Subscribe to RSS
![](/products/assets/desktop/img/oa-logo.png)
DOI: 10.1055/a-0808-4580
Will endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) become the gold standard for laterally spreading tumors (LST)?
Publication History
Publication Date:
30 January 2019 (online)
![](https://www.thieme-connect.de/media/10.1055-s-00025476/201902/lookinside/thumbnails/1440_10-1055-a-0808-4580-1.jpg)
Laterally spreading tumors (LST) have become a recognizable proportion of all pre-cancerous colorectal lesions, particularly with the advent of population-based bowel cancer screening. Since Kudo’s first description in 1993 which analyzed how best to remove flat and depressed types of early colorectal cancer via endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), there has been much debate as to the definition of these lesions and how they should be excised [1]. The 2002 Paris Consensus established boundaries of LST morphology. EMR is currently the mainstream technique for treating LST, but debate has emerged as to whether especially piecemeal EMR should be replaced by newer modalities such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) [2]. A key point is that en-bloc resection with EMR is usually limited to lesions < 20 mm diameter in the colon or < 25 mm in the rectum [3]. Although piecemeal EMR has proven to be a reliable option, this may come with reduced cost-effectiveness over the entire treatment course for the lesion, less good pathological assessment, and increased risks of local recurrence. Because of this, a substantial body of opinion suggests that ESD should be the future in LST treatment. However, when considering ESD as “gold standard,” we cannot overlook its downsides of technical intricacy, prolonged time of procedure and increased chances of perforation and overnight hospital admission.
-
References
- 1 Kudo S. Endoscopic mucosal resection of flat and depressed types of early colorectal cancer. Endoscopy 1993; 25: 455-461
- 2 The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: S3-43
- 3 Ferlitsch M, Moss A, Hassan C. et al. Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) clinical guideline. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 270-297
- 4 Peery AF, Cools KS, Strassle PD. et al. Increasing rates of surgery for patients with nonmalignant colorectal polyps in the United States. Gastroenterology 2018; 154: 1352-1360
- 5 Russo P, Barbeiro S, Libanio D. et al. Management of colorectal laterally spreading tumours: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open 2019; 07: E239-E259
- 6 Rex DK. If endoscopic mucosal resection is so great for large benign colon polyps, why is so much surgery still being done?. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 657-659
- 7 Pellise M, Burgess NG, Tutticci N. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection for large serrated lesions in comparison with adenomas: a prospective multicentre study of 2000 lesions. Gut 2017; 66: 644-653
- 8 Belderbos TD, Leenders M, Moons LM. et al. Local recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 388-402
- 9 Tate DJ, Desomer L, Klein A. et al. Adenoma recurrence after piecemeal colonic EMR is predictable: the Sydney EMR recurrence tool. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2017; 85: 647-656
- 10 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
- 11 Rönnow CF, Elebro J, Toth E. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection of malignant non-pedunculated colorectal lesions. Endosc Int Open 2018; 6: E961
- 12 Sauer M, Hildenbrand R, Oyama T. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for flat or sessile colorectal neoplasia > 20 mm: A European single-center series of 182 cases. Endosc Int Open 2016; 4: E895
- 13 Burgess NG, Bourke MJ. Endoscopic resection of colorectal lesions: The narrowing divide between East and West. Digest Endosc 2016; 28: 296-305