Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Among Different Endoscopic Resection Methods for Treating Colorectal Neoplasia

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background/Aim

Endoscopic treatments of colorectal neoplasms have yet to be standardized. This study aimed to compare efficacy and tolerability of different endoscopic resection methods for colorectal epithelial tumors.

Methods

Patients with non-pedunculated colorectal tumors undergoing endoscopic treatments were consecutively enrolled, and their medical records were reviewed retrospectively. The resection methods were classified into three groups: endoscopic mucosal resection with circumferential precutting (EMR-P), endoscopic submucosal dissection with snaring (ESD-S), and endoscopic submucosal dissection alone (ESD). We compared en bloc resection, pathological complete resection, and complications associated with these methods.

Results

Overall, 206 lesions from 203 patients were included in the study (mean size 25.2 ± 10.1 mm). The number of lesions treated with EMR-P, ESD-S, and ESD was 91 (44.2 %), 57 (27.7 %), and 58 (28.2 %), respectively. There was a significant difference in both the en bloc resection rates (EMR-P, 61.5 %; ESD-S, 64.9 %; ESD, 96.6 %; p = 0.001) and complete resection rates (EMR-P, 51.6 %; ESD–S, 54.4 %; ESD, 75.9 %; p = 0.009). Bleeding and perforation were less frequently observed in the EMR-P group. In the subgroup-analysis of lesions less than 20 mm, however, these differences were not observed.

Conclusions

All endoscopic resection methods, including EMR-P, ESD-S, and ESD, were effective and safe for the treatment of colorectal neoplasms. Technically demanding ESD with high en bloc and complete resection rate should be reserved for the suspicious cancer lesion, which requires the precise histological evaluation. EMR-P with good feasibility can be considered an alternative to ESD for the lesions less than 20 mm.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bergmann U, Beger HG. Endoscopic mucosal resection for advanced non-polypoid colorectal adenoma and early stage carcinoma. Surg Endosc. 2003;17:475–479.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Conio M, Repici A, Demarquay JF, et al. EMR of large sessile colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60:234–241.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fujishiro M. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for stomach neoplasms. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12:5108–5112.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gotoda T, Yamamoto H, Soetikno RM. Endoscopic submucosal dissection of early gastric cancer. J Gastroenterol. 2006;41:929–942.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Toyanaga T, Man IM, Ivanov D, et al. The results and limitations of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors. Acta Chir Iugosl. 2008;55:17–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Muto M, Miyamoto S, Hosokawa A, et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection in the stomach using the insulated-tip needle-knife. Endoscopy. 2005;37:178–182.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Min BH, Lee JH, Kim JJ, et al. Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for treating early gastric cancer: comparison with endoscopic mucosal resection after circumferential precutting (EMR-P). Dig Liver Dis Off J Italian Soc Gastroenterol Italian Assoc Study Liver. 2009;41:201–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Byeon JS, Yang DH, Kim KJ, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection with or without snaring for colorectal neoplasms. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:1075–1083.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Goto O, Fujishiro M, Kodashima S, et al. Feasibility of electrocautery snaring as the final step of endoscopic submucosal dissection for stomach epithelial neoplasms. Dig Liver Dis Off J Italian Soc Gastroenterol Italian Assoc Study Liver. 2009;41:26–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Nishiyama H, Isomoto H, Yamaguchi N, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal epithelial neoplasms. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53:161–168.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. [Anonymous]. General rules for clinical and pathological studies on cancer of the colon, rectum and anus. Part II. Histopathological classification. Japanese Research Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum. Japanese J Surg. 1983; 13:574–598.

  13. Uraoka T, Saito Y, Matsuda T, et al. Endoscopic indications for endoscopic mucosal resection of laterally spreading tumours in the colorectum. Gut. 2006;55:1592–1597.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kudo S. Endoscopic mucosal resection of flat and depressed types of early colorectal cancer. Endoscopy. 1993;25:455–461.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Schlemper RJ, Riddell RH, Kato Y, et al. The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia. Gut. 2000;47:251–255.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Iishi H, Tatsuta M, Narahara H, et al. Endoscopic resection of large pedunculated colorectal polyps using a detachable snare. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;44:594–597.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Matsuda T, Gotoda T, Saito Y, et al. Our perspective on endoscopic resection for colorectal neoplasms. Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 2010;34:367–370.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Toyonaga T, Man IM, Morita Y, et al. The new resources of treatment for early stage colorectal tumors: EMR with small incision and simplified endoscopic submucosal dissection. Dig Endosc Off J Japan Gastroenterol Endosc Soc. 2009;21:S31–S37.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Seo HJ, Kim YJ, Cho KB, et al. Nodal metastasis after successful endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal mucosal cancer. Endoscopy. 2011;43:E374–E375.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Watanabe K, Ogata S, Kawazoe S, et al. Clinical outcomes of EMR for gastric tumors: historical pilot evaluation between endoscopic submucosal dissection and conventional mucosal resection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63:776–782.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhou PH, Yao LQ, Qin XY. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal epithelial neoplasm. Surg Endosc. 2009;23:1546–1551.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Puli SR, Kakugawa Y, Saito Y, et al. Successful complete cure en bloc resection of large nonpedunculated colonic polyps by endoscopic submucosal dissection: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2147–2151.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fujishiro M. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasms. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;1:32–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fujishiro M, Yahagi N, Kakushima N et al. Outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal epithelial neoplasms in 200 consecutive cases. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterol Assoc. 2007; 5:678–683 (quiz 645).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Tanaka S, Oka S, Kaneko I, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: possibility of standardization. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;66:100–107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Keimyung University School of Medicine, 194 Dong San-dong, Jung-gu, Daegu, 700-712, South Korea

    Yun Jung Kim, Eun Soo Kim, Kwang Bum Cho, Kyung Sik Park, Byoung Kuk Jang, Woo Jin Chung & Jae Seok Hwang

Authors
  1. Yun Jung Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eun Soo Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kwang Bum Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kyung Sik Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Byoung Kuk Jang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Woo Jin Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jae Seok Hwang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kwang Bum Cho.

Additional information

Yun Jung Kim and Eun Soo Kim contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, Y.J., Kim, E.S., Cho, K.B. et al. Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Among Different Endoscopic Resection Methods for Treating Colorectal Neoplasia. Dig Dis Sci 58, 1727–1736 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-013-2560-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-013-2560-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation