Endoscopic Resection Methods Research Articles

A method of “Noninjecting Resection using Bipolar Soft coagulation mode; NIRBS” for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumor: a pilot study

BackgroundComplete endoscopic resection of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) is technically difficult, especially with an extremely high risk of adverse event (AE), although various endoscopic resection methods including endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), underwater EMR (UEMR), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) have been tried for SNADETs. Accordingly, a novel simple resection method that can completely resect tumors with a low risk of AEs should be developed.AimsA resection method of Noninjecting Resection using Bipolar Soft coagulation mode (NIRBS) which has been reported to be effective and safe for colorectal lesions is adapted for SNADETs. In this study we evaluated its effectiveness, safety, and simplicity for SNADETs measuring ≤ 20 mm.ResultsThis study included 13 patients with resected lesions with a mean size of 7.8 (range: 3–15) mm. The pathological distributions of the lesions were as follows: adenomas, 77% (n = 10) and benign and non-adenomatous lesions, 23% (n = 3). The en bloc and R0 resection rate was 100% (n = 13). The median procedure duration was 68 s (32–105). None of the patients presented with major AEs including bleeding and perforation.ConclusionsLarge studies such as prospective, randomized, and controlled trials should be conducted for the purpose of validating effectiveness, safety, and simplicity of the NIRBS for SNADETs measuring ≤ 20 mm suggested in this study.

Endoscopic resection of extra-luminal gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors using a snare assisted external traction technique (with video)

ObjectiveThe primary purpose of the study was to explore the clinical efficacy of the novel snare assisted endoscopic resection of extraluminal growing gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (gastric GISTs) using external traction, and the secondary purpose was to compare the novel snare assisted endoscopic resection of extraluminal GISTs with the standard laparoscopic procedure. MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the patients who underwent novel external traction assisted endoscopic resection or laparoscopic resection for their extraluminal gastric GIST ≤5 cm in diameter. ResultsA total of 111 patients (27 in the endoscopic group and 84 in the laparoscopic group) were included in this study. There was no significant difference in tumor diameter and complication rate between the two groups. The overall procedure time was slightly higher in the endoscopic group compared to the laparoscopic group (P = 0.034). However, postoperative hospitalization time (P < 0.001) and postoperative fasting time (P = 0.005) were shorter in the endoscopic group compared to the laparoscopic group. ConclusionSnare external traction-assisted endoscopic resection of extraluminal growing gastric GISTs is safe and effective, and it provides a new adjunctive method for endoscopic resection of GIST.

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.

Short-term outcomes of endoscopic resection for colorectal neuroendocrine tumors: Japanese multicenter prospective C-NET STUDY.

The incidence of colorectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) has increased with colorectal cancer screening programs and increased colonoscopies. The management of colorectal NETs has recently shifted from radical surgery to endoscopic resection. We aimed to evaluate the short-term outcomes of various methods of endoscopic resection for colorectal NETs. Among those registered in the C-NET STUDY, patients with colorectal NETs who underwent endoscopic treatment as the initial therapy were included. Short-term outcomes, such as the en bloc resection rate and R0 resection (en bloc resection with tumor-free margin) rate, were analyzed based on treatment modalities. A total of 472 patients with 477 colorectal NETs received endoscopic treatment. Of these, 418 patients with 421 lesions who met the eligibility criteria were included in the analysis. The median age of the patients was 55 years, and 56.9% of them were men. The lower rectum was the most commonly affected site (88.6%), and lesions <10 mm accounted for 87% of the cases. Endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device (ESMR-L, 56.5%) was the most common method, followed by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD, 31.4%) and endoscopic mucosal resection using a cap (EMR-C, 8.5%). R0 resection rates <10 mm were 95.5%, 94.8%, and 94.3% for ESMR-L, ESD, and EMR-C, respectively. All 16 (3.8%) patients who developed treatment-related complications could be treated conservatively. Overall, 23 (5.5%) patients had incomplete resection without independent clinicopathological risk factors. ESMR-L, ESD, and EMR-C were equally effective and safe for colorectal NETs with a diameter <10 mm.

Conventional versus underwater endoscopic resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours.

Several endoscopic resection methods have been developed as less invasive treatments for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours. This study aimed to compare outcomes of conventional endoscopic mucosal resection and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours, including resection depth and rate of the muscularis mucosa contained under the lesion. This single-centre retrospective cohort study conducted from January 2009 to December 2021 enrolled patients who underwent conventional endoscopic mucosal resection and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours and investigated their clinicopathological outcomes using propensity score matching. Of the 285 superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours, 98 conventional endoscopic mucosal resections and 187 underwater endoscopic mucosal resections were included. After propensity score matching, 64 conventional endoscopic mucosal resections and 64 underwater endoscopic mucosal resections were analysed. The R0 resection rate was significantly higher in underwater endoscopic mucosal resection cases than in conventional endoscopic mucosal resection cases (70.3% vs. 50.0%; P=0.030). In the multivariate analysis, a lesion diameter> 10mm (odds ratio 7.246; P=0.001), being in the 1st-50th treatment period (odds ratio 3.405; P=0.008), and undergoing conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio 3.617; P=0.016) were associated with RX/R1 resection. Furthermore, in underwater endoscopic mucosal resection cases, the R0 rate was significantly higher for lesions diameter≤10mm than >10mm, and was significantly higher in the 51st-treatment period than in the 1st-50th period. Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection cases showed no significant difference in resection depth and muscularis mucosa containing rate. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection may be more acceptable than conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours ≤ 10mm. A steep early learning curve may be acquired for underwater endoscopic mucosal resection. Large multicentre prospective studies need to be conducted to confirm the effectiveness of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection.

Comparison analysis of two different types of endoscopic resection procedures in small gastric subepithelial tumours originating frommuscularis propria

Background For small gastric subepithelial tumours originating from the muscularis propria, there is no uniform standard for selecting the best endoscopic resection method. Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic snare resection with a transparent cap (ESR-C) and endoscopic snare resection with an elastic band (ESR-EB) for small gastric subepithelial tumours originating from the muscularis propria to determine which method is more suitable for these tumours. Methods The data from small gastric subepithelial tumours originating from the muscularis propria treated from Jan 2020 to Dec 2022 were collected. A total of 34 eligible patients were enrolled. Sixteen of these patients were treated with ESR-C, and eighteen were treated with ESR-EB. The general clinical characteristics, tumour location, tumour size,growth pattern,operation time, complete resection rate, and complication rate were compared between the two groups. Results There was no difference in age, sex, tumour location, tumour size, growth pattern, or histological diagnosis after resection (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in operation time, complete resection rate, or follow-up time (p > 0.05). Eight patients (50.5%) in the ESR-C group had complications (6 perforations and 2 bleeding), and 2 (11.11%) in the ESR-EB group had complications (2 perforations). There were significant differences between the two groups (p = 0.037). All perforations were successfully treated. No recurrence or metastasis was observed in either group during the follow-up period. Conclusion Both ESR-C and ESR-EB are effective and safe in treating small gastric subepithelial tumours originating from the muscularis propria. However, ESR-EB can significantly reduce the incidence of complications. ESR-EB is likely a better option for small gastric subepithelial tumours originating from the muscularis propria.

Clinical Value of Clip-and-Snare Assisted Endoscopic Submucosal Resection in Treatment of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors

Introduction: The aim of the study was to introduce a new endoscopic technology, clip-and-snare assisted endoscopic submucosal resection (CS-ESMR), for treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and then to investigate the therapeutic value of CS-ESMR. Methods: In this retrospective study, 67 patients who underwent endoscopic treatment of rectal NETs from March 2017 to December 2021 were analyzed. According to the endoscopic resection methods (endoscopic mucosal resection [EMR], CS-ESMR, and endoscopic submucosal dissection [ESD]), the cases were divided into CS-ESMR group (27 cases), ESD group (31 cases), and EMR group (9 cases). The pathological R0 resection rate and the incidence of adverse events (bleeding and perforation) were compared among the three groups. Results: There was a significant difference about the pathological R0 resection between the CS-ESMR group and the EMR group and between the CS-ESMR group and the ESD group (both p < 0.05). Compared with ESD group, the procedure time, intraoperative bleeding, and the cost of CS-ESMR group are significantly decreased (p < 0.001, p < 0.05, p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: CS-ESMR may be a safe and effective treatment for rectal NETs with a diameter of less than 10 mm, without muscularis propria invasion and metastasis.

Goldilocks principle of minimally invasive surgery for gastric subepithelial tumors.

Minimally invasive surgery had been tailored to individual cases of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs) after comparing the clinical outcomes of endoscopic resection (ER), laparoscopic resection (LR), and hybrid methods. To study the use of Goldilocks principle to determine the best form of minimally invasive surgery for gastric SETs. In this retrospective study, 194 patients of gastric SETs with high probability of surgical intervention were included. All patients underwent tumor resection in the operating theater between January 2013 and December 2021. The patients were divided into two groups, ER or LR, according to the tumor characteristics and the initial intent of intervention. Few patients in the ER group required further backup laparoscopic surgery after an incomplete ER. The patients who had converted open surgery were excluded. A logistic regression model was used to assess the associations between patient characteristics and the likelihood of a treatment strategy. The area under the curve was used to assess the discriminative ability of tumor size and Youden's index to determine the optimal cut-off tumor size. One-hundred ninety-four patients (100 in the ER group and 94 in the LR group) underwent tumor resection in the operating theater. In the ER group, 27 patients required backup laparoscopic surgery after an incomplete ER. The patients in the ER group had small tumor sizes and shorter procedure durations while the patients in the LR group had large tumor sizes, exophytic growth, malignancy, and tumors that were more often located in the middle or lower third of the stomach. Both groups had similar durations of hospital stays and a similar rate of major postoperative complications. The patients in the ER group who underwent backup surgery required longer procedures (56.4 min) and prolonged stays (2 d) compared to the patients in the LR group without the increased rate of major postoperative complications. The optimal cut-off point for the tumor size for laparoscopic surgery was 2.15 cm. Multidisciplinary teamwork leads to the adoption of different strategies to yield efficient clinical outcomes according to the tumor characteristics.

Clinical outcomes of esophageal granular cell tumors with different endoscopic resection methods

Esophageal granular cell tumors (GCTs), the second most common subepithelial tumors (SETs) of the esophagus, are potentially malignant with no definite management guidelines available. We retrospectively enrolled 35 patients with endoscopically resected esophageal GCTs between December 2008 and October 2021 and evaluated the clinical outcomes from the various methods performed. Several modified endoscopic mucosal resections (EMRs) were performed for treating esophageal GCTs. Clinical and endoscopic outcomes were evaluated. Mean age of patients was 55.8 ± 8.2, with majority being men (57.1%). Mean tumor size was 7.2 ± 2.6 mm, most (80.0%) were asymptomatic and present in the distal third of the esophagus (77.1%). Endoscopic characteristics predominantly included broad-based (85.7%) and whitish-to-yellowish color changes (97.1%). Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) of 82.9% of the tumors revealed homogeneous hypoechoic SETs originating from the submucosa. The five endoscopic treatment methods used were: ligation-assisted (77.1%), conventional (8.7%), cap-assisted (5.7%), and underwater (5.7%) EMRs and ESD (2.9%). Mean procedure time was 6.6 ± 2.1 min, and no procedure-associated complications were noted. The en-bloc and complete histologic resection rates were 100% and 94.3%, respectively. No recurrences were noted during follow-up, and no significant differences in the clinical outcomes of the different methods of endoscopic resection were found. Based on tumor characteristics and therapeutic outcomes, modified EMR methods can be effective and safe. However, there were no significant differences in the clinical outcomes of the different methods of endoscopic resection.

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

The optimal endoscopic resection method of challenging colorectal lesions, (i.e. adenomatous recurrences, laterally spreading non-granular tumors (LST-NG), lesions without lifting sign <30mm), is still under debate. Aim of our study was to directly compare Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD) and Endoscopic Full Thickness Resection (EFTR) for the resection of challenging colorectal lesions in a randomized trial. We underwent a multicenter prospective randomized study in four Italian referral centers. Consecutive patients referred for endoscopic resection of challenging lesions were randomly assigned to receive EFTR or ESD. Primary outcomes were R0 resection and en-bloc resection of lesions. We also compared technical success, procedure time, procedure speed, area of the resected specimen, complication rate and local recurrence rate at 6 months. Overall, 90 patients were included in the study, equally representing the three challenging lesion types. Age and sex were comparable in the two groups. En-bloc resection was obtained in 95.5% in EFTR group and in 93.3% in ESD group. R0 resection rate was comparable in the two groups (EFTR vs ESD: 42 [93.3%] vs 36 [80%], p=0.06. EFTR group showed a significantly shorter total procedure time (25.6 [10.6] vs 76.7 [26.4] minutes, p=<0.01) as well as overall procedure speed (16.8 [11.8] vs 11.9 [9.2] mm2/min, p=0.0.3). EFTR group showed a significantly smaller mean lesion size (21.6 mm [8.3] vs 28.7 mm [7.7], p=<0.01. Complications were reported less frequently in patients in the EFTR group (4.44 vs. 15.5 %, p=0.04). EFTR is comparable to ESD in the treatment of challenging colorectal lesions in terms of safety and efficacy. EFTR is considerably faster than ESD in the treatment of non-lifting lesions and adenoma recurrences.

Endoscopic versus Microsurgical Resection of Third Ventricle Colloid Cysts: A Single-Center Case Series of 140 Consecutive Patients

Both endoscopic and microsurgery transcortical resection methods are used for colloid cysts of the third ventricle but they have not been compared regarding benefits and pitfalls. Data of patients who underwent surgical resection of third ventricle colloid cyst via either endoscopic or microsurgery approach by a single surgeon from 2005 to 2020 were retrospectively collected. After administration of criteria, 140 records were retrieved (60 patients through endoscopic resection and 80 patients by a transcranial microsurgery approach). Clinical and surgical measures were compared between the 2 types of surgery after adjustment for confounders. Length of hospital stay, postoperative meningitis, operation time, cyst size, and baseline comorbidities were similar between two groups. Gross total resection (GTR) was achieved for all patients in the microsurgery group, whereas in the endoscopic group, resection was lower (90% vs. 100%; P= 0.005). Intraoperative hemorrhage occurred in 14 endoscopic patients (23.3%), whereas for the microscopic group, it was zero (P < 0.001). Postoperative shunt was required for 2 patients (one in the endoscopic group and the other in the microscopic group). Two patients had tumor recurrence, both of whom were in the endoscopic group. No mortality was detected in either group. Multivariate analyses were insignificant for confounding effects of clinical and demographic factors in occurrence of worse surgical outcomes (non-GTR and hemorrhage). In our series, the rate of intraoperative hemorrhage was higher with the endoscopic method and GTR was lower, even after adjustment for other factors. This situation could be caused by technological shortcomings and limited space for resection maneuvers and management of complications.

Efficacy and Safety of Gel Immersion Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has become a popular endoscopic resection method for large colorectal neoplasms. However, visualization can be poor during UEMR due to the presence of intestinal fluid. Gel immersion endoscopic mucosal resection (GIEMR), using a specially developed gel (Viscoclear®, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Factory, Tokushima, Japan), can improve the visual field. However, reports of GIEMR for colorectal polyps are limited. Herein, we evaluated the short-term outcomes of GIEMR for non-pedunculated colorectal neoplasms (NPCRN). This single-center, retrospective, and observational study includes 25 lesions in 20 patients with NPCRN who underwent GIEMR between January and October 2022. The short-term outcomes and adverse events were evaluated. The lesion locations were as follows: right colon, 18 lesions; left colon, 7 lesions; and rectum, none. The median tumor diameter was 15 (IQR, 10-18) mm. Histological classification was as follows: sessile serrated lesion, 9 cases; adenoma, 12 cases; and intramucosal adenocarcinoma, 4 cases. The overall en bloc resection rates and R0 resection rates were 80% (20/25) and 72% (18/25). For NPCRN in 10-19 mm, the en bloc resection rate was 75% (12/16), with an R0 resection rate of 69% (11/16). No post-polypectomy bleeding, perforation, or post-coagulation syndrome were observed. The findings of our study provide preliminary evidence of the efficacy and safety of GIEMR for NPCRN. Therefore, GIEMR may be a promising novel endoscopic resection method for NPCRN.

Comparison of endoscopic submucosal resection with ligation and endoscopic submucosal dissection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: A multicenter retrospective study.

ObjectivesEndoscopic submucosal resection with band ligation (ESMR‐L) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are both standard endoscopic resection methods for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) <10 mm in size. However, there is no definitive consensus on which is better. Here, we compared the efficacy of ESMR‐L and ESD for small rectal NETs.MethodsThis was a multicenter retrospective cohort study including 205 patients with rectal NETs who underwent ESMR‐L or ESD. Treatment outcomes were compared by univariate analysis, multivariate analysis, and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) using propensity scores. Subgroup analysis evaluated the impact of the endoscopist's experience on the technical outcome.ResultsEighty‐nine patients were treated by ESMR‐L and 116 by ESD. The R0 resection rate was not significantly different between the two (90% vs. 92%, p = 0.73). The procedure time of ESMR‐L was significantly shorter than for ESD (17 min vs. 52 min, p < 0.01) and the hospitalization period was also significantly shorter (3 days vs. 5 days, p < 0.01). These results were confirmed by multivariate analysis and also after IPTW adjustment. The procedure time of ESD was significantly prolonged by a less‐experienced endoscopist (49 min vs. 70 min, p = 0.02), but that of ESMR‐L was not affected (17 min vs. 17 min, p = 0.27).ConclusionsFor small rectal NETs, both ESMR‐L and ESD showed similar high complete resection rates. However, considering the shorter procedure time and shorter hospitalization period, ESMR‐L is the more efficient treatment method, especially for less‐experienced endoscopists.

Multidisciplinary treatment strategy for early colon cancer

Background: Treatment for early colon cancer has progressed rapidly with endoscopic resection and minimally invasive surgery. Selection of patients without risk of lymph node metastasis is necessary before deciding on endoscopic resection for early colon cancer treatment. We aimed to review the optimal multidisciplinary treatment strategies for early colon cancer, including endoscopy and surgery.Current Concepts: Pathological risk factors include histologic grade of cancer cell differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, tumor budding, and deep submucosal invasion. These risk factors for predicting lymph node metastasis are crucial for determining the treatment strategy of endoscopic excision and radical resection for early colon cancer. Prediction of the depth of invasion in early colon cancer using endoscopic optical assessments is vital to determine the appropriate treatment method for endoscopic or surgical resection. Furthermore, optical assessment of pit and vascular patterns is useful for estimating the depth of submucosal invasion using magnifying chromoendoscopy and narrow-band imaging endoscopy. Performing an endoscopic and pathologic evaluation of the risk factors for lymph node metastasis is imperative when selecting endoscopic or surgical resection. Endoscopic treatments include cold snare polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection, and endoscopic submucosal dissection. In addition, appropriate surgical treatment should be recommended for patients with early colon cancer with a high risk of lymph node metastasis.Discussion and Conclusion: A multidisciplinary approach should be recommended to establish an optimized treatment strategy, minimize the risk of complications, and obtain excellent oncologic outcomes via patienttailored treatment in patients with early colon cancer.

Analysis of risk factors of lymph node metastasis and comparison of endoscopic resection methods in rectal neuroendocrine neoplasm

Analysis of risk factors of lymph node metastasis and comparison of endoscopic resection methods in rectal neuroendocrine neoplasm

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (with videos): a single center retrospective study

BackgroundUnderwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UMER) is a new method of endoscopic resection to completely remove the lesion without submucosal injection. But few attempts have been carried out for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (rectal NETs).MethodsWe retrospectively investigated data on the tumor characteristics and outcomes of patients with ≤ 10 mm rectal NETs who underwent UEMR or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) from January 2019 to June 2021 in our institute.ResultsThe endoscopic resection rate was 100% in both UEMR and ESD groups. The histological complete resection rate of the UEMR group (95.5%) was lower than that of the ESD group (96.4%) with no significant difference. The average operation time, hospitalization time and operation cost of UEMR group were less than those of ESD group (P < 0.05). The incidence of postoperative abdominal pain and abdominal distention in the UEMR group was lower than that in the ESD group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of delayed bleeding and perforation between the two groups. There was no local recurrence or distant metastasis in the two groups during the follow-up period.ConclusionsBoth the UEMR and ESD can effectively treat ≤ 10 mm rectal NETs with invasion depth confined to the mucosa and submucosa. UEMR is superior to ESD in operation time, hospitalization time, operation cost, postoperative abdominal pain and abdominal distention.

Endoscopic resection for colorectal laterally spreading tumors in East Asian countries: a systematic review.

BackgroundTo assess the efficacy and safety of different endoscopic resection methods for colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) in East Asian countries.MethodsA literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases. Colorectal LSTs of the included studies were resected with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and/or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The main outcomes involved rates of en bloc resection, R0 resection, adverse events and recurrence.ResultsA total of 20 studies were finally included in the present study. The total number of lesions were 3,903 (EMR: 1,230, ESD: 2,673). EMR-en bloc resection was obtained in 395/591 (66.8%), with ESD-en bloc resection reported in 2,020/2,265 (89.2%) [odds ratio (OR) 0.244, P<0.0001, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.197–0.304]. EMR-R0 resection was achieved in 409/547 (74.8%), which was lower than that of ESD (1,895/2,241, 84.6%) (OR 0.541, P<0.0001, 95% CI: 0.432–0.677). Bleedings occurred more frequently in EMR than in ESD group (10.4% vs. 3.1%, OR 3.559, P<0.0001, 95% CI: 2.618–4.836). Rates of perforations in EMR and ESD were 0.4% and 4.1% (OR 0.099, P<0.0001, 95% CI: 0.036–0.27). Recurrence of EMR was higher than ESD group (6.3% vs. 1.0%, OR 6.732, P<0.0001, 95% CI: 3.751–12.082).DiscussionEndoscopic resections of colorectal LSTs are safe and effective. ESD leads to higher rates of en bloc and R0 resection, as well as lower rates of bleeding and recurrence, but it has a high risk of perforation, compared with EMR.

Influence of early colorectal cancer component on the positive margins after endoscopic resection: a retrospective study

BackgroundEndoscopic treatment methods for early colorectal cancer (ECRC) mainly depend on the size and morphology. It is unclear whether different endoscopic resection methods could achieve curative resection for ECRC confined in the mucosa. The study was designed to compare the rate of positive vertical margin (VM) of ECRC with advanced adenomas (AAs) including adenoma > 1 cm, villous adenoma, high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia/dysplasia stratified by different endoscopic resection methods.MethodsRate of positive VM for 489 ECRCs including Intramucosal (pTis) and superficial submucosal invasion (pT1) carcinomas were compared with those of 753 AAs stratified by different endoscopic resection methods using Chi-squared test. Multivariate logistic model was performed to investigate the risk factors of positive VM for different endoscopic resection methods.ResultsThe pTis ECRC exhibited a similar rate of positive VM as that of AAs for en bloc hot snare polypectomy (HSP, 0% Vs. 0.85%, P = 0.617), endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR, 0.81% vs. 0.25%, P = 0.375) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD, 1.82% Vs. 1.02%, P = 0.659). The pTis carcinoma was not found to be a risk factor for positive VM by en bloc EMR (P = 0.349) or ESD (P = 0.368). The en bloc resection achieved for pT1a carcinomas exhibited similar to positive VM achieved through ESD (2.06% Vs. 1.02%, P = 1.000) for AAs. Nonetheless, EMR resulted in higher risk of positive VM (5.41% Vs. 0.25%, P < 0.001) for pT1a carcinomas as compared to AAs. The pT1a invasion was identified as a risk factor for positive VM in polyps with en bloc EMR (odds ratio = 23.90, P = 0.005) but not ESD (OR = 2.96, P = 0.396).ConclusionCollectively, the pTis carcinoma was not found to be a risk factor for positive VM resected by en bloc HSP, EMR or ESD. Additionally, ESD may be preferred over EMR for pT1a carcinomas with lower rate of positive VM.

Effectiveness and safety of the different endoscopic resection methods for 10- to 20-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: A systematic review and pooled analysis.

Background:We performed a systematic review and pooled analysis to assess the effectiveness and safety of different endoscopic resection methods for 10- to 20-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps.Methods:Articles in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library related to the common endoscopic treatment of 10- to 20-mm nonpedunculated polyps published as of April 2020 were searched. Primary outcomes were the R0 resection rate and en bloc resection rate. Secondary outcomes were safety and the recurrence rate. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were also performed.Results:A total of 36 studies involving 3212 polyps were included in the final analysis. Overall, the effectiveness of resection methods with a submucosal uplifting effect, including endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), cold EMR and underwater EMR (UEMR), was better than that of methods without a nonsubmucosal uplifting effect [R0 resection rate, 90% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81–0.94, I2= 84%) vs 82% (95% CI 0.78–0.85, I2= 0%); en bloc resection rate 85% (95% CI 0.79–0.91, I2= 83%) vs 74% (95% CI 0.47–0.94, I2= 94%)]. Regarding safety, the pooled data showed that hot resection [hot snare polypectomy, UEMR and EMR] had a higher risk of intraprocedural bleeding than cold resection [3% (95% CI 0.01–0.05, I2= 68%) vs 0% (95% CI 0–0.01, I2= 0%)], while the incidences of delayed bleeding, perforation and post-polypectomy syndrome were all low.Conclusions:Methods with submucosal uplifting effects are more effective than those without for resecting 10- to 20-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps, and cold EMR is associated with a lower risk of intraprocedural bleeding than other methods. Additional research is needed to verify the advantages of these methods, especially cold EMR.

Endoscopic transmural route for dissection of gastric submucosal tumors with extraluminal growth: experience in two cases

The spectrum of endoscopic resection methods, including full thickness techniques, has enabled removal of most smaller gastric submucosal tumours (SMTs). We developed an extended transmural endoscopic dissection technique for lesions...