Subscribe to RSS
Use of endoscopic submucosal dissection or full-thickness resection device to treat residual colorectal neoplasia after endoscopic resection: a multicenter historical cohort studyTrial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Registration number (trial ID): NCT04592003 Type of study: Multicenter
Introduction Residual colorectal neoplasia (RCN) after previous endoscopic mucosal resection is a frequent challenge. Different management techniques are feasible including endoscopic full-thickness resection using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) system and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of these two techniques for the treatment of such lesions.
Methods All consecutive patients with RCN treated either using the FTRD or by ESD were retrospectively included in this multicenter study. The primary outcome was the R0 resection rate, defined as an en bloc resection with histologically tumor-free lateral and deep margins.
Results 275 patients (median age 70 years; 160 men) who underwent 177 ESD and 98 FTRD procedures for RCN were included. R0 resection was achieved in 83.3 % and 77.6 % for ESD and FTRD, respectively (P = 0.25). Lesions treated by ESD were however larger than those treated by FTRD (P < 0.001). The R0 rates for lesions of 20–30 mm were 83.9 % and 57.1 % in the ESD and FTRD groups, respectively, and for lesions of 30–40 mm were 93.6 % and 33.3 %, respectively. On multivariable analysis, ESD procedures were associated with statistically higher en bloc and R0 resection rates after adjustment for lesion size (P = 0.02 and P < 0.001, respectively). The adverse event rate was higher in the ESD group (16.3 % vs. 5.1 %), mostly owing to intraoperative perforations.
Conclusion ESD is effective in achieving R0 resection for RCN whatever the size and location of the lesions. When residual lesions are smaller than 20 mm, the FTRD is an effective alternative.
Received: 02 September 2022
Accepted after revision: 06 June 2023
Article published online:
27 July 2023
© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
- 1 Scheer S, Wallenhorst T, Albouys J. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection or piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection for large superficial colorectal lesions: A cost effectiveness study. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 2022; 46: 101969
- 2 Fleischmann C, Probst A, Ebigbo A. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection in Europe: results of 1000 neoplastic lesions from the German Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Registry. Gastroenterology 2021; 161: 1168-1178
- 3 Saito Y, Uraoka T, Yamaguchi Y. et al. A prospective, multicenter study of 1111 colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissections (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 1217-1225
- 4 Fuccio L, Hassan C, Ponchon T. et al. Clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86: 74-86.e17
- 5 Tate DJ, Desomer L, Klein A. et al. Adenoma recurrence after piecemeal colonic EMR is predictable: the Sydney EMR recurrence tool. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 647-656.e6
- 6 Belderbos T, Leenders M, Moons L. et al. Local recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 388-402
- 7 Klein A, Tate DJ, Jayasekeran V. et al. Thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins reduces adenoma recurrence after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection. Gastroenterology 2019; 156: 604-613.e3
- 8 Hassan C, Repici A, Sharma P. et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut 2016; 65: 806-820
- 9 Aepli P, Criblez D, Baumeler S. et al. Endoscopic full thickness resection (EFTR) of colorectal neoplasms with the Full Thickness Resection Device (FTRD): Clinical experience from two tertiary referral centers in Switzerland. United European Gastroenterol J 2018; 6: 463-470
- 10 Andrisani G, Soriani P, Manno M. et al. Colo-rectal endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) with the over-the-scope device (FTRD): A multicenter Italian experience. Dig Liver Dis 2019; 51: 375-381
- 11 Zwager LW, Bastiaansen BAJ, Bronzwaer MES. et al. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) of colorectal lesions: results from the Dutch colorectal eFTR registry. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 1014-1023
- 12 Li P, Ma B, Gong S. et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic full-thickness resection in the colon and rectum using an over-the-scope device: a meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2021; 35: 249-259
- 13 Meier B, Stritzke B, Kuellmer A. et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic full-thickness resection in the colorectum: results from the German Colonic FTRD Registry. Am J Gastroenterol 2020; 115: 1998-2006
- 14 Faller J, Jacques J, Oung B. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection with double clip and rubber band traction for residual or locally recurrent colonic lesions after previous endoscopic mucosal resection. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 383-388
- 15 Burgess NG, Bassan MS, McLeod D. et al. Deep mural injury and perforation after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection: a new classification and analysis of risk factors. Gut 2017; 66: 1779-1789
- 16 Nass KJ, Zwager LW, van der Vlugt M. et al. Novel classification for adverse events in GI endoscopy: the AGREE classification. Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 95: 1078-1085.e8
- 17 Yamasaki Y, Takeuchi Y, Uedo N. et al. Efficacy of traction‐assisted colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection using a clip‐and‐thread technique: A prospective randomized study. Dig Endosc 2018; 30: 467-476
- 18 El Menabawey T, Martin H, Parisinos C. et al. Use of the Ovesco remOVE DC cutter to trim a metal biliary stent with excess length in the duodenum allowing biliary access for ERCP. Endoscopy 2021; 53: E365-E366
- 19 Kim HG, Thosani N, Banerjee S. et al. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for recurrences after previous piecemeal resection of colorectal polyps (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 1094-1102