Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2017; 05(09): E839-E846
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-113566
Original article
Eigentümer und Copyright ©Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2017

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: predictors and neoplasm-related gradients of difficulty

Federico Iacopini
1   Gastroenterology Endoscopy Unit, Ospedale S. Giuseppe, Albano Laziale, Rome, Italy
,
Yutaka Saito
2   Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
,
Antonino Bella
3   National Centre for Epidemiology, Surveillance and Health Promotion, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy
,
Takuji Gotoda
4   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Nihon University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
,
Patrizia Rigato
5   Pathology Unit, Ospedale S. Giuseppe, Marino, Rome, Italy
,
Walter Elisei
1   Gastroenterology Endoscopy Unit, Ospedale S. Giuseppe, Albano Laziale, Rome, Italy
,
Fabrizio Montagnese
1   Gastroenterology Endoscopy Unit, Ospedale S. Giuseppe, Albano Laziale, Rome, Italy
,
Giampaolo Iacopini
6   Private Practice, Via Merulana, Rome, Italy
,
Guido Costamagna
7   Surgical Endoscopy Unit, Policlinico Agostino Gemelli, Catholic University, Rome, Italy
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 25 November 2016

accepted after revision 19 May 2017

Publication Date:
12 September 2017 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aim The role of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is standardized in Japan and East Asia, but technical difficulties hinder its diffusion. The aim was to identify predictors of difficulty for each neoplasm type.

Methods A competent operator performed all procedures. ESD difficulty was defined as: en bloc with a slow speed (< 0.07 cm2/min; 30 × 30 mm neoplasm in > 90 min), conversion to endoscopic mucosal resection, or resection abandonment. Pre- and intraoperative difficulty variables were defined according to standard criteria, and evaluated separately for the rectum and colon. Difficulty predictors and gradients were evaluated by the multivariate logistic regression model.

Results A total of 140 ESDs were included: 110 in the colon and 30 in the rectum. Neoplasms were laterally spreading tumors – granular type (LST-G) in 85 cases (61 %); the median longer axis was 30 mm (range 15 – 180 mm); a scar was present in 15 cases (11 %). ESD en bloc resection and difficulty rates were 85 % (n = 94) and 35 % (n = 39) in the colon, and 73 % (n = 22) and 50 % (n = 15) in the rectum (P = 0.17 and 0.28, respectively). The scar was the only preoperative predictor of difficulty in the rectum (odds ratio [OR] 12.3, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.27 – 118.36), whereas predictors in the colon were: scar (OR 12.7, 95 %CI 1.15 – 139.24), LST – nongranular type (NG) (OR 10.5, 95 %CI 1.20 – 55.14), and sessile polyp morphology (OR 3.1, 95 %CI 1.18 – 10.39). Size > 7 – ≤ 12 cm2 (OR 0.20, 95 %CI 0.06 – 0.74) and operator experience > 120 procedures (OR 0.19, 95 %CI 0.04 – 0.81) were predictors for a easy procedure. No intraoperative predictors of difficulty were identified in the rectum, whereas predictors in the colon were: severe submucosal fibrosis (OR 21.9, 95 %CI 2.11 – 225.64), ineffective submucosal exposure by gravity countertraction (OR 12.3, 95 %CI 2.43 – 62.08), and perpendicular submucosal dissection approach (OR 5.2, 95 %CI 1.07 – 25.03). When experience was /= 90, preoperative gradient of colonic ESD difficulty was the highest for LST-NGs (scar positive and negative up to 47 % and 20 %, respectively), intermediate for sessile polyps with scar (up to 23 %), and the lowest for LST-Gs (< 8 %). Different difficulty gradients between neoplasm types persisted with increasing experience: LST-NG rate up to 14 % after 120 procedures.

Conclusions Colonic and rectal ESD difficulty has qualitative differences. Preoperative predictors should be considered to identify the difficulty gradient of each neoplasm type and the appropriate setting for ESD.

 

  • References

  • 1 Tanaka S, Kashida H, Saito Y. et al. JGES guidelines for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection. Dig Endosc 2015; 27: 417-434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Pimentel-Nunes P, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Ponchon T. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 829-854
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hayashi N, Tanaka S, Nishiyama S. et al. Predictors of incomplete resection and perforation associated with endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 427-435
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Sato K, Ito S, Kitagawa T. et al. Factors affecting the technical difficulty and clinical outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors. Surg Endosc 2014; 28: 2959-2965
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Isomoto H, Nishiyama H, Yamaguchi N. et al. Clinicopathological factors associated with clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal epithelial neoplasms. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 679-683
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Inada Y, Yoshida N, Kugai M. et al. Prediction and treatment of difficult cases in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2013; 2013: 523084
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Takeuchi Y, Iishi H, Tanaka S. et al. Factors associated with technical difficulties and adverse events of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: retrospective exploratory factor analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort. Int J Colorect Dis 2014; 29: 1275-1284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Agapov M, Dvoinikova E. Factors predicting clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection in the rectum and sigmoid colon during the learning curve. Endosc Int Open 2014; 2: E235-240
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Shiga H, Endo K, Kuroha M. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia during the clinical learning curve. Surg Endosc 2014; 28: 2120-2128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Matsuda T, Fujii T, Saito Y. et al. Efficacy of the invasive/non-invasive pattern by magnifying chromoendoscopy to estimate the depth of invasion of early colorectal neoplasms. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 2700-2706
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Chang CM, Yin WY, Wei CK. et al. Adjusted age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index score as a risk measure of perioperative mortality before cancer surgery. PloS One 2016; 11 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148076. (Published online 2016 Feb 5)
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Iacopini F, Bella A, Costamagna G. et al. Stepwise training in rectal and colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection with differentiated learning curves. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 1188-1196
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Morino M, Risio M, Bach S. et al. Early rectal cancer: the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) clinical consensus conference. Surg Endosc 2015; 29: 755-773
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Dixon MF. Gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia: Vienna revisited. Gut 2002; 51: 130-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Nakajima T, Saito Y, Tanaka S. et al. Current status of endoscopic resection strategy for large, early colorectal neoplasia in Japan. Surg Endosc 2013; 27: 3262-3270
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 [Anonymous]. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 3-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hori K, Uraoka T, Harada K. et al. Predictive factors for technically difficult endoscopic submucosal dissection in the colorectum. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 862-870
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Mizushima T, Kato M, Iwanaga I. et al. Technical difficulty according to location, and risk factors for perforation, in endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal tumors. Surg Endosc 2015; 29: 133-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Iacopini F, Gotoda T, Elisei W. et al. Heterotopic gastric mucosa in the anus and rectum: first case report of endoscopic submucosal dissection and systematic review. Gastroenterol Rep 2016; 4: 196-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Imai K, Hotta K, Yamaguchi Y. et al. Preoperative indicators of failure of en bloc resection or perforation in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: implications for lesion stratification by technical difficulties during stepwise training. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 954-962
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Matsumoto A, Tanaka S, Oba S. et al. Outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors accompanied by fibrosis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2010; 45: 1329-1337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hirasawa K, Kokawa A, Oka H. et al. Risk assessment chart for curability of early gastric cancer with endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 1268-1275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kim ES, Cho KB, Park KS. et al. Factors predictive of perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of colorectal tumors. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 573-578
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hong SN, Byeon JS, Lee BI. et al. Prediction model and risk score for perforation in patients undergoing colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 98-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kobayashi N, Saito Y, Sano Y. et al. Determining the treatment strategy for colorectal neoplastic lesions: endoscopic assessment or the non-lifting sign for diagnosing invasion depth?. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 701-705
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Moss A, Bourke MJ, Williams SJ. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection outcomes and prediction of submucosal cancer from advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 1909-1918
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Toyonaga T, Man-i M, Fujita T. et al. Retrospective study of technical aspects and complications of endoscopic submucosal dissection for laterally spreading tumors of the colorectum. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 714-722
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Yamasaki Y, Takeuchi Y, Uedo N. et al. Traction-assisted colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection using clip and line: a feasibility study. Endosc Int Open 2016; 4: E51-55
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Hayashi Y, Sunada K, Takahashi H. et al. Pocket-creation method of endoscopic submucosal dissection to achieve en bloc resection of giant colorectal subpedunculated neoplastic lesions. Endoscopy 2014; 46 (Suppl. 01) E421-422
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Yamamoto K, Michida T, Nishida T. et al. Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: recent technical advances for safe and successful procedures. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 7: 1114-1128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 De Ceglie A, Hassan C, Mangiavillano B. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2016; 104: 138-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 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. Endoscopy Int Open 2016; 4: E895-900
    PubMedGoogle Scholar