Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Europe: Results of 1000 Neoplastic Lesions From the German Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables the curative resection of early malignant lesions and is associated with reduced recurrence risk. Due to the lack of comprehensive ESD data in the West, the German ESD registry was set up to evaluate relevant outcomes of ESD. METHODS: The German ESD registry is a prospective uncontrolled multicenter study. During a 35-month period, 20 centers included 1000 ESDs of neoplastic lesions. The results were evaluated in terms of en bloc, R0, curative resection rates, and recurrence rate after a 3-month and 12-month follow-up. Additionally, participating centers were grouped into low-volume (≤20 ESDs/y), middle-volume (20-50/y), and high-volume centers (>50/y). A multivariate analysis investigating risk factors for noncurative resection was performed. RESULTS: Overall, en bloc, R0, and curative resection rates of 92.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-0.94), 78.8% (95% CI, 0.76-0.81), and 72.3% (95% CI, 0.69-0.75) were achieved, respectively. The overall complication rate was 8.3% (95% CI, 0.067-0.102), whereas the recurrence rate after 12 months was 2.1%. High-volume centers had significantly higher en bloc, R0, curative resection rates, and recurrence rates and lower complication rates than middle- or low-volume centers. The lesion size, hybrid ESD, age, stage T1b carcinoma, and treatment outside high-volume centers were identified as risk factors for noncurative ESD. CONCLUSION: In Germany, ESD achieves excellent en bloc resection rates but only modest curative resection rates. ESD requires a high level of expertise, and results vary significantly depending on the center's yearly case volume.

Endoscopic Step Up: A Colon-Sparing Alternative to Colectomy to Improve Outcomes and Reduce Costs for Patients With Advanced Neoplastic Polyps.

BACKGROUND: The optimal strategy for colonic polyps not amenable to traditional endoscopic polypectomy is unknown. Endoscopic step up is a promising strategy for definitive treatment. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether endoscopic step up leads to improved outcomes and decreased costs compared with planned colectomy for endoscopically unresectable colon polyps. DESIGN: This was a retrospective review of a prospective database. SETTING: The study was conducted at a tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients referred for endoscopically unresectable colon polyps 15 to 50 mm in size were included. INTERVENTIONS: Patients underwent planned colectomy or endoscopic step up at the surgeon's discretion. Endoscopic step up began with diagnostic colonoscopy in the operating room. If the polyp was amenable to endoscopic removal, endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection was performed with progression to combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery or laparoscopic colectomy, as indicated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was 30-day adverse events. We also examined length of stay, hospital charges, insurer payments, and polyp recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients underwent planned colectomy (48 laparoscopic), and 38 underwent endoscopic step up (28 endoscopic mucosal resection, 2 endoscopic submucosal dissection, 6 combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery, and 2 colectomy). Compared with planned colectomy, endoscopic step-up patients had fewer complications (13% vs 33%; p = 0.03) and shorter length of stay (median, 0 vs 4 d; p < 0.001). There was 1 readmission in the endoscopic step-up group and 5 in the planned colectomy group. Endoscopic step-up patients had lower hospital costs ($4790 vs $13,004; p < 0.001) and insurer payments ($2431 vs $19,951; p < 0.001). One-year polyp recurrence-free survival was 84% (95% CI, 67%-93%) in endoscopic step-up patients. All of the recurrences were benign, <1 cm, and managed endoscopically. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its nonrandomized design and short follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: An endoscopic step-up approach to colon polyps is associated with less morbidity, decreased healthcare costs, and colon preservation in 95% of patients. Additional studies are needed to evaluate long-term quality of life and polyp recurrence in this group. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B188. ENDOSCOPIC STEP UP: UNA ALTERNATIVA A COLECTOMíA PARA PRESERVACIóN DE COLON CON LOS PROPóSITOS DE MEJORAR RESULTADOS Y REDUCIR COSTOS EN PACIENTES CON PóLIPOS NEOPLáSICOS AVANZADOS: Se desconoce la estrategia óptima para los pólipos de colon no susceptibles a la polipectomia endoscópica tradicional. Endoscopic Step Up es una estrategia prometedora para el tratamiento definitivo.Determinar si Endoscopic Step Up produce mejores resultados y menores costos en comparación con la colectomía programada para pólipos de colon endoscópicamente no resecables.Revisión retrospectiva de una base de datos prospectiva.Centro de referencia de tercer nivel.Pacientes consecutivos remitidos para pólipos de colon endoscópicamente irresecables de tamaño 15-50 mm.Los pacientes se sometieron a colectomía programada o Endoscópico Step Up a discreción del cirujano. Endoscopic Step Up comenzó con una colonoscopia diagnóstica en el quirófano. Si el pólipo era susceptible de extirpación endoscópica, la resección endoscópica de la mucosa o la disección submucosa endoscópica se realizaba con progresión a cirugía endoscópica-laparoscópica combinada o colectomía laparoscópica, según a cosnideraciones clínicas en el transoperatorio.El resultado primario fue los eventos adversos a 30 días. Duración de la estadía hospitalaria, los cargos hospitalarios, los pagos de las aseguradoras y la recurrencia de pólipos también fueron examinados.Un total de 52 pacientes se sometieron a colectomía programada (48 laparoscópicas) y 38 se sometieron a Endoscopic Step Up (28 resección endoscópica de la mucosa, 2 disección submucosa endoscópica, 6 cirugía endoscópica-laparoscópica combinada y 2 colectomía). En comparación con la colectomía programada los pacientes endoscópicos Step Up tuvieron menos complicaciones (13% versus 33%, p = 0.03) y una estadía hospitalaria más corta (mediana 0 versus 4 días, p <0.001). Hubo 1 reingreso hospitalario en el grupo Endoscopic Step Up y 5 en el grupo de colectomía programada. Los pacientes endoscópicos Step Up tuvieron costos hospitalarios más bajos ($ 4,790 versus $ 13,004, p <0,001) y pagos de la aseguradora ($ 2,431 versus $ 19,951, p <0,001). La supervivencia libre de recurrencia de pólipos a un año fue del 84% (IC 95% 67-93) en pacientes endoscópicos Step Up. Todas las recurrencias fueron benignas, <1 cm, y manejadas endoscópicamente.Diseño no aleatorizado y seguimiento corto.El abordaje endoscópico Step Up para pólipos de colon se asocia con menos morbilidad, disminución de los costos de atención médica y preservación del colon en el 95% de los pacientes. Se ocupan más estudios para evaluar la calidad de vida a largo plazo y la recurrencia de pólipos en este grupo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B188. (Traducción-Dr Adrián Ortega Robles).

Cost of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Versus Endoscopic Piecemeal Mucosal Resection in the Colorectum.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared the costs of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection (EPMR). AIMS: Here, we aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of these approaches by analyzing clinical outcomes and costs. METHODS: Data from patients undergoing colorectal ESD and EPMR were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical outcomes (procedure time, complete resection, and recurrence) were compared, and total direct costs (procedural and follow-up) were assessed. RESULTS: Data from 429 ESD and 115 EPMR patients were included in the analysis. The complete resection rate was significantly higher (83.9% vs. 32.2%, p < 0.001), recurrence rate was lower (0.5% vs. 7.1%, p < 0.001), procedure time was longer (55.4 ± 47.0 vs. 25.6 ± 32.7 min, p < 0.001), and total direct procedural costs at the initial resection were higher (1480.0 ± 728.0 vs. 729.8 ± 299.7 USD, p < 0.001) in the ESD group than in the EPMR group. The total number of surveillance endoscopies was higher in the EPMR group (1.7 ± 1.5 vs. 1.3 ± 1.1, p = 0.003). The cumulative total costs of ESD and EPMR were comparable at 3 and 2 years' follow-up in the adenoma and mucosal/superficial submucosal cancer subgroups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal ESD was associated with higher complete resection and lower recurrence rates. EPMR showed shorter procedure times and similar cumulative total direct costs. ESD or EPMR should be chosen based on both clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Surgery Versus Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Large Polyps: Making Sense of When to Use Which Approach.

Endoscopic resection for large colorectal lesion is effective and cost-saving than surgery. Piecemeal resections are often effective if applied meticulously but endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) allows meritorious removal of large lesions in one piece. For rectal lesions, transanal endoscopic microsurgery or transanal minimally invasive surgery offers more radical transmural resection but ESD is also effective for removal of complex rectal lesions. Surgical resection with lymph node dissection is the gold standard for invasive cancer; however, the management of low-risk early-stage colorectal cancer is worth debating. Treatment selection for large colorectal lesions is discussed based on lesion factor and treatment outcomes.

Cost Analysis of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for the Treatment of Colorectal Lesions in China.

AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate costs associated with colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for treatment of colorectal cancer. METHODS: The study is a retrospective analysis of data on 395 patients treated by colonic ESD. RESULTS: The operation, consumable items, and medication accounted for 71% of the total costs for colonic ESD treatment. Medication and consumable items' costs were higher if lesions occurred in the transverse colon and right hemicolon compared to the left hemicolon. Medication, consumable items, and total costs were higher for larger lesions. Lesion numbers and carcinoma were associated with higher medication, consumable items, operation, and total costs. Positive surgical margins and complications of hemorrhage or perforation were positively correlated with higher costs for medication, consumable items, and total costs. CONCLUSION: Labor costs for doctors and nurses remain low in China. Costs for medication and consumable items were higher for treatment involving the transverse colon or right hemicolon (vs. the left hemicolon), larger lesions, carcinoma, and a positive surgical margin. A benchmark cost estimate for ESD treatment including 4 days of postoperative hospitalization was determined to be approximately 5400 USD.

Cost Effectiveness of Endoscopic Resection vs Transanal Resection of Complex Benign Rectal Polyps.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Complex benign rectal polyps can be managed with transanal surgery or with endoscopic resection (ER). Though the complication rate after ER is lower than transanal surgery, recurrence is higher. Patients lost to follow up after ER might therefore be at increased risk for rectal cancer. We evaluated the costs, benefits, and cost effectiveness of ER compared to 2 surgical techniques for removing complex rectal polyps, using a 50-year time horizon-this allowed us to capture rates of cancer development among patients lost from follow-up surveillance. METHODS: We created a Markov model to simulate the lifetime outcomes and costs of ER, transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), and transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) for the management of a complex benign rectal polyp. We assessed the effect of surveillance by allowing a portion of the patients to be lost to follow up. We calculated the cost, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio or each intervention over a 50-year time horizon. RESULTS: We found that TEM was slightly more effective than TAMIS and ER (TEM, 19.54 QALYs; TAMIS, 19.53 QALYs; and ER, 19.53 QALYs), but ER had a lower lifetime discounted cost (ER cost $7161, TEM cost $10,459, and TAMIS cost $11,253). TEM was not cost effective compared to ER, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $485,333/QALY. TAMIS was dominated by TEM. TEM became cost effective when the mortality from ER exceeded 0.63%, or if the loss to follow up rate exceeded 25.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Using a Markov model, we found that ER, TEM, and TAMIS have similar effectiveness, but ER is less expensive, in management of benign rectal polyps. As the rate of loss to follow up increases, transanal surgery becomes more effective relative to ER.

What is the cost of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)? A medico-economic study.

Introduction: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the gold-standard treatment for superficial lesions of the digestive tract. No medico-economic study has been conducted in Europe. Material and methods: A monocentric study was conducted including all patients undergoing ESD between January 2015 and December 2017. The global cost of hospital stays was measured by microcosting, and revenue was based on the diagnosis-related group (DRG) system. The primary objective was to assess the cost/revenue balance. A medico-economic comparison with surgery was performed as a secondary outcome. Results: A total of 193 patients were prospectively included. The cost per procedure was €3463.79, subtracted from a €2726.84 revenue, with a deficit of -€736.96 per stay. Presence of comorbidities/complications increasing DRG value was the only predictive factor for a positive budgetary balance in a multivariate analysis (odds ratio 49.21, 95% confidence interval 11.3-214.25, p < 0.0001). In comparison with surgery, ESD was associated with shorter length of stay (11 vs 2 days; p < 0.0001) and lower morbidity (28% vs 14%; p = 0.061), lower cost (€8960 vs €1770; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: The ESD cost/revenue balance is negative in 80% of cases. Given the benefits of ESD in terms of patient morbidity and financial savings compared with surgery, the implementation of a specific ESD reimbursement is warranted.

Current status of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer in Korea: role and benefits.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study was aimed to investigate the current clinical status of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC) in Korea based on a National Health Insurance (NHI) database between 2011 and 2014. METHODS: The claims data of ESD for EGC in Korean NHI were reviewed using material codes of Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service between November 2011 and December 2014. The current clinical status was analyzed in terms of treatment pattern, in-hospital length of stay (LOS), total medical costs, and en bloc resection rate according to the hospital type. RESULTS: A total of 23,828 cases of ESD for EGC were evaluated. ESD was performed in 67.4% of cases in tertiary care hospitals, 31.8% in general hospitals, and 0.8% in hospitals, respectively. The median LOS was 5 days, and total median medical costs was approximately 1,300 US dollars. En bloc resection rate was 99%; 8.5% of cases underwent additional treatment within 90 days ESD, and 5.5% in 91 to 365 days after ESD. The clinical status was not significantly different according to the year and hospital type. CONCLUSION: A majority of ESD for EGC were performed in tertiary care hospitals in Korea. The clinical status showed excellent clinical outcomes and did not differ by the year and between the types of hospitals in Korea.

Cost analysis and outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions in an outpatient setting.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), a minimally invasive treatment for early gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, is considered challenging and risky in the colorectum. As such, most patients undergoing ESD are hospitalized due to the perceived increased risk of adverse events. The aim of this study was to compare the costs, safety and efficacy of colorectal-ESD in an outpatient vs inpatient setting in a tertiary level center. METHODS: This is a retrospective study on consecutive patients admitted for colorectal-ESD. Patients were divided into outpatients (Group-A, same-day discharge), and inpatients (Group-B, admitted for at least one night). Data on overall costs, outcomes and adverse events were assessed for each group. RESULTS: A total of 136 patients were considered. Fourteen were excluded because ESD was not performed due to intraprocedural suspicion of invasive cancer. Eighty-three patients were treated as outpatients (Group-A, 68%) and 39 (Group-B, 32%) were hospitalized. R0-rate was 90.4% in Group-A and 89.7% in Group-B(P = 0.98). One perforation occurred in Group-A (1.2%) and 2 in Group-B(5.1%, P = 0.2). Mean Length of stay (LOS) was 1 day for outpatients and 3.3 days for inpatients. Management of Group-A as outpatients produced a cost savings of 941€ on average per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient colorectal-ESD is a feasible, cost-effective strategy to manage superficial colorectal tumors with outcomes comparable to inpatient colorectal-ESD. By using proper selection criteria, outpatient ESD could be considered the first-line approach for most patients.

Cost-effectiveness and short-term clinical outcomes of argon plasma coagulation compared with endoscopic submucosal dissection in the treatment of gastric low-grade dysplasia.

Endoscopic treatment such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or argon plasma coagulation (APC) is widely performed to treat gastric low-grade dysplasia (LGD). We aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of APC versus ESD for gastric LGD in terms of cost-effectiveness. This was a retrospective review of patients with gastric LGD who were treated with endoscopic intervention (APC or ESD) between March 2011 to December 2015. Fifty-nine patients treated with APC and 124 patients treated with ESD were included. Patients in the APC group were significantly older (mean age, 67.68 vs 63.90 years, respectively, P < .01), had an increased rate of Helicobacter pylori infection (27.1 vs 10.5%, respectively, P < .01), and had a higher mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score (2.32 vs 0.38, respectively, P < .01) than those in the ESD group. The 2 groups did not differ in tumor size, location, macroscopic morphology, or surface configuration. The procedure time (11.31 vs56.44 minutes, respectively, P < .01), and hospital stay (3.2 vs 5.6 days, respectively, P < .01) were significantly, shorter in the APC group than in the ESD group. Additionally, the cost incurred was significantly, lower in the APC group than in the ESD group (962.03 vs 2,534.80 dollars, respectively, P < .01). APC has many advantages related to safety, and cost-effectiveness compared with ESD. Therefore, APC can be considered an alternative treatment option for gastric LGD.

Wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for laterally spreading colorectal lesions: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (WF-EMR) for removing large sessile and laterally spreading colorectal lesions (LSLs) >20 mm. DESIGN: An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision tree model was performed over an 18-month time horizon. The following strategies were compared: WF-EMR, universal ESD (U-ESD) and selective ESD (S-ESD) for lesions highly suspicious for containing submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC), with WF-EMR used for the remainder. Data from a large Western cohort and the literature were used to inform the model. Effectiveness was defined as the number of surgeries avoided per 1000 cases. Incremental costs per surgery avoided are presented. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed. RESULTS: 1723 lesions among 1765 patients were analysed. The prevalence of SMIC and low-risk-SMIC was 8.2% and 3.1%, respectively. Endoscopic lesion assessment for SMIC had a sensitivity and specificity of 34.9% and 98.4%, respectively. S-ESD was the least expensive strategy and was also more effective than WF-EMR by preventing 19 additional surgeries per 1000 cases. 43 ESD procedures would be required in an S-ESD strategy. U-ESD would prevent another 13 surgeries compared with S-ESD, at an incremental cost per surgery avoided of US$210 112. U-ESD was only cost-effective among higher risk rectal lesions. CONCLUSION: S-ESD is the preferred treatment strategy. However, only 43 ESDs are required per 1000 LSLs. U-ESD cannot be justified beyond high-risk rectal lesions. WF-EMR remains an effective and safe treatment option for most LSLs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02000141.

Randomised controlled trial of transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus endoscopic mucosal resection for large rectal adenomas (TREND Study).

OBJECTIVE: Non-randomised studies suggest that endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is equally effective in removing large rectal adenomas as transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), but EMR might be more cost-effective and safer. This trial compares the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of TEM and EMR for large rectal adenomas. DESIGN: Patients with rectal adenomas ≥3 cm, without malignant features, were randomised (1:1) to EMR or TEM, allowing endoscopic removal of residual adenoma at 3 months. Unexpected malignancies were excluded postrandomisation. Primary outcomes were recurrence within 24 months (aiming to demonstrate non-inferiority of EMR, upper limit 10%) and the number of recurrence-free days alive and out of hospital. RESULTS: Two hundred and four patients were treated in 18 university and community hospitals. Twenty-seven (13%) had unexpected cancer and were excluded from further analysis. Overall recurrence rates were 15% after EMR and 11% after TEM; statistical non-inferiority was not reached. The numbers of recurrence-free days alive and out of hospital were similar (EMR 609±209, TEM 652±188, p=0.16). Complications occurred in 18% (EMR) versus 26% (TEM) (p=0.23), with major complications occurring in 1% (EMR) versus 8% (TEM) (p=0.064). Quality-adjusted life years were equal in both groups. EMR was approximately €3000 cheaper and therefore more cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Under the statistical assumptions of this study, non-inferiority of EMR could not be demonstrated. However, EMR may have potential as the primary method of choice due to a tendency of lower complication rates and a better cost-effectiveness ratio. The high rate of unexpected cancers should be dealt with in further studies.

Endoscopic resection of large duodenal and papillary lateral spreading lesions is clinically and economically advantageous compared with surgery.

Background and study aims Adenomas of the duodenum and ampulla are uncommon. For lesions ≤ 20 mm in size and confined to the papillary mound, endoscopic resection is well supported by systematic study. However, for large laterally spreading lesions of the duodenum or papilla (LSL-D/P), surgery is often performed despite substantial associated morbidity and mortality. We aimed to compare actual endoscopic outcomes of such lesions and costs with those predicted for surgery using validated prediction tools. Patients and methods Patients who underwent endoscopic resection of LSL-D/P were analyzed. Two surgeons assigned the hypothetical surgical management. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), and the Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity (P-POSSUM) were used to predict morbidity, mortality, and length of hospital stay. Actual endoscopic and hypothetical surgical outcomes and costs were compared. Results A total of 102 lesions were evaluated (mean age of patients 69 years, 52 % male, mean lesion size 40 mm). Complete endoscopic resection was achieved in 93.1 % at the index procedure. Endoscopic adverse events occurred in 18.6 %. Recurrence at first surveillance endoscopy was seen in 17.7 %. For patients with ≥ 2 surveillance endoscopies (n = 55), 90 % were clear of disease and considered cured (median follow-up 27 months). Compared with hypothetical surgical resection, endoscopic resection had less morbidity (18 % vs. 31 %; P = 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (median 1 vs. 4.75 days; P < 0.001), and was less costly than surgery (mean $ 11 093 vs. $ 19 358; P < 0.001). Conclusion In experienced centers, even extensive LSL-D/P can be managed endoscopically with favorable morbidity and mortality profiles, and reduced costs, compared with surgery.

Volumetric laser endomicroscopy in the management of Barrett's esophagus.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma is on the rise despite widespread appreciation that the precursor lesion is Barrett's esophagus. Studies have shown that some patients known to have Barrett's esophagus develop cancer despite their enrollment in conventional endoscopic surveillance programs. This highlights the need for advanced endoscopic imaging to help identify early neoplasia and prevent its progression to esophageal cancer. Recently, a wide-field, second-generation optical coherence tomography endoscopic platform called volumetric laser endomicroscopy (VLE) was cleared by the Food and Drug Administration and made commercially available for advanced imaging in Barrett's esophagus. RECENT FINDINGS: The current review discusses current literature on VLE imaging in Barrett's esophagus. Based on ex-vivo studies, criteria have been established for identifying Barrett's esophagus-associated neoplasia. In addition, recent studies, case series, and case reports have demonstrated that VLE is well tolerated, efficacious, and can target neoplasia. SUMMARY: VLE is a new advanced imaging platform for Barrett's esophagus with considerable promise to target Barrett's esophagus-associated neoplasia. The following are needed to establish VLE's clinical role: studies showing incremental yield of dysplasia detection using VLE, studies to determine VLE's in-vivo diagnostic accuracy for identifying and classifying Barrett's esophagus-associated neoplasia, and studies on the cost-efficacy of VLE.

Management of early colonic neoplasia: where are we now and where are we heading?

INTRODUCTION: There have been considerable advances in the endoscopic treatment of colorectal neoplasia. The development of endoscopic submucosal dissection and full thickness resection techniques is changing the way benign disease and early cancers are managed. This article reviews the evidence behind these new techniques and discusses where this field is likely to move in the future. Areas covered: A PubMed literature review of resection techniques for colonic neoplasia was performed. The clinical and cost effectiveness of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is examined. The development of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and knife assisted resection is described and issues around training reviewed. Efficacy is compared to both EMR and transanal endoscopic microsurgery. The future is considered, including full thickness resection techniques and robotic endoscopy. Expert commentary: The perceived barriers to ESD are falling, and views that such techniques are only possible in Japan are disappearing. The key barriers to uptake will be training, and the development of educational programmes should be seen as a priority. The debate between TEMS and ESD will continue, but ESD is more flexible and cheaper. This will become less significant as the number of endoscopists trained in ESD grows and some TEMS surgeons may shift across towards ESD.

Novel effective and repeatedly available ring-thread counter traction for safer colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection.

BACKGROUND: Although several methods to create an effective counter traction for safer endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) have been reported, these methods do not overcome problems regarding delivery and ease of use. This randomized prospective study assessed the usefulness of ring-shaped thread counter traction, which not only allowed the safer colorectal ESD but also the easiest and lower cost counter traction without any special devices. METHODS: Forty-five patients diagnosed with colorectal lateral spreading tumors over 20 mm were allocated to the conventional ESD group (CE) (n = 22) and the ring-shaped thread counter traction ESD group (RE) (n = 21). The ring-shaped thread was hooked and lifted up to the contralateral mucosa with a hemoclip. The primary outcome was the dissected area per minute during ESD (cm2/min) (UMIN000020160). RESULTS: There were significant differences in the dissection time (min), with 130.0 (56.0-240.0) versus 80 (35.0-130.0) min for the CE and RE groups, respectively (P = 0.001). For the dissected areas per minute (cm2/min), there was a significant difference, with 0.125 (0.1-0.18) versus 0.235 (0.16-0.36) min (P = 0.003) for the CE and RE groups, respectively. There were 1 cases of perforation during ESD in the CE compared to 0 for the RE, and this was no significantly different (P = 0.31). The procedure time of producing and setting the ring-shaped thread counter traction was approximately 1.80 (0.80-3.30) min only. CONCLUSIONS: The ring-shaped thread counter traction is simple, effective, lower cost and does not require special devices to obtain repeated counter traction.

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of large distal non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas (MATILDA-trial): rationale and design of a multicenter randomized clinical trial.

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. We aim to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness of ESD against EMR on both short (i.e. 6 months) and long-term (i.e. 36 months). We hypothesize that in the short-run ESD is more time consuming resulting in higher healthcare costs, but is (cost-) effective on the long-term due to lower patients burden, a higher number of R0-resections and lower recurrence rates with less need for repeated procedures. METHODS: This is a multicenter randomized clinical trial in patients with a non-pedunculated polyp larger than 20 mm in the rectum, sigmoid, or descending colon suspected to be an adenoma by means of endoscopic assessment. Primary endpoint is recurrence rate at follow-up colonoscopy at 6 months. Secondary endpoints are R0-resection rate, perceived burden and quality of life, healthcare resources utilization and costs, surgical referral rate, complication rate and recurrence rate at 36 months. Quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) will be estimated taking an area under the curve approach and using EQ-5D-indexes. Healthcare costs will be calculated by multiplying used healthcare services with unit prices. The cost-effectiveness of ESD against EMR will be expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) showing additional costs per recurrence free patient and as ICER showing additional costs per QALY. DISCUSSION: If this trial confirms ESD to be favorable on the long-term, the burden of extra colonoscopies and repeated procedures can be prevented for future patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02657044 (Clinicaltrials.gov), registered January 8, 2016.

Endoscopic resection is cost-effective compared with laparoscopic resection in the management of complex colon polyps: an economic analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic resection (ER) is an efficacious treatment for complex colon polyps (CCPs). Many patients are referred for surgical resection because of concerns over procedural safety, incomplete polyp resection, and adenoma recurrence after ER. Efficacy data for both resection strategies are widely available, but a paucity of data exist on the cost-effectiveness of each modality. The aim of this study was to perform an economic analysis comparing ER and laparoscopic resection (LR) strategies in patients with CCP. METHODS: A decision analysis tree was constructed using decision analysis software. The 2 strategies (ER vs LR) were evaluated in a hypothetical cohort of patients with CCPs. A hybrid Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was used. Patients entered the model after colonoscopic diagnosis at age 50. Under Strategy I, patients underwent ER followed by surveillance colonoscopy at 3 to 6 months and 12 months. Patients with failed ER and residual adenoma at 12 months were referred for LR. Under Strategy II, patients underwent LR as primary treatment. Patients with invasive cancer were excluded. Estimates regarding ER performance characteristics were obtained from a systematic review of published literature. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2012-2013) and the 2012 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project databases were used to determine the costs and loss of utility. We assumed that all procedures were performed with anesthesia support, and patients with adverse events in both strategies required inpatient hospitalization. Baseline estimates and costs were varied by using a sensitivity analysis through the ranges. RESULTS: LR was found to be more costly and yielded fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with ER. The cost of ER of a CCP was $5570 per patient and yielded 9.640 QALYs. LR of a CCP cost $18,717 per patient and yielded fewer QALYs (9.577). For LR to be more cost-effective, the thresholds of 1-way sensitivity analyses were (1) technical success of ER for complete resection in <75.8% of cases, (2) adverse event rates for ER > 12%, and (3) LR cost of <$14,000. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that ER is a cost-effective strategy for removal of CCPs. The effectiveness is driven by high technical success and low adverse event rates associated with ER, in addition to the increased cost of LR.