| Literature DB >> 35433226 |
Saowanee Ngamruengphong1, Hiroyuki Aihara2, Shai Friedland3, Makoto Nishimura4, David Faleck4, Petros Benias5, Dennis Yang6, Peter V Draganov6, Nikhil A Kumta7, Zachary A Borman7, Rebekah E Dixon7, James F Marion7, Lionel S DʼSouza8, Yutaka Tomizawa9, Simran Jit1, Sonmoon Mohapatra1, Aline Charabaty1, Alyssa Parian1, Mark Lazarev1, Esteban J Figueroa10, Yuri Hanada11, Andrew Y Wang10, Louis M Wong Kee Song11.
Abstract
Background and study aims In patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), endoscopically visible lesions with distinct borders can be considered for endoscopic resection. The role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for these lesions is not well defined because of a paucity of data. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of colorectal ESD of dysplastic lesions in patients with IBD across centers in the United States. Patients and methods This was a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with IBD who were referred for ESD of dysplastic colorectal lesions at nine centers. The primary endpoints were the rates of en bloc resection and complete (R0) resection. The secondary endpoints were the rates of adverse events and lesion recurrence. Results A total of 45 dysplastic lesions (median size 30mm, interquartile range [IQR] 23 to 42 mm) in 41 patients were included. Submucosal fibrosis was observed in 73 %. En bloc resection was achieved in 43 of 45 lesions (96 %) and R0 resection in 34 of 45 lesions (76 %). Intraprocedural perforation occurred in one patient (2.4 %) and was treated successfully with clip placement. Delayed bleeding occurred in four patients (9.8 %). No severe intraprocedural bleeding or delayed perforation occurred. During a median follow-up of 18 months (IQR 13 to 37 months), local recurrence occurred in one case (2.6 %). Metachronous lesions were identified in 11 patients (31 %). Conclusions ESD, when performed by experts, is safe and effective for large, dysplastic colorectal lesions in patients with IBD. Despite the high prevalence of submucosal fibrosis, en bloc resection was achieved in nearly all patients with IBD undergoing ESD. Careful endoscopic surveillance is necessary to monitor for local recurrence and metachronous lesions after ESD. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35433226 PMCID: PMC9010076 DOI: 10.1055/a-1783-8756
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Fig. 1 Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of a dysplastic lesion in a 73-year-old patient with ulcerative colitis. The 45 mm × 30-mm, slightly elevated lesion (Paris 0-IIa) in the rectum is seen with granular background mucosa in a standard white light, on b narrow-band imaging, and c in near-focus mode (C). d An image taken during ESD shows severe fibrosis. e An image of the resected area after ESD was performed. f The resected specimen, with at least 5 mm of normal-appearing mucosa around the suspected neoplastic lesion.
Patient (n = 41) and lesion (n = 45) characteristics.
| Gender (male, n, %) | 25/41 (61 %) |
| Age (years, mean, SD) | 60.4 (± 11) |
| Disease duration (years), median (range) | 25 (1–50) |
| Type of IBD, n (%) | |
Ulcerative colitis | 33 (80 %) |
Crohn's disease | 8 (20 %) |
| ASA class, n (%) | |
I | 5/41 (12 %) |
II | 23/41 (56 %) |
III | 11/41 (27 %) |
IV | 2/41 (5 %) |
| Primary sclerosing cholangitis, n (%) | 0 |
| Stricturing disease, n (%) | 0 |
| Preceding failed endoscopic treatment, n (%) | 9 (20 %) |
| Location of tumor, n (%) | |
Rectum | 23 (51.1 %) |
Sigmoid & rectosigmoid | 10 (22.2 %) |
Descending colon | 5 (11.1 %) |
Transverse colon | 4 (8.8 %) |
Ascending colon & cecum | 3 (6.6 %) |
| Tumor size (mm, median, IQR) | 30 (23–42) |
| Paris classification, n (%) | |
Is | 2 (4 %) |
IIa | 24 (53 %) |
IIb | 17 (38 %) |
IIa + IIc | 1 (2 %) |
IIa + Is | 1 (2 %) |
| Pre-ESD diagnosis based on biopsy, n (%) | |
Low-grade dysplasia or adenoma | 27 (62.7 %) |
High-grade dysplasia | 9 (20.9 %) |
Sessile serrated polyps/adenomas | 5 (11.6 %) |
Intramucosal cancer | 2 (4.7 %) |
No biopsy | 2 |
| Presence of ulcer at the lesion, n (%) | 0 |
| Degree of submucosal fibrosis, n (%) | |
F0 (none) | 12 (26.7 %) |
F1 (mild) | 15 (33.3 %) |
F2 (severe) | 18 (40.0 %) |
| Procedure time (min, median, IQR) | 93 (IQR 66–123) |
| Procedure setting, n (%) | |
Outpatient setting | 22/45 (49 %) |
Overnight observation | 18/45 (40 %) |
Admission > 24 hours | 5/45 (11 %) |
SD, standard deviation; IBD, inflammatory bowel disease; ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; IQR, interquartile range.
Outcomes of colorectal ESD in IBD.
| En bloc resection, n (%) | 43 (95.5 %) |
| R0 resection, n (%) | 34 (75.5 %) |
| Histology, n (%) | |
Serrated adenomas/polyps | 4 (8.9 %) |
LGD/adenoma | 28 (62.2 %) |
HGD | 9 (20.0 %) |
Intramucosal cancer | 1 (2.2 %) |
Invasive cancer |
3 (6.7 %)
|
| Adverse events; n (%) | |
Intraprocedural perforation | 1 (2.4 %) |
Severe intraprocedural bleeding | 0 |
Delayed perforation | 0 |
Delayed bleeding | 4 (9.8 %) |
| Local recurrence on follow-up endoscopy; n (%) | 1/38 (2.6 %) |
ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; IBD, inflammatory bowel disease; LGD, low-grade dysplasia; HGD, high-grade dysplasia.
Superficial invasive cancer; all lesions were curatively resected by ESD.
Comparison of pre-ESD diagnoses based on the biopsy and histologic diagnoses of the resected specimens (n = 43).
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
| |
| Pre-ESD diagnoses based on biopsy | ||||
LGD/adenoma | 25 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Sessile serrated adenomas/polyp | 1 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
HGD or intramucosal cancer | 1 | 0 | 8 | 2 |
ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; LGD, low-grade dysplasia; HGD, high-grade dysplasia.