| Literature DB >> 35571465 |
Sonmoon Mohapatra1,2, Kesavan Sankaramangalam1, Chawin Lopimpisuth2, Oluwatoba Moninuola1, Malorie Simons2, Julie Nanavati3, Leah Jager4, Debra Goldstein1, Arkady Broder1, Venkata Akshintala2, Reezwana Chowdhury2, Alyssa Parian2, Mark G Lazarev2, Saowanee Ngamruengphong2.
Abstract
Background and study aims Little is known about outcomes of advanced endoscopic resection (ER) for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with dysplasia. The aim of our meta-analysis was to estimate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for dysplastic lesions in patients with IBD. Methods We performed a systematic review through Jan 2021 to identify studies of IBD with dysplasia that was treated by EMR or ESD. We estimated the pooled rates of complete ER, adverse events, post-ER surgery, and recurrence. Proportions were pooled by random effect models. Results Eleven studies including 506 patients and 610 lesions were included. Mean lesion size was 23 mm. The pooled rate of complete ER was 97.9 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 95.3 % to 99.7 %). The pooled rate of endoscopic perforation was 0.8 % (95 % CI:0.1 % to 2.2 %) while bleeding occurred in 1.6 % of patients (95 %CI:0.4 % to 3.3 %). Overall, 6.6 % of patients (95 %CI:3.6 % to 10.2 %) underwent surgery after an ER. Among 471 patients who underwent surveillance, local recurrence occurred in 4.9 % patients (95 % CI:1.0 % to 10.7 %) and metachronous lesions occurred in 7.4 % patients (95 %CI:1.5 % to 16 %) over a median follow-up of 33 months. Metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) was detected in 0.2 % of patients (95 %CI:0 % to 2.2 %) during the surveillance period. Conclusions Advanced ER is safe and effective in the management of large dysplastic lesions in IBD and warrants consideration as first-line therapy. Although the risk of developing CRC after ER is low, meticulous endoscopic surveillance is crucial to monitor for local or metachronous recurrence of dysplasia. 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: 35571465 PMCID: PMC9106415 DOI: 10.1055/a-1784-7063
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Fig. 1Study design of identification of eligible studies. ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; EMR, Endoscopic mucosal resection.
Baseline study characteristics .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
| ||||||||
| Hurlstone et al | United Kingdom | Single center | Prospective | June 2000–April 2006 | 74 | 58.5 (21–74) | – | 74 | 0 | 0 |
| Smith et al | United Kingdom | Single center | Prospective | Jan 2006–March 2008 | 67 | 54.5 (26–72) | 36 | 67 | 0 | 0 |
| Iacopini et al | Italy and Japan | Two centers | Prospective | Jan 2009–July 2016 | 09 | 62 (35–69) | 04 | 9 | 0 | 0 |
| Suzuki et al | UK and Japan | Two centers | Retrospective | Jan 2009–Jan 2016 | 32 | 65 (49–86) | 18 | 32 | 0 | 0 |
| Kinoshita et al | Japan | Single center | Retrospective | Feb 2011–Jan 2017 | 25 | 61.8 (38–83) | 18 | 25 | 0 | 0 |
| Gulati et al | United Kingdom | Single center | Prospective | Jan 2011–Sept 2017 | 15 | – | 11 | 15 | 0 | 0 |
| Yadav et al | United states | Single center | Retrospective | Jan 2012–June 2016 | 97 | 59.1 (49.2–87.7) | 59 | 63 | 27 | 7 |
| Yang et al | Korea | Single center | Retrospective | Aug 2009–July 2017 | 15 | 45.3 (18.6–71.5) | 10 | 15 | 0 | 0 |
| Alkandari et al | European | Multicenter | Retrospective | 2008–2016 | 91 | 62 (26–83) | 53 | 81 | 10 | 2 |
| Matsumoto et al (2019) | Japan | Single center | Retrospective | Aug 1999–Jun 2015 | 07 | 55 (37–65) | 05 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| Nishio et al (2020) | Japan | Single center | Retrospective | Jan 2000–Oct 2019 | 74 | 58 (48–70) | – | 74 | 0 | 0 |
34 % of 112 patients who underwent simple polypectomy were excluded from the final analysis.
Differences in polyp morphology and outcomes between EMR, ESD, and hybrid ESD techniques across all studies.
|
|
|
| |
| Lesion characteristics | |||
Mean size (mm) | 14.6 | 25.1 | 26 |
Proportions of lesions < 20 mm (%) | 71.3 | 36.8 | NA |
Submucosal fibrosis (%) | 2.3 | 88.1 | 75.3 |
| Polyp morphology (%) | |||
Polypoid | 43.8 | 11.1 | 32.8 |
Non-polypoid | 56.2 | 88.9 | 67.1 |
| Rate of incomplete resection (%) | 0.6 | 3.8 | 0 |
| Rate of en bloc resection (%) | 79.7 | 85.7 | 74.6 |
| Rate of adverse events (%) | 0.7 | 4.4 | 11 |
| Rate of recurrence during follow-up (%) | 3.5 | 1.7 | 4.4 |
EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; NA, not available.
Fig. 2Forest plot, pooled rate of complete endoscopic resection in patients with dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease. CI, confidence interval.
Fig. 3Forest plot, pooled rate of surgery after an endoscopic resection in patients with IBD-associated dysplasia. CI, confidence interval.
Incidence of colorectal cancer and dysplasia during follow-up in patients with IBD-associated dysplasia.
|
|
|
|
| |
| No. of included studies | 11 | 18 | 10 | 20 |
| No. of patients (n) | 506 | 1037 | 376 | 508 |
| Inclusion criteria | ||||
Study population | UC or CD with any dysplasia size > 10 mm | UC + CD with any dysplasia | UC with any dysplasia | UC with only LGD |
Intervention | EMR, ESD, hybrid ESD | Simple polypectomy, EMR, ESD or hybrid | Simple polypectomy | Surveillance colonoscopy or colectomy |
| Lesion characteristics (%) | Non-polypoid (67.7) polypoid (32.3) | Non-polypoid (25) Polypoid (9.4) Non-polypoid + Polypoid (65.4) | Polypoid (100) | Non-polypoid (93.8) Polypoid (6.1) |
| Follow-up period (person-years) | 1514 | NA | 1704 | 1520 |
| Polyp size (cm) | 2.3 (mean) | NA | 0.5–1.2 | NA |
| Incidence of any dysplastic lesion | 56 | 43 | 65 | NA |
| Incidence of HGD/CRC | 15 | NA | 7.0 | 30 |
|
Incidence of CRC
| NA | 2 | 5.3 | 14 |
IBD, inflammatory bowel disease; UC, ulcerative colitis; CD, Crohn’s disease; LGD, low-grade dysplasia; EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; HGD, high-grade dysplasia; CRC, colorectal cancer; CI, confidence interval.
Unable to report incidence of CRC per 1000 person years in the present study because of a very low event rate; overall 0.2 % CRC was detected during the surveillance period. IBD, inflammatory bowel disease; UC, ulcerative colitis; CD, Crohn’s disease; LGD, low-grade dysplasia; EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; HGD, high-grade dysplasia; CRC, colorectal cancer; CI, confidence interval.