| Literature DB >> 30083585 |
Carl-Fredrik Rönnow1, Jacob Elebro2, Ervin Toth3, Henrik Thorlacius1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an established method for en bloc resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal lesions in Asia but dissemination of ESD in Western countries is limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of ESD in the management of malignant non-pedunculated colorectal lesions in a European center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Among 255 patients undergoing colorectal ESD between 2014 and 2016, 29 cases were identified as submucosal invasive cancers and included in this study. The main outcomes were en bloc, R0 and curative resection as well as procedural time, complications and recurrence.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30083585 PMCID: PMC6070376 DOI: 10.1055/a-0602-4065
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Fig. 1Flowchart of ESD procedure.
Patient and tumor characteristics.
| Age (years) | 69 (range 44 – 89) |
| Gender, male : female | 16 : 13 |
| ASA score I : II : III : IV | 10 : 12 : 6 : 1 |
| Tumor size (mm) | 40 (range 20 – 70) |
| Localization | |
Rectum | 16 (55 %) |
Sigmoid colon | 10 (35 %) |
Transverse colon | 2 (7 %) |
| Cecum | 1 (3 %) |
| Type (Paris classification) | |
IIa | 10 (35 %) |
Is | 14 (48 %) |
IIa + Is | 5 (17 %) |
| LST type (Paris type IIa) | |
Granular | 10 |
Nongranular | 5 |
|
Risk of cancer
| |
IIa | 9 % |
Is | 11 % |
IIa + Is | 31 % |
Percentage malignant lesions in each Paris classification group of all ESD resected lesions (N = 255)
Clinical outcome of ESD.
| CRCs treated with ESD | 29 |
| Resection | |
En bloc | 24 (83 %) |
Piecemeal | 4 (14 %) |
Incomplete | 1 (3 %) |
| Margins | |
R0 resection | 20 (69 %) |
RX resection | 3 (10 %) |
R1 resection | 5 (17 %) |
| Complications | |
Immediate perforation | 4 (14 %) |
Immediate bleeding | 0 |
Late perforation | 0 |
Late bleeding | 1 (3 %) |
ESD performance, histopathology and management.
| Biopsy | Pre-ESD diagnosis | Resection | Lateral margin | Deep Margin | Invasion depth | Lympho- vascular invasion | Further management (months) | Result |
| LGD | Adenoma | En-bloc | R0 | R1 | SM3 | Yes | Surgery | No residual cancer in resected specimen |
| LGD | Adenoma |
Aborted
| – | – | – | No | Emergency resection | T3N0 tumor in resected specimen |
| HGD | Adenoma |
En-bloc
| R0 | R0 | Sm1 | Yes | Endoscopy (18) | No recurrence or residue |
| LGD | Adenoma | En-bloc | R0 | R0 | Sm1 | No | Endoscopy (28) | No recurrence or residue |
| LGD | Adenoma | En-bloc | R0 | R0 | Sm1 | No | Endoscopy (6) | No recurrence or residue |
| HGD | Adenoma | En-bloc | R0 | R0 | Sm2 | Yes | Endoscopy (19) | No recurrence or residue |
| LGD | Adenoma | En-bloc | R0 | R0 | Sm1 | No |
No follow-up
| – |
| LGD | Adenoma |
Piecemeal
| R0 | R0 | Sm1 | No | Endoscopy (10) | No recurrence or residue |
| LGD | Adenoma | En-bloc | R0 | R0 | Sm1 | Yes | Endoscopy (12) | No recurrence or residue |
| LGD | Adenoma | En-bloc | R0 | R1 | Sm3 | No | Surgery | No residual cancer in resected specimen |
| LGD | Adenoma | En-bloc | R0 | R0 | Sm3 | No | Surgery | No residual cancer in resected specimen |
| LGD | Adenoma | En-bloc | R0 | R0 | Sm3 | No |
Endoscopy (6)
| No recurrence or residue |
| HGD | Adenoma | En-bloc | R0 | R0 | Sm3 | No | Surgery | No recurrence or residue |
| – | Adenoma | En-bloc | R0 | R0 | Sm1 | No | Awaits endoscopy | No recurrence or residue |
| – | Adenoma | En-bloc | R0 | R0 | Sm1 | No | Endoscopy (4) | No recurrence or residue |
| LGD | Adenoma | En-bloc | R0 | R0 | Sm2 | No | MRI + endoscopy (3) | No recurrence or residue |
| LGD | Suspected Ca | Piecemeal | R0 | R0 | Sm1 | No |
No follow-up
| – |
| LGD | Suspected Ca | Piecemeal | RX | R0 | Sm1 | No | Endoscopy (20) | No recurrence or residue |
| LGD | Suspected Ca | Piecemeal | RX | RX | Sm2 | Yes | MRI + Endoscopy (24) | No recurrence or residue |
| HGD | Suspected Ca | En-bloc | R0 | R0 | Sm1 | No | Endoscopy (21) | No recurrence or residue |
| LGD | Suspected Ca | En-bloc | R0 | R0 | Sm2 | No | Surgery | No residual cancer in resected specimen |
| Ca | Confirmed Ca |
En-bloc
| R0 | RX | Sm2 | No | Surgery | Residual cancer in resected specimen |
| HGD | Suspected Ca | En-bloc | R0 | R0 | Sm1 | No | Endoscopy (15) | Recurrence, Radiation therapy or surgery |
| Ca | Confirmed Ca | En-bloc | R0 | R1 | Sm3 | No | Endoscopy (2) | No recurrence or residue |
| HGD | Suspected Ca | En-bloc | R0 | R0 | Sm2 | Yes |
MRI + Endoscopy (7)
| No recurrence or residue |
| HGD | Suspected Ca | En-bloc | R0 | R0 | Sm1 | No | Endoscopy (8) | No recurrence or residue |
| HGD | Suspected Ca | En-bloc | R0 | R0 | Sm1 | No | Endoscopy (6) | No recurrence or residue |
| Ca | Confirmed Ca | En-bloc | R0 | R1 | Sm3 | No | Endoscopy (3) | No recurrence or residue |
| LGD | Suspected Ca | En-bloc | R0 | R1 | Sm2 | No | Endoscopy (14) | No recurrence or residue |
LGD, low-grade dysplasia; HGD, high-grade dysplasia; Ca, cancer; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; MDT, multidisciplinary team
Perforation during ESD
Due to spread of non-colorectal cancer
Patient refused surgery despite MDT recommendation.
Fig. 2a – cA large (70 × 70 mm), sessile (Paris classification Is) rectal lesion as seen with normal endoscopic view and after en bloc resection. Corresponding histology showed submucosal growth < 2000 µm (sm2), both vertical and lateral margins free from growth and no sign of lymphovascular involvement.