| Literature DB >> 35116099 |
Yasuhiro Inokuchi1, Ayaka Ishida2, Kei Hayashi2, Yoshihiro Kaneta2, Hayato Watanabe3, Kazuki Kano3, Mitsuhiro Furuta2, Kosuke Takahashi3, Hirohito Fujikawa3, Takanobu Yamada3, Kouji Yamamoto4, Nozomu Machida2, Takashi Ogata3, Takashi Oshima3, Shin Maeda5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic resection, especially endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), is increasingly performed in elderly patients with early gastric cancer, and lesions beyond the expanded indications are also resected endoscopically in some patients. It is essential to assess whether gastric ESD is safe and suitable for elderly patients and investigate what type of lesions carry an increased risk of ESD-related complications. AIM: To assess the efficacy and feasibility of gastric ESD for elderly patients, and define high-risk lesions and prognostic indicators.Entities:
Keywords: Charlson comorbidity index; Complications; Early gastric cancer; Elderly; Endoscopic submucosal dissection; Prognostic indicators
Year: 2022 PMID: 35116099 PMCID: PMC8788168 DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v14.i1.49
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Gastrointest Endosc
Short-term outcomes of ESD, n (%)
| Location of the lesions ( | |
| Upper third | 33 (18.9) |
| Middle third | 57 (32.6) |
| Lower third | 85 (48.6) |
| Size of dissected specimen ( | |
| Range | 9-110 mm |
| Median | 30 mm |
| Average | 33.4 mm |
| ESD quality ( | |
| En bloc dissection | 170 (97.1) |
| Fractional dissection | 4 (2.3) |
| Not dissected endoscopically | 1 (0.6) |
| Curability ( | |
| Curative dissection | 135 (77.1) |
| Non-curative dissection | 40 (22.9) |
| Complications | |
| ESD sessions ( | 8 (4.7) |
| Bleeding ( | 6 (3.4) |
| Perforation ( | 2 (1.1) |
| Aspiration pneumonitis ( | 1 (0.6) |
| Procedure-related death ( | 0 |
Location, Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) quality (en bloc or fractional dissection rate), curability (curative or noncurative dissection rate), and complications of bleeding and perforation calculated with respect to the total number of 175 treated lesions.
Size of dissected specimen measured only in endoscopically resected cases (n = 174).
Number of ESD sessions (total n = 172) associated with aspiration pneumonitis. ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection.
Characteristics of treated lesions and patients, n (%)
|
| |
| Macroscopic type | |
| Protruded type (0-I, 0-I+IIa, 0-I+IIb, 0-I+IIc) | 24 (13.7) |
| Flat type (0-IIa, 0-IIa+IIc, 0-IIb, 0-IIc, 0-IIc+IIa) | 150 (85.7) |
| Advanced (type 1) | 1 (0.6) |
| Ulceration | |
| UL (+) | 22 (12.6) |
| UL () | 153 (87.4) |
| Depth of invasion | |
| M | 152 (86.9) |
| ≥ SM | 23 (13.1) |
|
| |
| Underlying disease | |
| Circulatory | 38 (30.6) |
| Respiratory | 9 (7.3) |
| Renal | 0 |
| Antithrombotic agent | |
| Taking | 28 (22.6) |
UL: Ulceration; M: Mucosa; SM: Submucosa.
Details of noncurative lesions, and estimated noncurative factors of 40 noncurative lesions
|
| |||||
| Depth of invasion | |||||
| M | SM1 | SM2 | ≥ MP | ||
| Histological type | |||||
| Differentiated (tub1, tub2, pap) | 19 | 4 | 8 | 1 | |
| Undifferentiated (por, sig, muc) | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | |
|
| |||||
| Depth of invasion | |||||
| ≥ SM2, differentiated | 8 (20) | ||||
| ≥ SM, undifferentiated | 4 (10) | ||||
| Lesion size | |||||
| ≥ 30 mm, differentiated, UL (+) | 2 (5) | ||||
| ≥ 30 mm, differentiated, SM1 | 1 (2.5) | ||||
| ≥ 20 mm, undifferentiated | 5 (12.5) | ||||
| Ulceration | |||||
| UL (+) with undifferentiated components | 5 (12.5) | ||||
| Lymphovascular invasion | |||||
| Ly +/uncertain | 7 (17.5) | ||||
| V +/uncertain | 7 (17.5) | ||||
| Surgical margin | |||||
| Positive | 7 (17.5) | ||||
| Uncertain | 21 (52.5) | ||||
| Not dissected endoscopically | 1 (2.5) | ||||
M: Mucosa; SM: Submucosa; MP: Muscularis propria; UL: Ulceration; Ly: Lymphatic invasion; V: Venous invasion.
Details of patients who had complications of endoscopic submucosal dissection
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 83 | F | 1 | Post-BHA | L, Ant | 40 | 0-IIc, UL (+) | Tub2 > por2, M, ly0, v0, HM0, VM0 | Noncurative | 60 | Bleeding G2 | |
| 83 | M | 0 | L, Ant | 10 | 0-IIc, UL (+) | Tub1 > tub2, M, ly0, v0, HM0, VM0 | Curative | 20 | Bleeding G2 | ||
| 92 | M | 0 | Laryngeal cancer | U, Post | 50 | Type1 | Surgical resection: pap > tub, SS, ly0, v1, NX, HMX | Noncurative | 52 | Perforation G3 | |
| 89 | M | 3 | Brain cancer | M, Les | 33 | 0-IIc, UL (+) | Sig/por2, M, ly0, v0, HM0, VM0 | Noncurative | 68 | Bleeding G3, pneumonitis G2 | |
| 83 | F | 2 | AD, Depression | U, Les | 15 | 0-IIa | Tub1, M, ly0, v0, HM0, VM0 | Curative | 30 | Perforation G2 | |
| 82 | F | 0 | (1) L, Ant | (1) 20 | (1) 0-IIc | (1) Tub2 > tub1 > por, M, ly0, v0, HM0, VM0 | (1) Curative | 54 | Bleeding G2 | ||
| (2) L, Ant | (2)10 | (2)0-IIc | (2) Tub1-tub2, M, ly0, v0, HM0, VM0 | (2) Curative | |||||||
| 84 | M | 2 | AP, COPD | L, Les | 15 | 0-IIc | Por1, M, ly0, v0, HMX, VMX | Noncurative | 40 | Bleeding G2 | |
| 80 | M | 0 | Colon cancer, EGC | L, Les | 16 | 0-IIa+IIc, UL (+) | Tub1 > tub2 > por, M, ly0, v0, HM0, VM0 | Curative | 47 | Bleeding G2 |
Location divided into three regions of the stomach; U (upper third), M (middle third), and L (lower third), respectively.
Size of all-around incision of endoscopic submucosal dissection measured in a surgically resected specimen.
PS: Performance status; BHA: Bipolar hip arthroplasty; AD: Alzheimer disease; UL: Ulceration; AP: Angina pectoris; COPD: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; EGC: Early gastric cancer; M: Mucosa; SM: Submucosa; SS: Subserosa; ly: Lymphatic invasion; v: Venous invasion; HM: Horizontal margin; VM: Vertical margin; N: Lymph node metastasis; L: Lower third; M: Middle third; U: Upper third.
Relations of complications to location or dissected size of endoscopic submucosal dissection specimens, n (%)
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Location | |||||
| Upper third | 0 | 33 (100) | 2 (6.1) | 31 (93.9) | 33 |
| Middle third | 1 (1.6) | 56 (98.4) | 0 | 57 (100) | 57 |
| Lower third | 5 (5.9) | 80 (94.1) | 0 | 85 (100) | 85 |
| Size of specimen | |||||
| ≤ 20 mm | 1 (3.3) | 29 (96.7) | 0 | 30 (100) | 30 |
| 21-40 mm | 1 (1.0) | 102 (99.0) | 1 (1.0) | 102 (99.0) | 103 |
| 41-60 mm | 3 (8.1) | 34 (91.9) | 1 (2.7) | 36 (97.3) | 37 |
| ≥ 61 mm | 1 (20.0) | 4 (80.0) | 0 | 5 (100) | 5 |
Not endoscopically dissected case.
Size of all-around incision of endoscopic submucosal dissection measured in a surgically resected specimen.
Relative risks of location and size for bleeding or perforation
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
| |
| Location | ||||
| Lower third | 5.9% (5/85) | 5.3 | 0.11 | |
| Upper third, middle third | 1.1% (1/90) | |||
| Dissected size | ||||
| ≥ 41 mm | 9.5% (4/42) | 6.3 | 0.030 | |
| ≤ 40 mm | 1.5% (2/133) | |||
| Macroscopic shape | ||||
| Depressive component (+) | 8.2% (6/73) | 0.005 | ||
| Depressive component () | 0% (0/102) | |||
| Ulceration | ||||
| UL (+) | 18.2% (4/22) | 13.9 | 0.003 | |
| UL () | 1.3% (2/153) | |||
| Depth of invasion | ||||
| ≥ SM | 3.9% (6/152) | 1 | ||
| M | 0% (0/23) | |||
|
| ||||
|
|
|
| ||
| Location | ||||
| Upper third | 6.3% (2/32) | 0.033 | ||
| Middle third, lower third | 0% (1/143) | |||
| Dissected size | ||||
| ≥ 41 mm | 2.4% (1/42) | 3.2 | 0.423 | |
| ≤ 40 mm | 0.8% (1/133) | |||
| Macroscopic shape | ||||
| Depressive component (+) | 0% (0/73) | - | 0.511 | |
| Depressive component () | 2.0% (2/102) | |||
| Ulceration | ||||
| UL (+) | 0% (0/22) | - | 1 | |
| UL () | 1.3% (2/153) | |||
| Depth of invasion | ||||
| ≥ SM | 0.7% (1/152) | 6.6 | 0.246 | |
| M | 4.3% (1/23) | |||
UL: Ulceration; M: Mucosa; SM: Submucosa.
Figure 1Overall survival of curative and noncurative patients. Group A: Curative endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) group (n = 87); Group B: Noncurative ESD group (n = 33). A total of 32 patients (26.7%) died during a median follow-up of 2005 d (range, 83-4774 d). Twenty-four of the patients who died were in the curative ESD group and eight were in the noncurative ESD group. The cause of death was gastric cancer in none of them. The overall survival rate did not differ significantly between the curative and noncurative ESD groups (P = 0.69).
Prognostic factors for overall survival (n = 120)
|
|
|
| Curability | |
| Noncurative | – |
| Patient | – |
| Age | – |
| Gender: Male | 0.416 |
| BMI | – |
| PNI | – |
| CCI > 1 | 0.477 |
| GPS | – |
| NLR | – |
| Antithrombotic agent (+) | – |
LASSO: Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator; BMI: Body mass index; PNI: Prognostic nutritional index; CCI: Charlson comorbidity index; GPS: Glasgow prognostic score; NLR: neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio.
Figure 2Overall survival of patients with high and low Charlson comorbidity index. Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) High: Patients with CCI ≥ 2 (n = 20); CCI Low: Patients with CCI ≤ 1 (n = 100). Overall survival rate was significantly different between the two groups (P < 0.001).