Cargando…
Multicenter evaluation of recurrence in endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon: A Western perspective
BACKGROUND: While colon endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an effective technique, removal of larger polyps often requires piecemeal resection, which can increase recurrence rates. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the colon offers the ability for en bloc resection and is well-described i...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10308275/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37397977 http://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v15.i6.458 |
_version_ | 1785066212715134976 |
---|---|
author | Wei, Mike T Zhou, Margaret J Li, Andrew A Ofosu, Andrew Hwang, Joo Ha Friedland, Shai |
author_facet | Wei, Mike T Zhou, Margaret J Li, Andrew A Ofosu, Andrew Hwang, Joo Ha Friedland, Shai |
author_sort | Wei, Mike T |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: While colon endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an effective technique, removal of larger polyps often requires piecemeal resection, which can increase recurrence rates. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the colon offers the ability for en bloc resection and is well-described in Asia, but there are limited studies comparing ESD vs EMR in the West. AIM: To evaluate different techniques in endoscopic resection of large polyps in the colon and to identify factors for recurrence. METHODS: The study is a retrospective comparison of ESD, EMR and knife-assisted endoscopic resection performed at Stanford University Medical Center and Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System between 2016 and 2020. Knife-assisted endoscopic resection was defined as use of electrosurgical knife to facilitate snare resection, such as for circumferential incision. Patients ≥ 18 years of age undergoing colonoscopy with removal of polyp(s) ≥ 20 mm were included. The primary outcome was recurrence on follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 376 patients and 428 polyps were included. Mean polyp size was greatest in the ESD group (35.8 mm), followed by knife-assisted endoscopic resection (33.3 mm) and EMR (30.5 mm) (P < 0.001). ESD achieved highest en bloc resection (90.4%) followed by knife-assisted endoscopic resection (31.1%) and EMR (20.2%) (P < 0.001). A total of 287 polyps had follow-up (67.1%). On follow-up analysis, recurrence rate was lowest in knife-assisted endoscopic resection (0.0%) and ESD (1.3%) and highest in EMR (12.9%) (P = 0.0017). En bloc polyp resection had significantly lower rate of recurrence (1.9%) compared to non-en bloc (12.0%, P = 0.003). On multivariate analysis, ESD (in comparison to EMR) adjusted for polyp size was found to significantly reduce risk of recurrence [adjusted hazard ratio 0.06 (95%CI: 0.01-0.57, P = 0.014)]. CONCLUSION: In our study, EMR had significantly higher recurrence compared to ESD and knife-assisted endoscopic resection. We found factors including resection by ESD, en bloc removal, and use of circumferential incision were associated with significantly decreased recurrence. While further studies are needed, we have demonstrated the efficacy of ESD in a Western population. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10308275 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Baishideng Publishing Group Inc |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-103082752023-06-30 Multicenter evaluation of recurrence in endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon: A Western perspective Wei, Mike T Zhou, Margaret J Li, Andrew A Ofosu, Andrew Hwang, Joo Ha Friedland, Shai World J Gastrointest Endosc Retrospective Cohort Study BACKGROUND: While colon endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an effective technique, removal of larger polyps often requires piecemeal resection, which can increase recurrence rates. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the colon offers the ability for en bloc resection and is well-described in Asia, but there are limited studies comparing ESD vs EMR in the West. AIM: To evaluate different techniques in endoscopic resection of large polyps in the colon and to identify factors for recurrence. METHODS: The study is a retrospective comparison of ESD, EMR and knife-assisted endoscopic resection performed at Stanford University Medical Center and Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System between 2016 and 2020. Knife-assisted endoscopic resection was defined as use of electrosurgical knife to facilitate snare resection, such as for circumferential incision. Patients ≥ 18 years of age undergoing colonoscopy with removal of polyp(s) ≥ 20 mm were included. The primary outcome was recurrence on follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 376 patients and 428 polyps were included. Mean polyp size was greatest in the ESD group (35.8 mm), followed by knife-assisted endoscopic resection (33.3 mm) and EMR (30.5 mm) (P < 0.001). ESD achieved highest en bloc resection (90.4%) followed by knife-assisted endoscopic resection (31.1%) and EMR (20.2%) (P < 0.001). A total of 287 polyps had follow-up (67.1%). On follow-up analysis, recurrence rate was lowest in knife-assisted endoscopic resection (0.0%) and ESD (1.3%) and highest in EMR (12.9%) (P = 0.0017). En bloc polyp resection had significantly lower rate of recurrence (1.9%) compared to non-en bloc (12.0%, P = 0.003). On multivariate analysis, ESD (in comparison to EMR) adjusted for polyp size was found to significantly reduce risk of recurrence [adjusted hazard ratio 0.06 (95%CI: 0.01-0.57, P = 0.014)]. CONCLUSION: In our study, EMR had significantly higher recurrence compared to ESD and knife-assisted endoscopic resection. We found factors including resection by ESD, en bloc removal, and use of circumferential incision were associated with significantly decreased recurrence. While further studies are needed, we have demonstrated the efficacy of ESD in a Western population. Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2023-06-16 2023-06-16 /pmc/articles/PMC10308275/ /pubmed/37397977 http://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v15.i6.458 Text en ©The Author(s) 2023. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. |
spellingShingle | Retrospective Cohort Study Wei, Mike T Zhou, Margaret J Li, Andrew A Ofosu, Andrew Hwang, Joo Ha Friedland, Shai Multicenter evaluation of recurrence in endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon: A Western perspective |
title | Multicenter evaluation of recurrence in endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon: A Western perspective |
title_full | Multicenter evaluation of recurrence in endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon: A Western perspective |
title_fullStr | Multicenter evaluation of recurrence in endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon: A Western perspective |
title_full_unstemmed | Multicenter evaluation of recurrence in endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon: A Western perspective |
title_short | Multicenter evaluation of recurrence in endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon: A Western perspective |
title_sort | multicenter evaluation of recurrence in endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon: a western perspective |
topic | Retrospective Cohort Study |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10308275/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37397977 http://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v15.i6.458 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT weimiket multicenterevaluationofrecurrenceinendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionandendoscopicmucosalresectioninthecolonawesternperspective AT zhoumargaretj multicenterevaluationofrecurrenceinendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionandendoscopicmucosalresectioninthecolonawesternperspective AT liandrewa multicenterevaluationofrecurrenceinendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionandendoscopicmucosalresectioninthecolonawesternperspective AT ofosuandrew multicenterevaluationofrecurrenceinendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionandendoscopicmucosalresectioninthecolonawesternperspective AT hwangjooha multicenterevaluationofrecurrenceinendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionandendoscopicmucosalresectioninthecolonawesternperspective AT friedlandshai multicenterevaluationofrecurrenceinendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionandendoscopicmucosalresectioninthecolonawesternperspective |