Safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neoplasia: a multicenter North American experience
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 E...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
2019-12-01
|
Series: | Endoscopy International Open |
Online Access: | http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/a-1010-5663 |
id |
doaj-8bc893a972b8465f9ff0708a4e653369 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Dennis Yang Hiroyuki Aihara Yaseen B. Perbtani Andrew Y. Wang Abdul Aziz Aadam Yutaka Tomizawa Joo Ha Hwang Baiming Zou Nikola S. Natov Amanda Siegel Milad Pourmousavi Khoshknab Mouen A. Khashab Saowanee Ngamruengphong Harshit S. Khara David L. Diehl Thibaut Maniere Sherif Andrawes Petros Benias Nikhil A. Kumta Fariha Ramay Raymond E. Kim Jason Samarasena Kenneth Chang Rintaro Hashimoto Benjamin Tharian Sumant Inamdar Gloria Lan Amrita Sethi Michael J. Nosler Abdalaziz Tabash Mohamed O. Othman Peter V. Draganov |
spellingShingle |
Dennis Yang Hiroyuki Aihara Yaseen B. Perbtani Andrew Y. Wang Abdul Aziz Aadam Yutaka Tomizawa Joo Ha Hwang Baiming Zou Nikola S. Natov Amanda Siegel Milad Pourmousavi Khoshknab Mouen A. Khashab Saowanee Ngamruengphong Harshit S. Khara David L. Diehl Thibaut Maniere Sherif Andrawes Petros Benias Nikhil A. Kumta Fariha Ramay Raymond E. Kim Jason Samarasena Kenneth Chang Rintaro Hashimoto Benjamin Tharian Sumant Inamdar Gloria Lan Amrita Sethi Michael J. Nosler Abdalaziz Tabash Mohamed O. Othman Peter V. Draganov Safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neoplasia: a multicenter North American experience Endoscopy International Open |
author_facet |
Dennis Yang Hiroyuki Aihara Yaseen B. Perbtani Andrew Y. Wang Abdul Aziz Aadam Yutaka Tomizawa Joo Ha Hwang Baiming Zou Nikola S. Natov Amanda Siegel Milad Pourmousavi Khoshknab Mouen A. Khashab Saowanee Ngamruengphong Harshit S. Khara David L. Diehl Thibaut Maniere Sherif Andrawes Petros Benias Nikhil A. Kumta Fariha Ramay Raymond E. Kim Jason Samarasena Kenneth Chang Rintaro Hashimoto Benjamin Tharian Sumant Inamdar Gloria Lan Amrita Sethi Michael J. Nosler Abdalaziz Tabash Mohamed O. Othman Peter V. Draganov |
author_sort |
Dennis Yang |
title |
Safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neoplasia: a multicenter North American experience |
title_short |
Safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neoplasia: a multicenter North American experience |
title_full |
Safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neoplasia: a multicenter North American experience |
title_fullStr |
Safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neoplasia: a multicenter North American experience |
title_full_unstemmed |
Safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neoplasia: a multicenter North American experience |
title_sort |
safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neoplasia: a multicenter north american experience |
publisher |
Georg Thieme Verlag KG |
series |
Endoscopy International Open |
issn |
2364-3722 2196-9736 |
publishDate |
2019-12-01 |
description |
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. |
url |
http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/a-1010-5663 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT dennisyang safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT hiroyukiaihara safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT yaseenbperbtani safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT andrewywang safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT abdulazizaadam safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT yutakatomizawa safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT joohahwang safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT baimingzou safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT nikolasnatov safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT amandasiegel safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT miladpourmousavikhoshknab safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT mouenakhashab safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT saowaneengamruengphong safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT harshitskhara safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT davidldiehl safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT thibautmaniere safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT sherifandrawes safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT petrosbenias safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT nikhilakumta safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT fariharamay safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT raymondekim safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT jasonsamarasena safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT kennethchang safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT rintarohashimoto safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT benjamintharian safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT sumantinamdar safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT glorialan safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT amritasethi safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT michaeljnosler safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT abdalaziztabash safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT mohamedoothman safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience AT petervdraganov safetyandefficacyofendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforrectalneoplasiaamulticenternorthamericanexperience |
_version_ |
1724630783555010560 |
spelling |
doaj-8bc893a972b8465f9ff0708a4e6533692020-11-25T03:17:39ZengGeorg Thieme Verlag KGEndoscopy International Open2364-37222196-97362019-12-010712E1714E172210.1055/a-1010-5663Safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neoplasia: a multicenter North American experienceDennis Yang0Hiroyuki Aihara1Yaseen B. Perbtani2Andrew Y. Wang3Abdul Aziz Aadam4Yutaka Tomizawa5Joo Ha Hwang6Baiming Zou7Nikola S. Natov8Amanda Siegel9Milad Pourmousavi Khoshknab10Mouen A. Khashab11Saowanee Ngamruengphong12Harshit S. Khara13David L. Diehl14Thibaut Maniere15Sherif Andrawes16Petros Benias17Nikhil A. Kumta18Fariha Ramay19Raymond E. Kim20Jason Samarasena21Kenneth Chang22Rintaro Hashimoto23Benjamin Tharian24Sumant Inamdar25Gloria Lan26Amrita Sethi27Michael J. Nosler28Abdalaziz Tabash29Mohamed O. Othman30Peter V. Draganov31Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Northwestern University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USADepartment of Biostatistics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Northwestern University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Universite de Sherbrooke, Sherbrook, QC, CanadaDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Northwell Health, Staten Island, NY, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Northwell Health, Staten Island, NY, USADivision of Gastroenterology, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, NY, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Arkansas Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Arkansas Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY, USAUC Health Medical Group, Fort Collins, CO, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Baylor University Medical Center, Houston, TX, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Baylor University Medical Center, Houston, TX, USADivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USABackground 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.http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/a-1010-5663 |