| Literature DB >> 30410957 |
Andreas Probst1, Alanna Ebigbo1, Bruno Märkl2, Saskia Ting2, Tina Schaller2, Matthias Anthuber3, Carola Fleischmann1, Helmut Messmann1.
Abstract
Background and study aims The ideal treatment strategy for rectal neoplasia extending to the dentate line (RNDL) is not well defined. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and submucosal dissection (ESD) compete with surgical techniques such as transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). Non-Asian data and prospective data on ESD are lacking. The study aim was to evaluate the role of ESD in treatment of RNDL in a Western center. Patients and methods Eighty-six patients with rectal adenomas were included. ESD was performed in 86 rectal adenomas including 24 RNDLs (27.9 %) and 62 lesions distant from the dentate line (72.1 %). Results En bloc resection rate was comparable (91.7 % vs. 93.5 %, P = 0.670) between ESD for RNDL and non-RNDL. R0 resection rate was significantly lower in ESD for RNDL compared to that for non-RNDL (70.8 % vs 88.7 %; P = 0.039), but most non-R0 resection was unclear margin (Rx) and was not obvious positive margin (R1). Accordingly, the recurrence rate after ESD for RNDL (4.5 %) was not statistically different from that for non-RNDL (0 %, P = 0.275) and was lower than that previously reported for EMR. Median procedure time was 127 vs. 110 minutes ( P = 0.182). Risk of delayed bleeding (20.8 % vs. 0 %, P = 0.001) and postinterventional pain (33.3 % vs. 14.5 %, P = 0.07) increased in RNDL cases, but they were managed conservatively. Incidence of stricture (4.2 % vs. 1.6 %, P = 0.483) and perforation (0 % vs. 1.6 %, P = 1.000) were similar. Conclusions ESD is a feasible and safe resection technique for RNDLs. A randomized controlled trial comparing ESD to other methods (EMR or transanal surgery) is warranted.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30410957 PMCID: PMC6221817 DOI: 10.1055/a-0749-8735
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Fig. 1ESD of a granular-type LST extending to the dentate line (Paris type 0-IIa + Is). a Retroflexed view after marking the resection borders using hook-knife. b Mucosal incision of the squamous epithelium in the anal canal (forward view). c Retroflexed view after completion of the mucosal incision. d Retroflexed view after completion of ESD. e Distal resection margin including hemorrhoids after completion of ESD (forward view). f Resection specimen (diameter 115 × 50 mm; area 45.1 cm 2 ). g Histopathologic assessment showing adenoma with focal HGIEN resected R0 (H&E, scanning magnification). h Distal resection margin showing R0 resection within the squamous epithelium and thick vessels resected from the rectal venous plexus (H&E, scanning magnification).
Fig. 2Overview of the study population.
Patient and lesion characteristics.
| All lesions | Lesion extending to the dentate line | Lesion distant from the dentate line |
| |
| N | 86 | 24 | 62 | |
| Age, median (range), years | 64.0 (41 – 84) | 68.5 (41 – 83) | 63.0 (45 – 84) | 0.258 |
| Sex, n (%) Male Female | 53 (61.6 %) 33 (38.4) | 11 (45.8) 13 (54.2) | 42 (67.7) 20 (32.3) | 0.104 |
| ASA grade 1/2/3 | 54/30/2 | 12/11/ 1 | 42/19/1 | 0.287 |
| Lesion size, median (range, cm 2 ) | 14.1 (2.4 – 176.6) | 17.3 (4.7 – 84.8) | 14.1 (2.4 – 176.6) | 0.658 |
| Treatment-naïve lesion Pretreated lesion (previous EMR), n (%) | 72 (83.7) 14 (16.3) | 19 (79.2) 5 (20.8) | 53 (85.5) 9 (14.5) | 0.522 |
| Lesion morphology Paris classification 0-Is/0-IIa/0-IIa + Is/0-IIa + Iic Surface pattern granular/ nongranular/mixed | 5/17/63/1 82/3/1 | 1/4/19/0 24/0/0 | 4/13/46/1 58/3/1 | 0.860 0.444 |
| Histology LGIEN/HGIEN | 29/57 | 12/12 | 17/45 | 0.083 |
Procedure characteristics and recurrences.
| All lesions | Lesion extending to the dentate line | Lesion distant from the dentate line |
| |
| N | 86 | 24 | 62 | |
| Procedure time, median (range), minutes | 119 (20 – 445) | 127 (49 – 400) | 110 (20 – 445) | 0.182 |
| Resection speed, median (range), minutes/cm 2 | 6.9 (2.0 – 20.4) | 7.1 (3.6 – 19.4) | 6.6 (2.0 – 20.4) | 0.410 |
| Resection, n (%) En bloc Piecemeal | 80 (93.0) 6 (7.0 %) | 22 (91.7 %) 2 (8.3 %) | 58 (93.5 %) 4 (6.5 %) | 0.670 |
| R0 resection, n (%) R0 R1/Rx | 72 (83.7 %) 14 (16.3 %) | 17 (70.8 %) 7 (29.2 %) | 55 (88.7 %) 7 (11.3 %) | 0.039 |
| Recurrence, n (%) After en bloc resection After piecemeal resection | 5 (5.8 %) 1 (1.2 %) 4 (66.7 %) | 2 (8.3 %) 1 (4.5 %) 1 (50 %) | 3 (4.9 %) 0 3 (75 %) | 0.616 0.275 |
Complications of ESD in rectal neoplasia.
| All lesions | Lesion extending to the dentate line | Lesion distant from the dentate line |
| |
| N | 86 | 24 | 62 | |
| Delayed bleeding, n (%) CTCAE grade | 5 (5.8 %) | 5 (20.8 %) 2 | 0 | 0.001 |
| Perforation, n (%) CTCAE grade | 1 (1.2 %) | 0 | 1 (1.6 %) 2 | 1.00 |
| Stenosis, n (%) CTCAE grade | 2 (2.4 %) | 1 (4.2 %) 2 | 1 (1.6 %) 3 | 0.483 |
| Pain, n (%) CTCAE grade | 17 (19.8 %) | 8 (33.3 %) 2 | 9 (14.5 %) 2 | 0.07 |
| Use of prophylactic antibiotics, n (%) because of fever ( > 38 °C) Total | 30 (34.9 %) 6 (7.0 %) 36 (41.9 %) | 10 (41.7 %) 2 (8.3 %) 12 (50 %) | 20 (32.3 %) 4 (6.5 %) 24 (38.7 %) | 0.656 0.479 |
CTCAE, Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (version 4.0)
Published data on ER for RNDL.
|
Holt et al.
|
Liu et al.
|
Nakadoi et al.
|
Imai et al.
|
Tamaru Y et al.
|
Tanaka S, et al.
|
Matsumoto et al.
| Probst et al. (current) | |
| Study design | non-randomized prospective | non-randomize prospective | non-randomized retrospective | non-randomized retrospective | non-randomized retrospective | non-randomized retrospective | non-randomized retrospective | non-randomized prospective data collection |
| Resection technique | EMR | EMR | ESD | ESD | ESD | ESD | ESD | ESD |
| n |
26
|
49
|
14
|
45
|
64
|
71
|
18
| 24 |
| Male | 53.8 % | 57.1 % | 28.6 % | 33.3 % | 43.7 % | 36.6 % | 50 % | 45.8 % |
| Lesions largest diameter, mean (range), mm | 40 (25 – 180) | 51 (30 – 85) | 49 (25 – 100) | 38 (9 – 80) | 43 (10 – 100) | 52 (6 – 158) | 36 | 55 (30 – 120) |
| En bloc resection | N/A (piecemeal) | N/A (piecemeal) | 85.7 % | 95.6 % | 93.8 % | 98.6 % | 100 % | 91.7 % |
| R0 resection | N/A (piecemeal) | N/A (piecemeal) | N/A | 53.3 % | 93.8 % | N/A | 88.9 % | 70.8 % |
| Procedure time, mean (range), minutes | 26 (5 – 80) | 57 (29 – 126) | 99 (30 – 240) | 104 (25 – 420) | 121 (30 – 270) | 127 (28 – 540) | 103 (range n.a.) | 127 (49 – 400) |
| Injection of anesthetic | ropivacaine or bupivacaine 0.5 % | none | lidocaine 1 % | lidocaine 1 % | lidocaine 1 % | lidocaine 1 % | lidocaine 1 % | none |
| Delayed bleeding Perforation Stenosis Pain | 4.2 % 0 8.3 % n.a. | 8.2 % 0 0 n.a. | 28.6 % 0 7.1 % 7.1 % | 2.2 % 4.4 % 2.2 % 26.7 % | 14 % 0 1.6 % 17.2 % | 0 0 n.a. n.a. | 5.6 % 0 n.a. 33.3 % | 20.8 % 0 4.2 % 33.3 % |
| Recurrence | 22.2 % | 18.4 % | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | N/A | 4.5 % |
N/A, not available
Lesions involved the dentate line or were lying within 2 cm of the dentate line
24 lesions (49 %) were located 0 to 1.0 cm from the dentate while 25 (51 %) were located 1.1 to 2.0 cm from the dentate line
All lesions involved the dentate line