BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has recently been applied to the treatment of superficial colorectal cancer. Clinical outcomes compared with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) have not been determined so our aim was to compare the effectiveness of ESD with conventional EMR for colorectal tumors >or=20 mm. METHODS: This was a retrospective case-controlled study performed at the National Cancer Center Hospital in Tokyo, Japan involving 373 colorectal tumors >or=20 mm determined histologically to be curative resections. Data acquisition was from a prospectively completed database. We evaluated histology, tumor size, procedure time, en bloc resection rate, recurrence rate, and associated complications for both the ESD and EMR groups. RESULTS: A total of 145 colorectal tumors were treated by ESD and another 228 were treated by EMR. ESD was associated with a longer procedure time (108 +/- 71 min/29 +/- 25 min; p < 0.0001), higher en bloc resection rate (84%/33%; p < 0.0001) and larger resected specimens (37 +/- 14 mm/28 +/- 8 mm; p = 0.0006), but involved a similar percentage of cancers (69%/66%; p = NS). There were three (2%) recurrences in the ESD group and 33 (14%) in the EMR group requiring additional EMR (p < 0.0001). The perforation rate was 6.2% (9) in the ESD group and 1.3% (3) in the EMR group (p = NS) with delayed bleeding occurring in 1.4% (2) and 3.1% (7) of the procedures (p = NS), respectively, as all complications were effectively treated endoscopically. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its longer procedure time and higher perforation rate, ESD resulted in higher en bloc resection and curative rates compared with EMR and all ESD perforations were successfully managed by conservative endoscopic treatment.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has recently been applied to the treatment of superficial colorectal cancer. Clinical outcomes compared with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) have not been determined so our aim was to compare the effectiveness of ESD with conventional EMR for colorectal tumors >or=20 mm. METHODS: This was a retrospective case-controlled study performed at the National Cancer Center Hospital in Tokyo, Japan involving 373 colorectal tumors >or=20 mm determined histologically to be curative resections. Data acquisition was from a prospectively completed database. We evaluated histology, tumor size, procedure time, en bloc resection rate, recurrence rate, and associated complications for both the ESD and EMR groups. RESULTS: A total of 145 colorectal tumors were treated by ESD and another 228 were treated by EMR. ESD was associated with a longer procedure time (108 +/- 71 min/29 +/- 25 min; p < 0.0001), higher en bloc resection rate (84%/33%; p < 0.0001) and larger resected specimens (37 +/- 14 mm/28 +/- 8 mm; p = 0.0006), but involved a similar percentage of cancers (69%/66%; p = NS). There were three (2%) recurrences in the ESD group and 33 (14%) in the EMR group requiring additional EMR (p < 0.0001). The perforation rate was 6.2% (9) in the ESD group and 1.3% (3) in the EMR group (p = NS) with delayed bleeding occurring in 1.4% (2) and 3.1% (7) of the procedures (p = NS), respectively, as all complications were effectively treated endoscopically. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its longer procedure time and higher perforation rate, ESD resulted in higher en bloc resection and curative rates compared with EMR and all ESD perforations were successfully managed by conservative endoscopic treatment.
Authors: R J Schlemper; R H Riddell; Y Kato; F Borchard; H S Cooper; S M Dawsey; M F Dixon; C M Fenoglio-Preiser; J F Fléjou; K Geboes; T Hattori; T Hirota; M Itabashi; M Iwafuchi; A Iwashita; Y I Kim; T Kirchner; M Klimpfinger; M Koike; G Y Lauwers; K J Lewin; G Oberhuber; F Offner; A B Price; C A Rubio; M Shimizu; T Shimoda; P Sipponen; E Solcia; M Stolte; H Watanabe; H Yamabe Journal: Gut Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: S Tanaka; K Haruma; S Oka; R Takahashi; M Kunihiro; Y Kitadai; M Yoshihara; F Shimamoto; K Chayama Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: H Yamamoto; H Kawata; K Sunada; A Sasaki; K Nakazawa; T Miyata; Y Sekine; T Yano; K Satoh; K Ido; K Sugano Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Scott R Steele; Eric K Johnson; Bradley Champagne; Brad Davis; Sang Lee; David Rivadeneira; Howard Ross; Dana A Hayden; Justin A Maykel Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-07-21 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: F Bianco; A Arezzo; F Agresta; C Coco; R Faletti; Z Krivocapic; G Rotondano; G A Santoro; N Vettoretto; S De Franciscis; A Belli; G M Romano Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 3.781