Planned Hybrid Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection as Alternative for Colorectal Neoplasms: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.
Colorectal neoplasms
Comparative study
Endoscopic submucosal dissection
Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection
Propensity score
Journal
Digestive diseases and sciences
ISSN: 1573-2568
Titre abrégé: Dig Dis Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7902782
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 Jan 2024
13 Jan 2024
Historique:
received:
19
09
2023
accepted:
09
11
2023
medline:
14
1
2024
pubmed:
14
1
2024
entrez:
13
1
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (H-ESD), a modified ESD with a snare, has become increasingly utilized to overcome the limitations of conventional ESD (C-ESD). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of Planned H-ESD and C-ESD for colorectal lesions. Propensity score matching was performed to control for confounding variables in this retrospective study. Outcomes included en bloc resection and complete resection (R0) rates, procedure time, adverse event rates, and local recurrence rate. 1286 lesions were enrolled in the study. After matching, 263 lesions were assigned to each group. The Planned H-ESD group has lower en bloc rate but similar R0 resection rate compared to the C-ESD group (90.9% vs 98.1%, P = 0.001; 77.2% vs 77.9%, P = 0.917). The median procedure time was shorter in the Planned H-ESD group (27.0 min vs 35.0 min, P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in adverse events rates or local recurrence rate. Subgroup analysis based on lesion size revealed that a significantly lower en bloc resection rate in the Planned H-ESD group compared to the C-ESD group for lesions ≥ 40 mm (71.0% vs 94.3%, P = 0.027), but there was no significant difference for lesions < 40 mm. The Planned H-ESD has a lower en bloc resection rate but a similar R0 resection rate, adverse event rates, local recurrence rate, and shorter procedure duration. Compared to C-ESD, Planned H-ESD presents advantages for managing colorectal neoplasms below 40 mm.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
OBJECTIVE
Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (H-ESD), a modified ESD with a snare, has become increasingly utilized to overcome the limitations of conventional ESD (C-ESD). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of Planned H-ESD and C-ESD for colorectal lesions.
METHODS
METHODS
Propensity score matching was performed to control for confounding variables in this retrospective study. Outcomes included en bloc resection and complete resection (R0) rates, procedure time, adverse event rates, and local recurrence rate.
RESULTS
RESULTS
1286 lesions were enrolled in the study. After matching, 263 lesions were assigned to each group. The Planned H-ESD group has lower en bloc rate but similar R0 resection rate compared to the C-ESD group (90.9% vs 98.1%, P = 0.001; 77.2% vs 77.9%, P = 0.917). The median procedure time was shorter in the Planned H-ESD group (27.0 min vs 35.0 min, P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in adverse events rates or local recurrence rate. Subgroup analysis based on lesion size revealed that a significantly lower en bloc resection rate in the Planned H-ESD group compared to the C-ESD group for lesions ≥ 40 mm (71.0% vs 94.3%, P = 0.027), but there was no significant difference for lesions < 40 mm.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The Planned H-ESD has a lower en bloc resection rate but a similar R0 resection rate, adverse event rates, local recurrence rate, and shorter procedure duration. Compared to C-ESD, Planned H-ESD presents advantages for managing colorectal neoplasms below 40 mm.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38218733
doi: 10.1007/s10620-023-08195-7
pii: 10.1007/s10620-023-08195-7
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71:209–249.
doi: 10.3322/caac.21660
pubmed: 33538338
Kuipers EJ, Grady WM, Lieberman D et al. Colorectal cancer. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2015;1:15065.
doi: 10.1038/nrdp.2015.65
pubmed: 27189416
pmcid: 4874655
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.
doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2016.06.008
pubmed: 27370173
Moss A, Williams SJ, Hourigan LF et al. Long-term adenoma recurrence following wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (WF-EMR) for advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia is infrequent: results and risk factors in 1000 cases from the Australian Colonic EMR (ACE) study. Gut 2015;64:57–65.
doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-305516
pubmed: 24986245
Draganov PV, Wang AY, Othman MO et al. AGA Institute Clinical Practice Update: endoscopic submucosal dissection in the United States. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;17:16-25.e1.
doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.07.041
pubmed: 30077787
Tanaka S, Kashida H, Saito Y et al. Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society guidelines for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection. Dig Endosc 2020;32:219–239.
doi: 10.1111/den.13545
pubmed: 31566804
Libânio D, Pimentel-Nunes P, Bastiaansen B et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection techniques and technology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) technical review. Endoscopy 2023;55:361–389.
doi: 10.1055/a-2031-0874
pubmed: 36882090
Ohata K, Kobayashi N, Sakai E et al. Long-term outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection for large colorectal epithelial neoplasms: a prospective, multicenter, cohort trial from Japan. Gastroenterology 2022;163:1423-1434.e2.
doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.07.002
pubmed: 35810779
Imai K, Hotta K, Ito S et al. A risk-prediction model for en bloc resection failure or perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal neoplasms. Dig Endosc 2020;32:932–939.
doi: 10.1111/den.13619
pubmed: 31883411
Lim XC, Nistala KRY, Ng CH et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: a meta-analysis and meta-regression with single arm analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2021;27:3925–3939.
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v27.i25.3925
pubmed: 34321855
pmcid: 8291020
Byeon J-S, Yang D-H, Kim K-J et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection with or without snaring for colorectal neoplasms. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74:1075–1083.
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.03.1248
pubmed: 21663905
Milano RV, Viale E, Bartel MJ et al. Resection outcomes and recurrence rates of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and hybrid ESD for colorectal tumors in a single Italian center. Surg Endosc 2018;32:2328–2339.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-017-5928-8
pubmed: 29098434
McCarty TR, Bazarbashi AN, Thompson CC et al. Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) compared with conventional ESD for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2021;53:1048–1058.
doi: 10.1055/a-1266-1855
pubmed: 32947624
Toyonaga T, Man-I M, Morita Y et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) versus simplified/hybrid ESD. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2014;24:191–199.
doi: 10.1016/j.giec.2013.11.004
pubmed: 24679231
Bae JH, Yang D-H, Lee S et al. Optimized hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2016;83:584–592.
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.06.057
pubmed: 26320696
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.
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.02.024
pubmed: 28254526
Okamoto Y, Oka S, Tanaka S et al. Indications and outcomes of colorectal hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection: a large multicenter 10-year study. Surg Endosc 2022;36:1894–1902.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-021-08471-5
pubmed: 33847798
Okamoto K, Muguruma N, Kagemoto K et al. Efficacy of hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as a rescue treatment in difficult colorectal ESD cases. Dig Endosc 2017;29:45–52.
doi: 10.1111/den.12863
pubmed: 28425649
Schlemper RJ, Riddell RH, Kato Y et al. The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia. Gut 2000;47:251–255.
doi: 10.1136/gut.47.2.251
pubmed: 10896917
pmcid: 1728018
Kudo S, Kashida H, Yamano H et al. Laterally spreading tumors of the colon. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 1996;43:367.
Endoscopic Classification Review Group. Update on the paris classification of superficial neoplastic lesions in the digestive tract. Endoscopy 2005;37:570–578.
doi: 10.1055/s-2005-861352
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.
doi: 10.3109/00365521.2010.495416
pubmed: 20626303
Cecinato P, Lucarini M, Azzolini F et al. Endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection vs conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for large colorectal neoplasms: a single-centre retrospective study. Tech Coloproctol 2023;27:317–323.
doi: 10.1007/s10151-022-02732-8
pubmed: 36394695
Seo M, Song EM, Cho JW et al. A risk-scoring model for the prediction of delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 2019;89:990–998.
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.11.029
pubmed: 30521794
Paspatis GA, Dumonceau J-M, Barthet M et al. Diagnosis and management of iatrogenic endoscopic perforations: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2014;46:693–711.
doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1377531
pubmed: 25046348
Qiu J, Ouyang Q, Zhang Y et al. Post-endoscopic submucosal dissection electrocoagulation syndrome: a clinical overview. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;16:1079–1087.
doi: 10.1080/17474124.2022.2156858
pubmed: 36503328
Kuroki Y, Hoteya S, Mitani T et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for residual/locally recurrent lesions after endoscopic therapy for colorectal tumors. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;25:1747–1753.
doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2010.06331.x
pubmed: 21039836
Chow CWS, Fung TLD, Chan PT et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal polyps: outcome determining factors. Surg Endosc 2023;37:1293–1302.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09672-2
pubmed: 36192659
Kamigaichi Y, Oka S, Tanaka S et al. Factors for conversion risk of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter study. Surg Endosc 2022;36:5698–5709.
doi: 10.1007/s00464-022-09250-6
pubmed: 35579699
Yamaguchi H, Fukuzawa M, Kawai T et al. Significance of rescue hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection in difficult colorectal cases. Clin Endosc. 2023. https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2022.268 .
doi: 10.5946/ce.2022.268
pubmed: 37491992
pmcid: 10665627
Seo M, Yang D-H, Kim J et al. Clinical outcomes of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection and risk factors associated with piecemeal resection. Turk J Gastroenterol 2018;29:473–480.
doi: 10.5152/tjg.2018.17400
pubmed: 30249563
pmcid: 6284627
Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med 2015;34:3661–3679.
doi: 10.1002/sim.6607
pubmed: 26238958
pmcid: 4626409
Yoshida N, Inoue K, Hashimoto H et al. Standard endoscopic mucosal resection vs precutting endoscopic mucosal resection using novel disk-tip snare for colorectal lesions. Dig Dis Sci 2023;68:2030–2039.
doi: 10.1007/s10620-023-07833-4
pubmed: 36881195
Oh CK, Cho YW, Choi IH et al. Comparison of precutting endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection for large (20–30 mm) flat colorectal lesions. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;37:568–575.
doi: 10.1111/jgh.15744
pubmed: 34845766
Yang D, Aihara H, Perbtani YB et al. Safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neoplasia: a multicenter North American experience. Endosc Int Open 2019;7:E1714–E1722.
doi: 10.1055/a-1010-5663
pubmed: 31803823
pmcid: 6887644
Jung Y, Kim JW, Byeon J-S et al. Factors predictive of complete excision of large colorectal neoplasia using hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection: a KASID Multicenter Study. Dig Dis Sci 2018;63:2773–2779.
doi: 10.1007/s10620-018-5140-2
pubmed: 29876776