EMR/ESD: Techniques, Complications, and Evidence

Yahya Ahmed,Mohamed Othman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-020-00777-z

2020-06-15

Current Gastroenterology Reports

Abstract:To discuss endoscopic resection techniques of early gastrointestinal malignancy. The review will focus on the indications and outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

S1621 Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) vs Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD) for Early Gastric Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Amna Iqbal,Zohaib Ahmed,Rehmat Ullah Awan,Manesh Kumar Gangwani,Dushyant S. Dahiya,Hassam Ali,Umar Hayat,Vishali Moond,Babu Mohan,Sahithi Chinnam,Sana Rabeeah,Yaseen Alastal,Shailendra Singh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14309/01.ajg.0001035852.75790.c0

2024-10-26

The American Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract:Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been developed to overcome the limitations of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). The role of EMR cannot be understated, especially in small lesions. This study compares the efficacy and safety of ESD and EMR in the treatment of early gastric cancer (EGC) based on lesion size.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Endoscopic Mucosal Resectionvsendoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Rectal Carcinoid Tumours: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

D. -D. Zhong,L. -M. Shao,J. -T. Cai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12069

IF: 3.4

2013-01-01

Colorectal Disease

Abstract:Aim Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are used for the removal of rectal carcinoid tumours. There are no current guidelines or consensus on the optimal treatment strategy for these lesions. A systematic review was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of ESD and EMR. Method The generation of inclusion criteria and analysis of data were based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations. A systematic literature review was conducted using the following databases: Medline, Embase, SpringerLink, Elsevier ScienceDirect, Science Citation Index and the Cochrane Library. Only papers comparing treatment of rectal carcinoid tumours by EMR and by ESD were selected. The data collected included the patients' demographic information, interventions made, observed outcome and sources of bias. Results Four papers were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. ESD was more effective than EMR in complete resection (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.140.58; P=0.000). ESD was as safe as EMR [rate difference (RD) 0.01; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.05; P=0.675]. Recurrence rates did not differ significantly between the EMR and ESD groups (RD 0.04; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; P=0.150). The duration of ESD was longer than EMR (standardized mean difference 1.73; 95% CI 2.73 to 0.74; P=0.001). Conclusion The study indicates that ESD is the better treatment for rectal carcinoid tumours.
Comparing endoscopic mucosal resection with endoscopic submucosal dissection: the different endoscopic techniques for colorectal tumors

Guanqun Chao,Shuo Zhang,Jianmin Si

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2015.12.027

IF: 2.417

2016-01-01

Journal of Surgical Research

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are used for the removal of colorectal tumors. There are no current guidelines or consensus on the optimal treatment strategy for these lesions. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the effectiveness and safety of ESD and EMR for colorectal tumors. METHODS:For the years 1966 until October 2014, Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for articles comparing the effectiveness and safety of ESD and EMR. STATA 11.0 and RevMan 5.0 were used for meta-analysis and publication bias. RESULTS:Seventeen articles were included in this meta-analysis. ESD was more effective than EMR in endoscopic complete resection rate (odds ratio [OR] = 2.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39-5.70; Z = 2.86; P = 0.004) and pathologic complete resection rate (OR = 2.81; 95% CI, 1.39-5.70; Z = 2.86; P = 0.004). ESD resulted in a higher perforation rate (OR = 5.27; 95% CI, 2.75-10.08; Z = 5.01; P < 0.00001) and a lower recurrence rate (OR = 0.14; 95% CI, 0.06-0.30; Z = 5.04; P < 0.00001). The tumor size was larger in the ESD group (OR = 3.09; 95% CI, 1.54-4.63; Z = 3.92; P < 0.0001), and the procedure time was longer in the ESD group (OR = 21.39; 95% CI, 10.33-32.46; Z = 3.79; P = 0.0002). But bleeding rate did not differ significantly (OR = 1.34; 95% CI, 0.81-2.20; Z = 1.14; P = 0.25). There was no publication bias analyzed by Begg test and Egger test. CONCLUSIONS:The study indicates that ESD is the better treatment for colorectal tumors for its higher complete resection rate despite the longer procedure time and higher perforation rate.
Re-Evaluation Of Indications And Outcomes Of Endoscopic Excision Procedures For Colorectal Tumors: A Review

Shilun Cai,Yunshi Zhong,Pinghong Zhou,Jianmin Xu,Liqing Yao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/gastro/got034

2014-01-01

Gastroenterology Report

Abstract:Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are useful therapeutic techniques for colorectal tumors. Currently, new techniques based on these procedures are available, such as endoscopic submucosal dissection with snare (ESD-S) and endoscopic mucosal resection with pre-cutting (EMR-P). For the excision of colorectal tumors, each of these techniques has been characterized as having a high total resection rate, low recurrence rate or low complication rate. In this study, we analysed clinical trials that had recently been published, to search for the most appropriate endoscopic treatment for colorectal tumors. Our search results revealed the following: for a tumor with a diameter less than 20mm, the surgeon should choose ESD, ESD-S, EMR-P or EMR, depending on the condition of the tumor. On the other hand, to excise a tumor larger than 20mm in diameter, ESD and ESD-S should be the first choices. However, if the patient has a high risk of complications due to ESD or ESD-S, the use of EMR-P would be suitable. Because of the high possibility of canceration in a tumor larger than 20mm in diameter, EMR is not the optimal endoscopic treatment for the excision of a colorectal tumor, due to a low total resection rate and a high recurrence rate.
Technical Advances in Endoscopic Resection Techniques for Lower GI Malignancies

Louis Jean Masgnaux,Jean Grimaldi,Jérémie Jacques,Jérôme Rivory,Mathieu Pioche

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000538041

2024-04-12

Visceral Medicine

Abstract:Background: The management of bulky neoplastic lesions in the digestive tract has historically been a surgical pursuit. With advancements in endoscopic techniques, particularly endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), a paradigm shift toward organ preservation has been initiated. These endoscopic methods, developed incrementally since the 1980s, have progressively enabled curative management of lesions with minimal morbidity, challenging the previously unchallenged domain of surgery. Summary: This review traces the evolution of endoscopic resection from snare polypectomy and EMR to sophisticated ESD, highlighting the technological innovations that have expanded the scope of endoscopic resection. It discusses the intricacies of various EMR techniques like underwater EMR, anchoring EMR, and hybrid EMR, alongside traction-assisted methods and the use of viscous solutions for submucosal injection. Additionally, the manuscript delves into the advancements in ESD, emphasizing traction strategies, knife technology, and the optimization of endoscopes. The benefits of these advancements are weighed against the challenges in anatomopathological interpretation posed by piecemeal resections. Key Messages: The continuous amelioration of endoscopic resection techniques has significantly improved the outcomes of digestive tract lesion management, particularly in achieving R0 resections and reducing recurrence rates. These advancements represent a monumental step toward minimizing the invasiveness of lesion management. However, despite the progress, the necessity for early follow-up post-EMR remains due to the non-negligible recurrence rates, underscoring the need for a rigorous postoperative surveillance regimen. Furthermore, our review suggests that while ESD has transformed the therapeutic landscape, its widespread adoption hinges on further simplification, safety enhancement, and acceleration of the procedure, possibly through innovations like adaptive traction devices.

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of large distal non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas

AlAmri Turki Abdullah

DOI: https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6ns1.4855

2022-03-18

International Journal of Health Sciences

Abstract:Background: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is currently the most used technique for resection of large distal colorectal polyps. However, in large lesions EMR can often only be performed in a piecemeal fashion resulting in relatively low radical (R0)-resection rates and high recurrence rates. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a newer procedure that is more difficult resulting in a longer procedural time, but is promising due to the high en-bloc resection rates and the very low recurrence rates. Objective: To investigate whether Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is superior to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of large distal non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas. Methods: PubMed, Google scholar and Science direct were searched using the following keywords: Endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection and Colorectal adenomas. The authors also screened references from the relevant literature, including all the identified studies and reviews, only the most recent or complete study was included. Documents in a language apart from English have been excluded as sources for interpretation was not found. Papers apart from main scientific studies had been excluded: documents unavailable as total written text, conversation, conference abstract papers and dissertations. Conclusion: EMR is safe and effective for treating colorectal adenomas.
Clinical effects analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection for sessile and flat colorectal polyps

Yanli Ge,Zhirong Wang,Changqing Yang,Shuchang Xu,Dongwei Zhang,Ximei Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3877/cma.j.issn.2095-2015.2016.01.005

2016-01-01

Abstract:Objective To analyze the clinicopathologic characteristics of colorectal polyps and evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR)of sessile and flat colorectal polyps. Methods Clinical data of 324 patients with sessile and flat colorectal polyps resected through the method ofEMR were collected.All EMRs were carried out at our hospital between August 2012 and January 2014 andoperative complications,treatment measure and pathological results follow -up were analyzed.The rate of enbloc resection,complications and recurrence were evaluated .Results 463 polyps(range 6-45 mm) wereremoved in total and 65 lesions were larger than 20 mm.The most frequent location was the rectum.Postoperative pathological examination showed the most common type was tubular adenoma .The rate of enbloc resection was 99.6% except 2 cases.The rate of complication was 2.6% including 7(1.5%)bleedingand 5(1.1%)postpolypectomy syndrome.There was no perforation.Endoscopic follow-up was performed after12 months in patients whose lesions were larger than 20 mm and no recurrence was observed.Conclusion EMRwith an intensive follow-up program is considered as the preferred and effective treatment with a very low riskof complication for sessile and flat colorectal polyps even larger than 20 mm.
S1545 The Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Peri-Appendiceal Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hazem Abosheaishaa,Abdellatif Ismail,Mohanad Awadalla,Shaikhoon Mohammed,Monzer Abdalla,Ayman Elawad,Chukwunonso Ezeani,Jenson Phung,Mohamed Abdallah,Neil Nero,Amit Bhatt,Madhusudhan R. Sanaka,Mohammad Bilal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14309/01.ajg.0001035548.83141.aa

2024-10-26

The American Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract:Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has emerged as a promising technique for managing early-stage gastrointestinal neoplastic lesions. However, its application to peri-appendiceal lesions presents unique challenges due to anatomical complexities and the theoretical risk of causing appendicitis or bowel perforation associated with endoscopic resections. Therefore, surgical resection is often used to manage these lesions. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ESD in managing peri-appendiceal lesions.

gastroenterology & hepatology
American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: methodology and review of evidence

Mohammad A Al-Haddad,Sherif E Elhanafi,Nauzer Forbes,Nirav C Thosani,Peter V Draganov,Mohamed O Othman,Eugene P Ceppa,Vivek Kaul,Michael M Feely,Ilyas Sahin,Yibing Ruan,Behnam Sadeghirad,Rebecca L Morgan,James L Buxbaum,Audrey H Calderwood,Jean M Chalhoub,Nayantara Coelho-Prabhu,Madhav Desai,Larissa L Fujii-Lau,Divyanshoo R Kohli,Richard S Kwon,Jorge D Machicado,Neil B Marya,Swati Pawa,Wenly Ruan,Sunil G Sheth,Andrew C Storm,Nikhil R Thiruvengadam,Bashar J Qumseya,(ASGE Standards of Practice Committee Chair)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2023.03.030

Abstract:This document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides a full description of the methodology used in the review of the evidence used to inform the final guidance outlined in the accompanying Summary and Recommendations document regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. This guideline used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation over endosic approaches.
S1554 An Audit of Indications for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Lesions in North America: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Taylor Bowler,Erica Loon,Sahib Singh,Himsikhar Khataniar,Muhammad Ali Butt,Nicole Theis-Mahon,Rahul Karna,Natalie Wilson,Mohammad Bilal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14309/01.ajg.0001035584.16976.47

2024-10-26

The American Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract:Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a safe and effective treatment for the vast majority of large colorectal lesions. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can be performed in cases suspicious for superficial submucosal invasion. This decision is often operator-dependent and based on optical diagnosis of polyp morphology and surface vascular and pit pattern. Here, we conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of ESD performed for colorectal lesions in North America to evaluate the proportion of ESD performed for benign colorectal lesions.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Comparing endoscopic mucosal resection with endoscopic submucosal dissection in colorectal adenoma and tumors: Meta-analysis and system review

Nian Wang,Lei Shu,Song Liu,Lin Yang,Tao Bai,Zhaohong Shi,Xinghuang Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291916

IF: 3.7

2023-09-28

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Aims This study aimed to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and long-term outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for treating colorectal adenomas and tumors. Methods A systematic literature review was conducted using databases including PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Parameters such as number of patients or lesions, histological diagnosis, lesion size, surgery time, en-bloc resection, R0 resection, severe postoperative complications, and local recurrence were extracted and pooled for analysis. Results A total of 12 retrospective studies involving 1289 patients and 1850 lesions were included in the analysis. EMR was found to have a shorter operation time by 53.6 minutes (95% CI: 51.3, 55.9, P<0.001) and fewer incidences of severe postoperative complications such as perforation and delayed bleeding (OR = 0.40, 95%CI: 0.23, 0.71, P<0.001). On the other hand, ESD had higher rates of en-bloc resection (OR = 0.15, 95%CI: 0.07, 0.30, P<0.001) and R0 resection (OR = 0.32, 95%CI: 0.16, 0.65, P<0.001). Recurrence after EMR was found to be significantly higher than that after ESD surgery (OR = 5.88, 95%CI: 2.15, 16.07, P = 0.037). Conclusions The study suggests that the choice of surgical method may have a greater impact on recurrence compared to the pathological type, and that ESD may be more suitable for the treatment of malignant lesions despite its higher rates of severe postoperative complications and longer operation time.

multidisciplinary sciences
Endoscopic mucosal resection for the treatment of precancerous lesions in stomach and esophagus

Xiao-ping ZOU,Bin ZHANG,Wen LI,Jun CAO,Yu-lin WU

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-5232.2008.02.005

2008-01-01

Abstract:Objective To evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic mucosal resection （EMR） for the treatment of precancerous lesions in stomach and esophagus, and to discuss its indications and procedures. Methods The data of 49 patients,who were diagnosed as dysplasia after EMR, were analyzed retrospectively,including the histological findings before and after EMR, and the related complications. Results Fifty-six lesions were resected, and the complete resection rate was 92. 9% （n = 52）. Post-EMR histopathologic evaluation revealed 7 lesions of low-grade dysplasia（LGD） , 20 mild-grade dysplasia（MGD） and 29 high-grade dysplasia（HGD）. Consistent diagnosis rate before and after the operation is 82. 1% （ n =46）. Of all the 10 lesions of inconsistent pathological diagnosis, 9 showed higher grade after the operation than before. The rate of bleeding in EMR was 30. 6% （ n = 15 ）, and the bleeding was stopped successfully. No perforation was observed. Conclusion All cases diagnosed as dysplasia should be treated with EMR regardless of the degree, which is an efficacious approach in the treatment of precancerous lesions in stomach and esophagus. Mucosal staining and EUS before EMR play an important role in patient selection and safety assessment.\r\n\r\nKey words: \r\nGastroesophageal precancerous lesions; Dysplasia; Endoscopic mucosal resection
[Application Endoscopic Mucosal Resection to Therapy Early Gastrointestinal Cancer and Precancerous Lesion].

Xi-long Ou,Wei-hao Sun,Da-zhong Cao,Qian Yu,Ting Yu,Fang Yan,You-zhen Zhang,Zi-ying Wu,Shun-ying Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1671-0274.2006.06.007

2006-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To explore the clinical value of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) on early gastrointestinal cancer and precancerous lesion.METHODS:The EMR data of 42 lesions from 28 patients, collected from Apr. 2001 to Dec. 2005, were retrospectively analyzed. All the lesions were confirmed histologically before and after operation.RESULTS:Forty-two lesions were removed by the EMR from 28 patients. Lesion types observed under endoscopy were as follows: type I 9 lesions (type Isp 2 lesions, type Is 7 lesions), type II 33 lesions (type IIa 23 lesions, type IIa + IIc 4 lesions, type IIb 6 lesions). Thirty-eight EMRs were performed by using snare resection techniques and 4 EMRs by using suction cap-assisted techniques. The size of lesions changed from 0.6 cm x 0.6 cm to 3.0 cm x 3.5 cm. Complete resections were achieved in 36 of 40, among them, 2 lesions were divided into 2 pieces and 1 lesion was divided into 3 pieces. Post-EMR histopathologic evaluation revealed the followingRESULTS:carcinoma in 4 lesions, high-grade dysplasia (HGD) in 11 lesions, middle-grade dysplasia (MGD) in 17 lesions, adenoma in 6 lesions, non-adenoma in 2 lesions. The pathology match rate between local biopsy and EMR was 60.0%. The detection rates of cancer, HGD and MGD by EMR were higher than that by routine biopsy. No serious complications were seen in this study.CONCLUSION:Endoscopic mucosal resection has significant impact on the endoscopic intervention treatment of early cancer and precancerous lesion in digestive tract.
S1645 Comparing the Efficacy, Safety, and Outcomes of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection versus Endoscopic Full Thickness Resection for Complex Colorectal Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Muhammad Asghar,Ashley A. Vareedayah,Srinivas Puli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14309/01.ajg.0001035948.57123.02

2024-10-26

The American Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract:Endoscopic management of large colorectal lesions and non-lifting lesions remains challenging. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been shown to be effective for such lesions but technically remains demanding. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) using a full-thickness resection device is a novel alternative technique.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Comparison of efficacy and safety between endoscopic mucosal dissection and resection in the treatment of early gastrointestinal cancer and precancerous lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Mengshi Liu,Yali Yue,Yahui Wang,Yi Liang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/jgo-23-32

2023-02-28

Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology

Abstract:Keywords: Endoscopic mucosal dissection (EMD); early gastrointestinal cancer; precancerous lesions; meta-analysis

oncology,gastroenterology & hepatology
Comparison of Endoscopic Mucosal Resection versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Barrett's Neoplasia and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Yusuke Fujiyoshi,Kareem Khalaf,Tony He,Daniel Tham H,Yuhong Yuan,Natalia C. Calo,Samir C. Grover,Christopher W. Teshima

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2024.06.012

IF: 10.396

2024-06-15

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Abstract:Background and Aims Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are both accepted resection strategies for Barrett's esophagus-related neoplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, a lack of consensus exists regarding which technique offers superior outcomes. This study aims to systematically review the evidence comparing EMR versus ESD in treating Barrett's neoplasia and EAC. Methods We searched three databases (Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central) until October 2023. We included studies comparing the efficacy of EMR and ESD for Barrett's neoplasia and EAC. Primary outcomes include en bloc , R0, and curative resection, complete remission of dysplasia (CRD), and local recurrence. Secondary outcomes encompass adverse events. Results Our search identified 905 records. Eleven studies were included in the final analyses. Data showed significantly higher en bloc resection rates with ESD [odds ratio(OR)=27.36 (95% confidence intervals(CI):7.12-105.21), p<0.01, 6 studies]. R0 resection rates were significantly higher with ESD [OR=5.73 (95%CI:2.32-14.16), p<0.01, 7 studies]. Curative resection rates tended to be higher with ESD [OR=3.49 (95%CI:0.86-14.14), p=0.080, 4 studies]. There was no significant difference in CRD rates [OR=0.92 (95%CI:0.37-2.26),p=0.86, 3 studies]. Local recurrence rates tended to be lower with ESD [OR=0.35 (95%CI: 0.11-1.04), p=0.058, 10 studies]. As for adverse events, there was no significant difference in bleeding, perforation, and postoperative stricture rates. Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that ESD achieves higher en bloc , R0 and curative resection rates, with a tendency toward lower recurrence rates. These results suggest that ESD may be a more effective option for managing Barrett's neoplasia and EAC.

gastroenterology & hepatology
Long-Term Clinical Efficacy and Perioperative Safety of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection versus Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Early Gastric Cancer: An Updated Meta-Analysis

Yajie Zhao,Chengfeng Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3152346

2018-01-01

BioMed Research International

Abstract:Background . To systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) versus endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for early gastric cancer (EGC). Methods . We searched the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from January 2000 to April 2017 and included studies that compared the outcomes of ESD with EMR for EGC. These eligible studies that met the inclusion criteria were screened out and were assessed by two independent investigators. Result . In total, 18 retrospective cohort studies were eligible for analysis. Our results indicated that ESD is more beneficial than EMR in increasing the complete resection rate and en bloc resection rate and decreasing the local recurrence rate. However, ESD prolonged operative time and increased incidence of gastric perforation than EMR. No differences were found in postoperative bleeding rate between the two approaches. Conclusion . Compared with EMR, ESD offers higher complete resection rate, higher en bloc resection rate, and lower local recurrence rate but has prolonged operative time and increased incidence of gastric perfusion. There is no statistical difference in the rate of postoperative bleeding between the two groups. However, the above conclusion needs further verification by well-designed, randomized trials with larger samples and long follow-up periods.

biotechnology & applied microbiology,medicine, research & experimental
American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: summary and recommendations

ASGE standards of practice committee,Nauzer Forbes,Sherif E Elhanafi,Mohammad A Al-Haddad,Nirav C Thosani,Peter V Draganov,Mohamed O Othman,Eugene P Ceppa,Vivek Kaul,Michael M Feely,Ilyas Sahin,James L Buxbaum,Audrey H Calderwood,Jean M Chalhoub,Nayantara Coelho-Prabhu,Madhav Desai,Larissa L Fujii-Lau,Divyanshoo R Kohli,Richard S Kwon,Jorge D Machicado,Neil B Marya,Swati Pawa,Wenly Ruan,Sunil G Sheth,Andrew C Storm,Nikhil R Thiruvengadam,Bashar J Qumseya,(ASGE Standards of Practice Committee Chair)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2023.03.015

Abstract:This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. It is accompanied by the document subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well- or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, we suggest surgical evaluation over endoscopic approaches.
Endoscopic submucosal dissection for malignant esophageal lesions

Hazem Hammad,Tonya Kaltenbach,Roy Soetikno

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-014-0386-0

Abstract:The incidence of esophageal cancer has been increasing while the prognosis remains very poor. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was developed in Japan for en bloc resection of early gastric cancer with excellent results. The use of ESD in early squamous cell cancer (SCC) of the esophagus in Japan has been increasing with long-term results comparable to those in early gastric cancer. The use of ESD in Barrett's neoplasia in western countries has been challenged by the low complete resection rates and the risk of metachronous lesions from surrounding non-dysplastic Barrett's epithelium. Efforts to combine ESD with other treatment modalities such as radiofrequency ablation in Barrett's neoplasia and chemoradiation in SCC appear to be promising. The use of steroid therapy (local or systemic) has been demonstrated to prevent post-ESD stenosis, which is the most common complication after esophageal ESD.
Splenic rupture following endoscopic mucosal resection: A case report and literature review

Yusong Ye,Rui Yang,Shicheng Peng,Qilang Xiang,Yuexi Chen,Muhan Lü,Weixing Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000039846

IF: 1.6

2024-10-09

Medicine

Abstract:With advancements in endoscopic technology and the integration of artificial intelligence, detection rates of hidden polyps, adenomas, and early colorectal cancer have significantly improved. These advancements have notably enhanced the prevention of colorectal cancer. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), an endoscopic technique developed from polypectomy and mucosal injection methods, is suitable for lesions smaller than 20 mm, as well as flat or laterally spreading tumors. [ 1 ] The colon is the most common site for EMR, and over the past decade, EMR has become the fundamental technique for removing colorectal polyps. It effectively and completely removes polyps with a high R0 (complete) resection rate. [ 2 ] Large prospective studies have demonstrated that EMR is a safe, effective, and cost-efficient procedure. [ 2 , 3 ]

medicine, general & internal

EMR/ESD: Techniques, Complications, and Evidence

S1621 Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) vs Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD) for Early Gastric Cancer: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Endoscopic Mucosal Resectionvsendoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Rectal Carcinoid Tumours: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Comparing endoscopic mucosal resection with endoscopic submucosal dissection: the different endoscopic techniques for colorectal tumors

Re-Evaluation Of Indications And Outcomes Of Endoscopic Excision Procedures For Colorectal Tumors: A Review

Technical Advances in Endoscopic Resection Techniques for Lower GI Malignancies

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of large distal non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas

Clinical effects analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection for sessile and flat colorectal polyps

S1545 The Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Peri-Appendiceal Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: methodology and review of evidence

S1554 An Audit of Indications for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Lesions in North America: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Comparing endoscopic mucosal resection with endoscopic submucosal dissection in colorectal adenoma and tumors: Meta-analysis and system review

Endoscopic mucosal resection for the treatment of precancerous lesions in stomach and esophagus

[Application Endoscopic Mucosal Resection to Therapy Early Gastrointestinal Cancer and Precancerous Lesion].

S1645 Comparing the Efficacy, Safety, and Outcomes of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection versus Endoscopic Full Thickness Resection for Complex Colorectal Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Comparison of efficacy and safety between endoscopic mucosal dissection and resection in the treatment of early gastrointestinal cancer and precancerous lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison of Endoscopic Mucosal Resection versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Barrett's Neoplasia and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Long-Term Clinical Efficacy and Perioperative Safety of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection versus Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Early Gastric Cancer: An Updated Meta-Analysis

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: summary and recommendations

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for malignant esophageal lesions

Splenic rupture following endoscopic mucosal resection: A case report and literature review