Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Predicting outcomes in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a United States experience

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) allows for en bloc resection of superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms; however, US experience has been limited. We aimed to evaluate our clinical outcomes in colorectal ESD.

Design

This prospective study included consecutive patients undergoing colorectal ESD at a major US center. Demographics, lesion and technical characteristics, outcomes, adverse events, and pathological diagnoses were recorded. Factors affecting resection outcomes and procedure time were evaluated.

Results

77 patients who underwent colorectal ESD were analyzed. Mean colorectal lesion diameter was 49.4 mm. Mean procedure time was 104.7 min, and 97.4% of patients were discharged home on the same day. En bloc, complete, and curative resection was achieved in 97.4%, 97.4%, and 93.5% of colorectal ESD cases. Microperforation and delayed bleeding rates were 1.3% and 3.9%. On univariable analysis, the presence of tattoo adversely affected en bloc resection (p = 0.002), complete resection (p = 0.002), and curative resection (p = 0.008). Prior EMR attempts adversely affected en bloc resection (p = 0.028), complete resection (p = 0.028), and procedure time (p = 0.008). On multivariable analysis, the presence of tattoo predicted failure to achieve curative resection (OR 0.13; 95% CI 0.02–0.98; p = 0.048). Lesion size > 50 mm (OR 3.89; 95% CI 1.13–13.41; p = 0.031), presence of tattoo (OR 9.38; 95% CI 1.05–83.83; p = 0.045), and prior EMR attempts (OR 7.13; 95% CI 1.76–28.90; p = 0.006) predicted procedure time ≥ 90 min. A scoring system was created to predict prolonged ESD procedure time and was externally validated, with AUC 0.78 (95% CI 0.73–0.83).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the effects of multiple risk factors on resection outcomes and procedure time in colorectal ESD. Tattoo placement and attempted EMR should be avoided for lesions being considered for ESD.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ANOVA:

Analysis of variance

AUROC:

Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve

CI:

Confidence interval

EMR:

Endoscopic mucosal resection

ESD:

Endoscopic submucosal dissection

EUS:

Endoscopic ultrasound

LST:

Laterally spreading tumor

LST-G:

Laterally spreading tumor, granular type

LST-G (mixed):

Laterally spreading tumor, granular type, nodular mixed type

LST-G (uni):

Laterally spreading tumor, granular type, homogeneous type

LST-NG:

Laterally spreading tumor, non-granular type

LST-NG (FE):

Laterally spreading tumor, non-granular type, flat-elevated type

LST-NG (PD):

Laterally spreading tumor, non-granular type, pseudo-depressed type

NBI:

Narrow band imaging

SD:

Standard deviation

References

  1. Akintoye E, Kumar N, Aihara H et al (2016) Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open 4:E1030–E1044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. ASGE Technology Committee, Maple JT, Abu Dayyeh BK et al. (2015) Endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 81:1311–1325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pimentel-Nunes P, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Ponchon T et al (2015) Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 47:829–854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Tanaka S, Kashida H, Saito Y et al (2015) JGES guidelines for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection. Dig Endosc 27:417–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Oka S, Tanaka S, Saito Y et al (2015) Local recurrence after endoscopic resection for large colorectal neoplasia: a multicenter prospective study in Japan. Am J Gastroenterol 110:697–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Chung IK, Lee JH, Lee SH et al (2009) Therapeutic outcomes in 1000 cases of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric neoplasms: Korean ESD Study Group multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 69:1228–1235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Saito Y, Uraoka T, Yamaguchi Y et al (2010) A prospective, multicenter study of 1111 colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissections (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 72:1217–1225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee EJ, Lee JB, Lee SH et al (2013) Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors—1,000 colorectal ESD cases: one specialized institute’s experiences. Surg Endosc 27:31–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rex DK, Hassan CC, Dewitt JM (2017) Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection in the United States: Why do we hear so much about it and do so little of it? Gastrointest Endosc 85:554–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Horie H, Togashi K, Kawamura YJ et al (2008) Colonoscopic stigmata of 1 mm or deeper submucosal invasion in colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 51:1529–1534

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fujishiro M, Yahagi N, Nakamura M et al (2006) Endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal epithelial neoplasia. Endoscopy 38:493–497

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hayashi Y, Miura Y, Yamamoto H (2015) Pocket-creation method for the safe, reliable, and efficient endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal lateral spreading tumors. Dig Endosc 27:534–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lambert R (2003) The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 58:S3–S43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Endoscopic Classification Review Group (2005) Update on the paris classification of superficial neoplastic lesions in the digestive tract. Endoscopy 37:570–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lambert R, Kudo SE, Vieth M et al (2009) Pragmatic classification of superficial neoplastic colorectal lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 70:1182–1199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kudo S, Lambert R, Allen JI et al (2008) Nonpolypoid neoplastic lesions of the colorectal mucosa. Gastrointest Endosc 68:S3–S47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hayashi N, Tanaka S, Nishiyama S et al (2014) Predictors of incomplete resection and perforation associated with endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors. Gastrointest Endosc 79:427–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kitajima K, Fujimori T, Fujii S et al (2004) Correlations between lymph node metastasis and depth of submucosal invasion in submucosal invasive colorectal carcinoma: a Japanese collaborative study. J Gastroenterol 39:534–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Uraoka T, Parra-Blanco A, Yahagi N (2013) Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: is it suitable in western countries? J Gastroenterol Hepatol 28:406–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim HG, Thosani N, Banerjee S et al (2015) Effect of prior biopsy sampling, tattoo placement, and snare sampling on endoscopic resection of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 81:204–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tomiki Y, Ishiyama S, Sugimoto K et al (2011) Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection by using latex-band traction. Endoscopy 43(Suppl 2 UCTN):E250–E251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nishizawa T, Uraoka T, Sagara S et al (2016) Endoscopic slipknot clip suturing method: an ex vivo feasibility study (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 83:447–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Isomoto H, Nishiyama H, Yamaguchi N et al (2009) Clinicopathological factors associated with clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal epithelial neoplasms. Endoscopy 41:679–683

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Park JC, Lee SK, Seo JH et al (2010) Predictive factors for local recurrence after endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer: long-term clinical outcome in a single-center experience. Surg Endosc 24:2842–2849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. ASGE Technology Committee, Hwang JH, Konda V et al (2015) Endoscopic mucosal resection. Gastrointest Endosc 82:215–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Phillip S. Ge, Pichamol Jirapinyo, Christopher C. Thompson & Hiroyuki Aihara

  2. Department of Endoscopy, Jikei University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan

    Tomohiko R. Ohya, Naoto Tamai & Kazuki Sumiyama

Authors
  1. Phillip S. Ge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pichamol Jirapinyo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tomohiko R. Ohya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Naoto Tamai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kazuki Sumiyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christopher C. Thompson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hiroyuki Aihara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

PSG, MD (study concept and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, and drafting of manuscript). PJ, MD (analysis and interpretation of data, critical revision of manuscript). TRO, MD, PhD (analysis and interpretation of data). NT, MD, PhD (analysis and interpretation of data). KS, MD, PhD (analysis and interpretation of data). CCT, MD, MHES (study concept and design, analysis and interpretation of data, and critical revision of manuscript). HA, MD, PhD (study concept and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, critical revision of manuscript, and study supervision).

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hiroyuki Aihara.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Christopher C. Thompson: Boston Scientific (Consultant) and Olympus (Consultant, Research Support). Hiroyuki Aihara: Boston Scientific (Consultant), Olympus (Consultant), and Fujifilm Medical Systems (Consultant). Drs. Ge, Jirapinyo, Ohya, Tamai, and Sumiyama have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ge, P.S., Jirapinyo, P., Ohya, T.R. et al. Predicting outcomes in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a United States experience. Surg Endosc 33, 4016–4025 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06691-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-06691-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation