The feasibility of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of residual or recurrent tumor localized in therapeutic scar tissue

Abstract

Background and study aims Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is used to treat superficial colorectal tumors. Previous studies have reported the efficacy of ESD for treating residual or local recurrent colorectal tumors. This study sought to evaluate the efficacy of ESD in treating these lesions and to assess factors that prevent successful ESD.

Methods This retrospective study assessed 25 cases of residual or local recurrent lesions that were previously treated using EMR (18 lesions), TEM (5 lesions), ESD (1 lesion) or surgery (1 lesion), and 459 primary lesions treated using ESD between April 2008 and September 2015. Clinicopathological characteristics, treatment outcome and adverse events were compared between groups with or without scar tissue. Factors related to perforation and a prolonged treatment time, which indicate the likelihood of technical difficulties, were identified using multiple logistic regression analysis.

Results In residual or local recurrent lesions groups, patients experienced more perforations (32 % vs 4 %, P < 0.001) and required a longer treatment time (117 min vs 61 min, P < 0.001) compared with the primary lesions group. Both groups showed a similar curative resection rate. Emergency surgery was not needed in any case. Multiple logistic regression analysis indicated that tumor location and therapeutic scar tissue were high risk factors for perforation, and that large tumor size and therapeutic scar tissue were high risk factors for prolonged treatment time.

Conclusions ESD for residual or local recurrent colorectal tumors is a technically challenging, but effective and minimally invasive treatment. When performed carefully with sufficient proficiency, it is a useful treatment option.

• References

• 1 Tanaka S, Haruma K, Oka S. et al. Clinicopathologic features and endoscopic treatment of superficially spreading colorectal neoplasms larger than 20 mm. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 54: 62-66
• 2 Yokota T, Sugihara K, Yoshida S. Endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal neoplastic lesions. Dis Colon Rectum 1994; 37: 1108-1111
• 3 Repici A, Pellicano R, Strangio G. et al. pathologic basis, procedures, and outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum 2009; 52: 1502-1515
• 4 Buchner AM, Guarner-Argente C, Ginsberg GG. Outcomes of EMR of defiant colorectal lesions directed to an endoscopy referral center. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 255-263
• 5 Hotta K, Fujii T, Saito Y. et al. Local recurrence after endoscopic resection of colorectal tumors. Int J Colorectal Dis 2009; 24: 225-230
• 6 Saito Y, Fukuzawa M, Matsuda T. et al. Clinical outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal tumors as determined by curative resection. Surg Endosc 2010; 24: 343-352
• 7 Uraoka T, Fujii T, Saito Y. et al. Effectiveness of glycerol as a submucosal injection for EMR. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 736-740
• 8 Buess G, Hutterer F, Theiss J. et al. A system for a transanal endoscopic rectum operation. Chirurg 1984; 55: 677-680
• 9 Barendse RM, van den Brock FJ, Dekker E. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection vs transanal endoscopic microsurgery for the treatment of large rectal adenomas. Colorectal Dis 2011; 14: e191-196
• 10 Lev-Chelouche D, Margel D, Goldman G. et al. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery: experience with 75 rectal neoplasms. Dis Colon Rectum 2000; 43: 662-667
• 11 Hoteya S, Iizuka T, Kikuchi D. et al. Benefits of endoscopic submucosal dissection according to size and location of gastric neoplasm, compared with conventional mucosal resection. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 24: 1102-1106
• 12 Hirasawa K, Kokawa A, Oka H. et al. Risk assessment chart for curability of early gastric cancer with endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest endosc 2011; 75: 1268-1275
• 13 Saito Y, Uraoka T, Yamaguchi Y. et al. A prospective, multicenter study of 1111 colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissections (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 1217-1225
• 14 Repici A, Hassan C, De Paula Pessoa. et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 137-150
• 15 Lee EJ, Lee JB, Lee SH. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors -1,000 colorectal ESD cases: one specialized institute’s experiences. Surg Endosc 2013; 27: 31-39
• 16 Tanaka S, Oka S, Kaneko I. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: possibility of standardization. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 66: 100-107
• 17 Hirakawa T, Asano K, Katou Y. Learning experiences of colorectal ESD in a community general hospital. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho 2014; 12: 1651-1653
• 18 Taku K, Sano Y, Fu KI. et al. Iatrogenic perforation associated with therapeutic colonoscopy: a multicenter study in Japan. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 22: 1409-1414
• 19 Higashi S, Tanaka S, Kaneko I. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for residual/local recurrence of early gastric cancer after endoscopic mucosal resection. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 996-1000
• 20 Higashimaya M, Oka S, Tanaka S. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for residual early gastric cancer after endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 298-302
• 21 Lee SP, Kim JH, Sung IK. et al. Effect of submucosal fibrosis on endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal tumors. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 30: 872-878
• 22 Sato K, Ito S, Kitagawa T. et al. Factors affecting the technical difficulty and clinical outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors. Surg Endosc 2014; 28: 2959-2965
• 23 Toyonaga T, Tanaka S, Man-I M. et al. Clinical significance of the muscle-retracting sign during colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endosc Int Open 2015; 3: E246-251
• 24 Tanaka S, Kashida H, Saito Y. et al. JGES guidelines for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection. Dig Endosc 2015; 4: 417-434
• 25 Saito Y, Uraoka T, Matsuda T. et al. A pilot study to assess the safety and efficacy of carbon dioxide insufflation during colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection with the patient under conscious sedation. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 537-542
• 26 Yamamoto H, Yahagi N, Oyama T. et al. Usefulness and safety of 0.4% sodium hyaluronate solution as a submucosal fluid ‘cushion’ in endoscopic resection for gastric neoplasms: a prospective multicenter trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 830-839
• 27 Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum. JSCCR Guidelines 2014 for the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer.
• 28 The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions. esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: S3-43
• 29 Kudo S, Tamura S, Nakajima T. et al. Diagnosis of colorectal tumorous lesions by magnifying endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 44: 8-14
• 30 Kuroki Y, Hoteya S, Mitani T. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for residual/locally recurrent lesions after endoscopic therapy for colorectal tumors. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 25: 1747-1753
• 31 Hurlstone DP, Shorthouse AJ, Brown SR. et al. Salvage endoscopic submucosal dissection for residual or local recurrent intraepithelial neoplasia in the colorectum: a prospective analysis. Colorectal Dis 2008; 10: 891-897
• 32 Gabriel RAHMI, Tanaka S, Ohara Y. et al. Efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for redisual or recurrent superficial colorectal tumors after endoscopic mucosal resection. J Dig Dis 2015; 16: 14-21
• 33 Hiki N, Nunobe S, Matsuda T. et al. Laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery. Dig Endosc 2015; 2: 197-204
• 34 Kitano S, Kitajima M, Konishi F. et al. A multicenter study on laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in Japan. Surg Endosc 2006; 20: 1348-1352
• 35 Miyajima N, Fukunaga M, Hasegawa H. et al. Results of a multicenter study of 1057 cases of rectal cancer treated by laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 2009; 23: 113-118