Endoscopic submucosal dissection assisted by adaptive traction: results of the first 54 procedures.

BACKGROUND : Good submucosal exposure is key to successful endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and can be achieved with various traction devices. Nevertheless, these devices have a fixed traction force that tends to decrease as the dissection progresses. In contrast, the ATRACT adaptive traction device increases traction during the procedure. METHODS : In this retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data (from a French database), we analyzed ESD procedures performed with the ATRACT device between April 2022 and October 2022. The device was used consecutively whenever possible. We collected details of lesion characteristics, procedural data, histologic outcomes, and clinical consequences for the patient. RESULTS : 54 resections performed in 52 patients by two experienced operators (46 procedures) and six novices (eight procedures) were analyzed. The ATRACT devices used were the ATRACT-2 (n = 21), the ATRACT 2 + 2 (n = 30), and the ATRACT-4 (n = 3). Four adverse events were observed: one perforation (1.9 %), which was closed endoscopically, and three delayed bleeding events (5.5 %). The R0 rate was 93 %, resulting in curative resection in 91 % of cases. CONCLUSION: ESD using the ATRACT device is safe and effective in the colon and rectum, but can also be used to assist with procedures in the upper gastrointestinal tract. It may be particularly useful in difficult locations.

Endoscopic En Bloc Versus Piecemeal Resection of Large Nonpedunculated Colonic Adenomas : A Randomized Comparative Trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic resection of adenomas prevents colorectal cancer, but the optimal technique for larger lesions is controversial. Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has a low adverse event (AE) rate but a variable recurrence rate necessitating early follow-up. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can reduce recurrence but may increase AEs. OBJECTIVE: To compare ESD and EMR for large colonic adenomas. DESIGN: Participant-masked, parallel-group, superiority, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03962868). SETTING: Multicenter study involving 6 French referral centers from November 2019 to February 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with large (≥25 mm) benign colonic lesions referred for resection. INTERVENTION: The patients were randomly assigned by computer 1:1 (stratification by lesion location and center) to ESD or EMR. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was 6-month local recurrence (neoplastic tissue on endoscopic assessment and scar biopsy). The secondary end points were technical failure, en bloc R0 resection, and cumulative AEs. RESULTS: In total, 360 patients were randomly assigned to ESD (n = 178) or EMR (n = 182). In the primary analysis set (n = 318 lesions in 318 patients), recurrence occurred after 1 of 161 ESDs (0.6%) and 8 of 157 EMRs (5.1%) (relative risk, 0.12 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.96]). No recurrence occurred in R0-resected cases (90%) after ESD. The AEs occurred more often after ESD than EMR (35.6% vs. 24.5%, respectively; relative risk, 1.4 [CI, 1.0 to 2.0]). LIMITATION: Procedures were performed under general anesthesia during hospitalization in accordance with the French health system. CONCLUSION: Compared with EMR, ESD reduces the 6-month recurrence rate, obviating the need for systematic early follow-up colonoscopy at the cost of more AEs. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: French Ministry of Health.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection of appendicular lesions is feasible and safe: a retrospective multicenter study (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is challenging for appendicular lesions. We report the outcomes of ESD in this context. METHODS: We collected data of ESD procedures for appendiceal neoplasia in a multicenter prospective registry. Main study endpoints were R0, en-bloc, and curative resection rates and adverse event rate. RESULTS: One hundred twelve patients were included, 47 (42%) with previous appendectomy. Fifty-six (50%) were Toyonaga type 3 lesions (15 [13.4%] postappendectomy). En-bloc and R0 resection rates were 86.6% and 80.4%, respectively, with no significant difference associated with different grades of appendiceal invasion (P = .9 and P = .4, respectively) or previous appendectomy (P = .3 for both). The curative resection rate was 78.6%. Additional surgery was performed in 16 cases (14.3%), including 10 (62.5%) Toyonaga type 3 lesions (P = .04). This included the treatment of 5 cases (4.5%) of delayed perforation and 1 acute appendicitis. CONCLUSIONS: ESD for appendicular lesions is a potentially safer and effective alternative to surgery for a significant proportion of patients.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection of appendiceal lesions by using a novel adjustable traction device: A-TRACT-2.

Video 1Dissections of appendiceal lesions using A-TRACT-2.

Diagnostic endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions with suspected deep invasion.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is potentially a curative treatment for T1 colorectal cancer under certain conditions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of ESD for lesions with a suspicion of focal deep invasion. METHODS: In this retrospective multicenter study, consecutive patients with colorectal neoplasia displaying a focal (< 15 mm) deep invasive pattern (FDIP) that were treated by ESD were included. We excluded ulcerated lesions (Paris III), lesions with distant metastasis, and clearly advanced tumors (tumoral strictures). RESULTS: 124 patients benefited from 126 diagnostic dissection attempts for FDIP lesions. Dissection was feasible in 120/126 attempts (95.2 %) and, where possible, the en bloc and R0 resection rates were 95.8 % (115/120) and 76.7 % (92/120), respectively. Thirty-three resections (26.2 %) were for very low risk tumors, so considered curative, and 38 (30.2 %) were for low risk lesions. Noncurative R0 resections were for lesions with lymphatic or vascular invasion (LVI; n = 8), or significant budding (n = 9), and LVI + budding combination (n = 4). CONCLUSION: ESD is feasible and safe for colorectal lesions with an FDIP ≤ 15 mm. It was curative in 26.6 % of patients and could be a valid option for a further 30.6 % of patients with low risk T1 cancers, especially for frail patients with co-morbidities.

High proficiency of esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection with a "tunnel + clip traction" strategy: a large French multicentric study.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the gold standard for the treatment of precancerous lesions or superficial esophageal cancers. This procedure is currently performed by expert endoscopists only, and poorly standardized. We aimed to assess the technical results and outcomes of a "tunnel + clip" strategy for esophageal ESD procedures performed by less experienced operators for the treatment of superficial neoplasms. METHODS: All consecutive esophageal ESDs performed with the "tunnel + clip" technique for patients with early esophageal cancer in 3 centers were enrolled. Procedural characteristics, clinical outcomes, and complications were recorded. RESULTS: Among 195 esophageal ESD procedures performed, early adenocarcinomas or high-grade dysplasia complicating Barrett's esophagus were predominant (132/195, 67.7%) compared with early squamous cell carcinomas (63/195, 32.3%). The en bloc, R0 and curative resection rates were 100% (195/195), 78.5% (153/195) and 67.2% (131/195), respectively. The mean rate of ESD was 29.7 mm2/min. One (0.5%) perprocedural perforation and 7 (3.6%) postprocedural bleedings occurred, all managed endoscopically. No delayed perforation occurred. Overall, 31 patients (31/195; 15.9%) of patients developed stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: The "tunnel + clip" strategy is safe, and allows to achieve high en bloc, R0 and curative resection rates. This standardized procedure could be used by physicians with little experience and might help spreading esophageal ESD in Western countries.

Digestive perforations related to endoscopy procedures: a local management charter based on local evidence and experts' opinion.

Background and study aims Perforations are a known adverse event of endoscopy procedures; a proposal for appropriate management should be available in each center as recommended by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The objective of this study was to establish a charter for the management of endoscopic perforations, based on local evidence. Patients and methods Patients were included if they experienced partial or complete perforation during an endoscopic procedure between 2008 and 2018 (retrospectively until 2016, then prospectively). Perforations (size, location, closure) and management (imagery, antibiotics, surgery) were analyzed. Using these results, a panel of experts was asked to propose a consensual management charter. Results A total of 105 patients were included. Perforations occurred mainly during therapeutic procedures (91, 86.7%). Of the perforations, 78 (74.3 %) were diagnosed immediately and managed during the procedure; 69 of 78 (88.5 %) were successfully closed. Closures were more effective during therapeutic procedures (60 of 66, 90.9 %) than during diagnostic procedures (9 of 12, 75.0 %, P  = 0.06). Endoscopic closure was effective for 37 of 38 perforations (97.4 %) < 0.5 cm, and for 26 of 34 perforations (76.5 %) ≥ 0.5 cm ( P  < 0.05). For perforations < 0.5 cm, systematic computed tomography (CT) scan, antibiotics, or surgical evaluation did not improve the outcome. Four of 105 deaths (3.8 %) occurred after perforation, one of which was attributable to the perforation itself. Conclusions Detection and closure of perforations during endoscopic procedure had a better outcome compared to delayed perforations; perforations < 0.5 cm had a very good prognosis and CT scan, surgeon evaluation, or antibiotics are probably not necessary when the endoscopic closure is confidently performed. This work led to proposal of a local management charter.

The COlorectal NEoplasia Endoscopic Classification to Choose the Treatment classification for identification of large laterally spreading lesions lacking submucosal carcinomas: A prospective study of 663 lesions.

INTRODUCTION: Optical diagnosis is necessary when selecting the resection modality for large superficial colorectal lesions. The COlorectal NEoplasia Endoscopic Classification to Choose the Treatment (CONECCT) encompasses overt (irregular pit or vascular pattern) and covert (macroscopic features) signs of carcinoma in an all-in-one classification using validated criteria. The CONECCT IIC subtype corresponds to adenomas with a high risk of superficial carcinoma that should be resected en bloc with free margins. METHODS: This prospective multicentre study investigated the diagnostic accuracy of the CONECCT classification for predicting submucosal invasion in colorectal lesions >20 mm. Optical diagnosis before en bloc resection by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was compared with the final histological diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy for the CONECCT IIC subtype was compared with literature-validated features of concern considered to be risk factors for submucosal invasion (non-granular large spreading tumour [NG LST], macronodule >1 cm, SANO IIIA area, and Paris 0-IIC area). RESULTS: Six hundred 63 lesions removed by ESD were assessed. The en bloc, R0, and curative resection rates were respectively 96%, 85%, and 81%. The CONECCT classification had a sensitivity (Se) of 100%, specificity (Sp) of 26.2%, positive predictive value of 11.6%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100% for predicting at least submucosal adenocarcinoma. The sensitivity of CONECCT IIC (100%) to predict submucosal cancer was superior to all other criteria evaluated. COlorectal NEoplasia Endoscopic Classification to Choose the Treatment IIC lesions constituted 11.5% of all submucosal carcinomas. CONCLUSION: The CONECCT classification, which combines covert and overt signs of carcinoma, identifies with very perfect sensitivity (Se 100%, NPV 100%) the 30% of low-risk adenomas in large laterally spreading lesions treatable by piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection or ESD according to expertise without undertreatment. However, the low specificity of CONECCT leads to a large number of potentially not indicated ESDs for suspected high-risk lesions.