Combined endoscopic mucosal resection and full-thickness resection for large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Combined endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with endoscopic Full thickness resection (EFTR) is an emerging technique that has been developed to target colorectal polyps larger than 2 cm. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate this technique for the resection of large colorectal lesions. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases from inception through August 2023, to identify studies that reported on hybrid FTR. A random-effects model was employed to calculate the overall pooled technical success, macroscopic complete resection, free vertical margins resection rate, adverse events, and recurrence on follow up. RESULTS: A total of 8 Study arms with 244 patients (30% women) were included in the analysis. The pooled technical success rate was 97% (95% CI 88%-100%, I2 = 79.93%). The pooled rate of macroscopic complete resection was achieved in 95% (95% CI 90%-99%, I2 = 49.98) with a free vertical margins resection rate 88% (95% CI, 78%-96%, I2 = 63.32). The overall adverse events rate was 2% (95% CI 0%-5%, I2 = 11.64) and recurrence rate of 6% (95% CI 2%-12%, I2=20.32). CONCLUSION: Combined EMR with EFTR is effective and safe for resecting large, and complex colorectal adenomas, offering a good alternative for high surgical risk patients. Regional heterogeneity was observed, indicating that outcomes may be impacted by differences in operator expertise and industry training certification across regions. Comparative studies that directly compare combined EMR with EFTR against alternative methods such as ESD and surgical resection are needed.

Endoscopic full thickness resection vs. transanal endoscopic microsurgery for local treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors - a retrospective analysis.

PURPOSE: Local treatment of small well-differentiated rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) is recommended by current guidelines. However, although several endoscopic methods have been established, the highest R0 rate is achieved by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). Since a recently published study about endoscopic full thickness resection (eFTR) showed a R0 resection rate of 100%, the aim of this study was to evaluate both methods (eFTR vs. TEM). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all patients with rectal NET treated either by TEM (1999-2018) or eFTR (2016-2019) in two tertiary centers (University Hospital Wuerzburg and Ulm). We analyzed clinical, procedural, and histopathological outcomes in both groups. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients with rectal NET received local treatment (TEM: 13; eFTR: 15). Most tumors were at stage T1a and grade G1 or G2 (in the TEM group two G3 NETs were staged T2 after neoadjuvant chemotherapy). In both groups, similar outcomes for en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, tumor size, or specimen size were found. No procedural adverse events were noted. Mean procedure time in the TEM group was 48.9 min and 19.2 min in the eFTR group. CONCLUSION: eFTR is a convincing method for local treatment of small rectal NETs combining high safety and efficacy with short interventional time.

Technical success, resection status, and procedural complication rate of colonoscopic full-wall resection: a pooled analysis from 7 hospitals of different care levels.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD®) is a novel minimally invasive procedure that allows the resection of various lesions in the gastrointestinal tract including the colorectum. Real-world data outside of published studies are limited. The aim of this study was a detailed analysis of the outcomes of colonoscopic eFTR in different hospitals from different care levels in correlation with the number of endoscopists performing eFTR. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this case series, the data of all patients who underwent eFTR between November 2014 and June 2019 (performed by a total of 22 endoscopists) in 7 hospitals were analyzed retrospectively regarding rates of technical success, R0 resection, and procedure-related complications. RESULTS: Colonoscopic eFTR was performed in 229 patients (64.6% men; average age 69.3 ± 10.3 years) mainly on the basis of the following indication: 69.9% difficult adenomas, 21.0% gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas, and 7.9% subepithelial tumors. The average size of the lesions was 16.3 mm. Technical success rate of eFTR was achieved in 83.8% (binominal confidence interval 78.4-88.4%). Overall, histologically complete resection (R0) was achieved in 77.2% (CI 69.8-83.6%) while histologically proven full-wall excidate was confirmed in 90.0% (CI 85.1-93.7%). Of the resectates obtained (n = 210), 190 were resected en bloc (90.5%). We did not observe a clear improvement of technical success and R0 resection rate over time by the performing endoscopists. Altogether, procedure-related complications were observed in 17.5% (mostly moderate) including 2 cases of acute gangrenous appendicitis requiring operation. DISCUSSION: In this pooled analysis, eFTR represents a feasible, effective, and safe minimally invasive endoscopic technique.

Safe and successful resection of difficult GI lesions using a novel single-step full-thickness resection device (FTRD®).

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Classic endoscopic resection techniques (EMR and ESD) are limited to mucosal lesions. In the case of deeper growth into the gut wall and anatomic sites prone to perforation, the novel full-thickness resection device (FTRD®) opens a new dimension of possibilities for endoscopic resection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty patients underwent endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) at our institution. Safety, learning curve, R0 resection rate, and clinical outcome were studied. RESULTS: In 97% (58/60) of the interventions, the FTRD®-mounted endoscope reached the previously marked lesion and eFTR was performed (technical success). Full-thickness resection was achieved in 88% of the cases, with an R0 resection on histological examination in 79%. The clinical success rate based on follow-up histology was even higher (88%). Adverse events occurred in 7%. Appendicitis of the residual cecal appendix after eFTR of an adenoma arising in the appendix led to the only post-eFTR surgery (1/58, 2%). Minor bleeding at the eFTR site (2/58, 3%) and an eFTR performed accidently without proper prior deployment of the OTSC® (1/58, 2%) were successfully treated endoscopically. There was no secondary perforation or eFTR-associated mortality. CONCLUSIONS: After specific training, eFTR is a feasible, safe, and promising all-in-one endoscopic resection technique. Our data show that eFTR allows complete resection of lesions affecting layers of the gut wall beneath the mucosa with a low risk of adverse events. However, our preliminary results need to be confirmed in larger, controlled studies.

Endoscopic full thickness resection (EFTR) of colorectal neoplasms with the Full Thickness Resection Device (FTRD): Clinical experience from two tertiary referral centers in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic full thickness resection (EFTR) by the Full Thickness Resection Device (FTRD) has recently been introduced as a method to allow resection of certain lesions such as adenomatous polyps that would not be resectable by standard polypectomy techniques. We report our clinical experience with FTRD procedures, assessing technical success, completeness of resection (R0 status), rate of histologically proven FTR and safety. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 33 consecutive patients with colonic polyps treated with FTRD from May 2015 to November 2016. RESULTS: Indications mainly were adenoma recurrence or residual adenoma with nonlifting sign after previous polypectomy. In the 31 cases amenable to EFTR, resection was en bloc and histologically complete (R0) in 87.9% (29/33) of patients. Histologically confirmed complete full thickness resection (FTR) was achieved in 80.6% (25/31). Three post-procedure bleedings and one perforation were seen. CONCLUSION: FTRD offers an additional endoscopic approach to treat nonlifting colorectal lesions. EFTR by FTRD appears to be feasible and efficacious in the resection of benign neoplasms of up to 30 mm in diameter and may be an alternative to surgery in selected patients. Given a significant rate of complications, safety is a concern and needs to be assessed in larger prospective studies.