Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Dec;7(12):E1714-E1722.
doi: 10.1055/a-1010-5663. Epub 2019 Dec 2.

Safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neoplasia: a multicenter North American experience

Affiliations

Safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neoplasia: a multicenter North American experience

Dennis Yang et al. Endosc Int Open. 2019 Dec.

Abstract

Background and aims Rectal lesions traditionally represent the first lesions approached during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) training in the West. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of rectal ESD in North America. Methods This is a multicenter retrospective analysis of rectal ESD between January 2010 and September 2018 in 15 centers. End points included: rates of en bloc resection, R0 resection, adverse events, comparison of pre- and post-ESD histology, and factors associated with failed resection. Results In total, 171 patients (median age 63 years; 56 % men) underwent rectal ESD (median size 43 mm). En bloc resection was achieved in 141 cases (82.5 %; 95 %CI 76.8-88.2), including 24 of 27 (88.9 %) with prior failed endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). R0 resection rate was 74.9 % (95 %CI 68.4-81.4). Post-ESD bleeding and perforation occurred in 4 (2.3 %) and 7 (4.1 %), respectively. Covert submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC) was identified in 8.6 % of post-ESD specimens. There was one case (1/120; 0.8 %) of recurrence at a median follow-up of 31 weeks; IQR: 19-76 weeks). Older age and higher body mass index (BMI) were predictors of failed R0 resection, whereas submucosal fibrosis was associated with a higher likelihood of both failed en bloc and R0 resection. Conclusion Rectal ESD in North America is safe and is associated with high en bloc and R0 resection rates. The presence of submucosal fibrosis was the main predictor of failed en bloc and R0 resection. ESD can be considered for select rectal lesions, and serves not only to establish a definitive tissue diagnosis but also to provide curative resection for lesions with covert advanced disease.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests D Yang, PV Draganov, HS Khara, H Aihara, D Diehl, NA Kumta, AA Aadam, S Ngamruengphong, MA Khashab, A Sethi, J Samarasena, K Chang are consultants for Boston Scientific. K Chang, J Samarasena, A Sethi, MA Khashab, NA Kumta, H Aihara, PV Draganov, and H Khara are consultants for Olympus Inc. K Chang, J Samarasena, D Diehl, PV Draganov are consultants for Cook Medical. K Chang, J Samarasena, M Khashab, D Diehal, and H Khara are consultants for Medtronic. K Chang and NA Kumta are consultants for Apollo Endosurgery. K Chang and H Khara are consultants for Covidien. K Chang is consultant for ERBE, Endogastric solutions, Ovesco, Mederi and Torax. H Khara is consultant for ConMed and C2Therapeutics. K Chang and J Samarasena are consultants for Mauna Kea. K Chang, J Samarasena and D Diehl are consultants for Pentax. A Sethi and D Yang are consultants for US Endoscopy. D Diehl, H Aihara, D Yang and PV Draganov are consultants for Lumendi. H Aihara is consultant for Merit Endotek, GI Supply, Fujifilm Medical and Auris Health. J Samarasena is owner of Docbot Inc. PV Draganov is consultant for Microtech.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Rectal ESD procedure. a A 35 mm lesion (Paris classification 0-IIa + IIc) is identified in the rectum. b Post-ESD resection bed involving nearly 50 % of the circumference. c ESD en bloc resected specimen.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Jayanna M, Burgess N G, Sing R et al.Cost analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection vs surgery for large laterally spreading colorectal lesions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14:271–278. - PubMed
    1. Ahlenstiel G, Hourigan L F, Brown G et al.Actual endoscopic versus predicted surgical mortality for treatment of advanced mucosal neoplasia of the colon. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80:668–676. - PubMed
    1. Tanaka S, Kashida H, Saito Y et al.JGES guidelines for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection. Dig Endosc. 2015;27:417–434. - PubMed
    1. Pimentel-Nunes P, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Ponchon T et al.Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy. 2015;47:829–854. - PubMed
    1. Draganov P V, Wang A Y, Othman M O et al.Clinical practice of endoscopic submucosal dissection in the United States. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;17:16–25. - PubMed