patients diagnosed with GISTs after endoscopic resection between 2005 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Moreover, clinical characteristics and outcomes were analyzed. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and cc-EFTR were performed in 51 and 32 patients, respectively. The GISTs were detected in the upper third of the stomach for ESD (52.9%) and cc-EFTR (90.6%). Within the cc-EFTR group, a majority of GISTs were located in the deep muscularis propria or serosal layer, accounting for 96.9%, as opposed to those in the ESD group (45.1%). The R0 resection rates were 51.0% and 84.4% in the ESD and cc-EFTR groups, respectively. Seven (8.4%) patients required surgical treatment (six patients underwent ESD and one underwent cc-EFTR,) due to residual tumor (n=5) and post-procedure adverse events (n=2). Patients undergoing R0 or R1 resection experienced recurrence during a median 14-month follow-up period, except for one patient in the ESD group. Cc-EFTR displayed high R0 resection rates as the procedure safely and successfully removed small gastric GISTs.

Efficacy of endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device for small rectal neuroendocrine tumor: study protocol of a multicenter open-label randomized control trial (BANDIT trial)

BackgroundEndoscopic resection is widely accepted as a local treatment for rectal neuroendocrine tumors sized ≤ 10 mm. However, there is no consensus on the best method for the endoscopic resection of rectal neuroendocrine tumors. As a simplified endoscopic procedure, endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device (ESMR-L) indicates a histologically complete resection rate comparable to that of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We hypothesized that ESMR-L than ESD would be preferred for rectal neuroendocrine tumors. Hence, this trial aimed to verify whether ESMR-L is non-inferior to ESD in terms of histologically complete resection rate.MethodsThis is a prospective, open-label, multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial of two parallel groups, conducted at the Shizuoka Cancer Center and 31 other institutions in Japan. Patients with a lesion endoscopically diagnosed as a rectal neuroendocrine tumor ≤ 10 mm are eligible for inclusion. A total of 266 patients will be recruited and randomized to undergo either ESD or ESMR-L. The primary endpoint is the rate of en bloc resection with histologically tumor-free margins (R0 resection). Secondary endpoints include en bloc resection rate, procedure time, adverse events, hospitalization days, total devices and agents cost, adverse event rate between groups with and without resection site closure, outcomes between expert and non-expert endoscopists, and factors associated with R0 resection failure. The sample size is determined based on the assumption that the R0 resection rate will be 95.2% in the ESD group and 95.3% in the ESMR-L group, with a non-inferiority margin of 8%. With a one-sided significance level of 0.05 and a power of 80%, 226 participants are required. Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, 266 patients will be included in this study.DiscussionThis is the first multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing ESD and ESMR-L for the R0 resection of rectal neuroendocrine tumors ≤ 10 mm. This will provide valuable information for standardizing endoscopic resection methods for rectal neuroendocrine tumors.Trial registrationJapan Registry of Clinical Trials, jRCTs042210124. Registered on Jan 6, 2022.

Optimization of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Strategies for Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors Within 20mm.

No consensus regarding the optimal endoscopic resection approach for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (R-NETs) measuring 10-20mm, this study aims to investigate this issue. Patients with R-NETs underwent either endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The primary endpoint was the complete resection rate, and the secondary endpoints were surgery-related complications and long-term outcomes. 96 patients met the inclusion criteria, 84 patients completed endoscopic resection, and 5 patients were excluded. 79 patients were enrolled and divided into EMR (n = 21) and ESD groups (n = 58). 100% of ESD excisions reached the primary endpoint, while 90.5% of EMR. Endoscopic submucosal dissection can achieve higher R0 rate and lower positive margin rate than EMR. The mean operative time of ESD and EMR was 35.22 ± 8.96min and 13.14 ± 3.26min, respectively. The complication rates of ESD and EMR were 3.4% and 4.8%, respectively. For R-NETs between 10mm and 20mm, the R0 rate of ESD was significantly higher than that of EMR (100% vs 71.4%, P = .01) and the margin positive rate of ESD was significant lower than that of EMR (4.8% vs 42.9%, P < .05). Both ESD and EMR obtained 100% R0 resection of less than 10mm R-NET. The median follow-up was 13months (3-84months); 1 patient relapsed 25months after EMR and was re-treated with ESD. For R-NETs with a diameter less than 10mm, both EMR and ESD were safe and effective and EMR is convenient and fast, with advantages. ESD offers superiority for R-NETs between 10 and 20mm and can be considered as the preferred method.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection with additional radiotherapy for T1a-MM/T1b-SM esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Objective: To clarify the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with additional radiotherapy in T1a-MM/T1b-SM esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 71 patients with T1a-MM/T1b-SM ESCC admitted to Southeast University Affiliated Zhongda Hospital from January 2015 to December 2019. The patients were divided into two groups based on the treatment method: the ESD group (ESD therapy alone) and the ESD-radiotherapy group (ESD combined radiotherapy). The follow-up duration after ESD was (44±17) months. The difference of disease-free survival (DFS) rate and overall survival (OS) rate between the two groups was compared by survival analysis, and the occurrence of complications was compared. Baseline variables of the two groups were compared and the influencing factors of DFS rate were analyzed by Cox proportional risk regression model. Results: There were 44 patients in the ESD-radiotherapy group [28 males, 16 females, aged (65±7) years] and 27 patients in the ESD group [18 males, 9 females, aged (67±9) years]. The results of survival analysis show that the 1, 3 and 5-year DFS rates of ESD-radiotherapy group were 95.5%, 92.9% and 77.4%, respectively, which were higher than those of ESD group 85.2%, 73.2% and 62.7% (all P<0.05). The 1, 3 and 5-year OS rates of the ESD-radiotherapy group were 100%, 94.7% and 94.7%, while those of the ESD group were 96.3%, 96.3% and 79.4%, respectively. The difference was not statistically significant (all P>0.05). Cox proportional hazard regression model analysis showed that ESD combined with radiotherapy (HR=0.19, 95%CI: 0.04-0.90, P=0.037), complete tumor resection (HR=0.25, 95%CI: 0.07-0.86, P=0.027), and vascular invasion (HR=12.06, 95%CI: 1.61-90.26, P=0.015) were the influencing factors of DFS rates. The most common complication of ESD was esophageal stenosis, and no grade 3 or higher radiation adverse reactions occurred after combined radiotherapy. Conclusion: ESD combined radiotherapy is an effective and safe therapeutic strategy for patients with T1a-MM/T1b-SM ESCC.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection vs. endoscopic submucosal dissection of residual/recurrent colonic lesions on scars: a retrospective Italian and Japanese comparative study.

Endoscopic treatment of recurrent/residual colonic lesions on scars is a challenging procedure. In this setting, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is considered the first choice, despite a significant rate of complications. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) has been shown to be well-tolerated and effective for these lesions. The aim of this study is to conduct a comparison of outcomes for resection of such lesions between ESD and eFTR in an Italian and a Japanese referral center. From January 2018 to July 2020, we retrospectively enrolled patients with residual/recurrent colonic lesions, 20 treated by eFTR in Italy and 43 treated by ESD in Japan. The primary outcome was to compare the two techniques in terms of en-bloc and R0-resection rates, whereas complications, time of procedure, and outcomes at 3-month follow-up were evaluated as secondary outcomes. R0 resection rate was not significantly different between the two groups [18/20 (90%) and 41/43 (95%); P= 0.66]. En-bloc resection was 100% in both groups. No significant difference was found in the procedure time (54 min vs. 61 min; P= 0.9). There was a higher perforation rate in the ESD group [11/43 (26%) vs. 0/20 (0%); P= 0.01]. At the 3-month follow-up, two lesions relapsed in the eFTR cohort and none in the ESD cohort (P= 0.1). eFTR is a safer, as effective and equally time-consuming technique compared with ESD for the treatment of residual/recurrent colonic lesions on scars and could become an alternative therapeutic option for such lesions.

Immediate Results of Colonic Flat Epithelial Neoplasms Removal Using Diathermic Snare Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Mucosectomy Combined with Dissection in the Submucosal Layer: Comparative Assessment

Aim: to compare the immediate outcomes of removing colonic flat epithelial neoplasms by using diathermic snare endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and mucosectomy with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).Materials and methods. Ninety-six endoscopic procedures were conducted on the colon of 93 patients with flat epithelial neoplasms. The mean age of patients was 64.9 ± 10.7 years, with an age range of 39 to 88 years. The size range of epithelial neoplasms was 20 to 70 mm, with a median of 37.4 ± 14.8 mm. Only patients with benign epithelial neoplasms were included in the study since patients with suspected malignancy in laterally spreading tumors are indicated for ESD intervention to avoid fragmentary excision and risk of colorectal cancer progression due to possible positive resection margins. The patients were separated into two equally sized groups and treated with EMR and ESD methods.Results. Epithelial neoplasms in the ESD group had an average size of 41.6 ± 15 mm while those in the EMR group had an average size of 33.1 ± 13.5 mm. The ESD group had an average intervention time of 143.6 ± 102.9 min, whereas the EMR group had an average intervention time of 52.6 ± 34.4 min. Both groups (96 adenomas) had a total of 10 (10.4 %) patients who experienced colonic perforations during the intervention, with 4 (4.1 %) cases observed in the EMR group and 6 (6.2 %) in the ESD group. No statistically significant differences were identified in the occurrence of perforations during the operation (p = 0.7401). ESD resulted in an en bloc removal rate of 44/48 (91.6 %), whereas EMR only achieved a rate of 14/48 (29.1 %).Conclusion. Endoscopic mucosectomy with submucosal dissection (ESD), in contrast to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with diathermic snare, provides a higher frequency of tumor removal en bloc, regardless of tumor size, but is characterized by a longer duration of intervention (p &lt; 0.0001). In the ESD group, there were twice as many intraoperative bleedings (p = 0.0061) due to the longer duration and technical complexity of the procedure. There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of late complications between the groups (p = 0.9999). Local recurrence of adenoma developed in two patients (4.1 %) after pEMR, statistically significant differences were noted (p &lt; 0.0006).

Comparison of clinical outcomes and prognosis between surgery and endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with synchronous multifocal early gastric cancer

BackgroundSynchronous multiple early gastric cancer (SMEGC) refers to the simultaneous occurrence of two or more malignant cancer lesions in the stomach. For patients with multiple early gastric carcinomas, the choice of appropriate treatment remains controversial. This study is dedicated to comparing the clinical outcomes and prognosis of patients with SMEGC who underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or gastrectomy.MethodsA total of 180 patients with more than one malignant cancer lesion in the stomach who had received gastrectomy or ESD between 2012 and 2021 were retrospectively evaluated to determine their clinical outcomes and prognosis. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were utilized to identify risk factors for tumor recurrence.ResultsOver the 57.5 months median follow-up period for the 140 enrolled cases, tumor recurrence occurred in 8 (12%) in the ESD group but only 1 (1%) in the surgery group. Relapse-free survival (RFS) was higher in the surgery group (p = 0.023) in all cases; however, there was no significant difference in Overall survival (OS, p = 0.772). Complications were significantly higher in the surgery group than in the ESD group, but fewer in the radical distal gastrectomy group. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that ESD(p = 0.034), the main lesion size > 2 cm(p = 0.019), and undifferentiated tumor(p = 0.022) were independent risk factors for tumor recurrence.ConclusionsFor the treatment of simultaneous multifocal early gastric cancer, ESD has a good short-term effect and higher quality of life. However, ESD has a higher risk of recurrence than surgery. And we found that the partial gastrectomy appears to be considered as adequate treatment for some SMEGC patients.

Comparison of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus surgery for early gastric cancer in the elderly: a pooled analysis

PurposeThe aim of this study was to investigate whether there was a difference in overall survival (OS) between elderly patients with early gastric cancer (EGC) who underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and those who underwent surgery.MethodsFour databases including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and CKNI were searched on March 20, 2023. The characteristics of the studies and the baseline information of the patients, including their medical histories, postoperative data, and prognoses, were recorded. Odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled up to calculate baseline information and postoperative information. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were used to calculate the prognosis of the patients. Stata V16.0 software was used for the data analysis.ResultsA total of eight studies involving 2334 patients were included for the data analysis in this study. After pooling up the data, we found that the ESD group had lower Eastern Cooperative Oncology Groupprevious (ECOG) scores (OR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.65, I2 = 59.69%, P = 0.00 < 0.05) than the surgery group. There were significant differences in the operation time (MD = -3.38, 95% CI = -5.19 to -1.57, I2 = 98.31%, P = 0.00 < 0.05), length of hospital stay (MD = -3.01, 95% CI = -4.81 to -1.20, I2 = 98.83%, P = 0.00 < 0.05) and hospitalization expenses (MD = -2.67, 95% CI = -3.59 to -1.75, I2 = 93.21%, P = 0.00 < 0.05) between the two groups. The ESD group had a lower OS rate (HR = 2.81, 95% CI = 2.20 to 3.58, I2 = 12.28%, P = 0.00 < 0.05).ConclusionElderly patients with EGC who underwent ESD had a significantly worse OS rate than those who underwent surgery. If the patient’s condition was suitable, surgery was still recommended for these patients.

Clinical Outcome of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Papillary Type Early Gastric Cancer: A Multicenter Study.

Papillary adenocarcinoma is classified to differentiated-type gastric cancer and is indicated for endoscopic submucosal dissection. However, due to its rare nature, there are limited studies on it. The purpose of this study was to determine the outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with papillary-type early gastric cancer and to find the risk factors of lymph node metastasis. Patients diagnosed with papillary-type early gastric cancer at eight medical centers, who underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection or surgical treatment, were retrospectively reviewed. The clinical results and long-term outcomes of post-endoscopic submucosal dissection were evaluated, and the risk factors of lymph node metastasis in the surgery group were analyzed. One-hundred and seventy-six patients with papillary-type early gastric cancer were enrolled: 44.9% (n=79) in the surgery group and 55.1% (n=97) in the endoscopic submucosal dissection group. As a result of endoscopic submucosal dissection, the en bloc resection and curative resection rates were 91.8% and 86.6%, respectively. The procedure-related complication rate was 4.1%, and local recurrence occurred in 3.1% of patients. Submucosal invasion (odds ratio, 3.735; 95% confidence interval, 1.026 to 12.177; p=0.047) and lymphovascular invasion (odds ratio, 7.636; 95% confidence interval, 1.730 to 22.857; p=0.004) were the risk factors of lymph node metastasis in papillary-type early gastric cancer patients. The clinical results of endoscopic submucosal dissection in papillary-type early gastric cancer were relatively favorable, and endoscopic submucosal dissection is considered safe if appropriate indications are confirmed by considering the risk of lymph node metastasis.

Significance of rescue hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection in difficult colorectal cases.

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), in which an incision is made around a lesion and snaring is performed after submucosal dissection, has some advantages in colorectal surgery, including shorter procedure time and preventing perforation. However, its value for rescue resection in difficult colorectal ESD cases remains unclear. This study evaluated the utility of rescue hybrid ESD (RH-ESD). We divided 364 colorectal ESD procedures into the conventional ESD group (C-ESD, n=260), scheduled hybrid ESD group (SH-ESD, n=69), and RH-ESD group (n=35) and compared their clinical outcomes. Resection time was significantly shorter in the following order: RH-ESD (149 [90-197] minutes) >C-ESD (90 [60-140] minutes) >SH-ESD (52 [29-80] minutes). The en bloc resection rate increased significantly in the following order: RH-ESD (48.6%), SH-ESD (78.3%), and C-ESD (97.7%). An analysis of factors related to piecemeal resection of RH-ESD revealed that the submucosal dissection rate was significantly lower in the piecemeal resection group (25% [20%-30%]) than in the en bloc resection group (40% [20%-60%]). RH-ESD was ineffective in terms of curative resection because of the low en bloc resection rate, but was useful for avoiding surgery.