4.6 Article

Diagnostic endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions with suspected deep invasion

Journal

ENDOSCOPY
Volume 55, Issue 2, Pages 192-197

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-1866-8080

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of ESD for lesions with a suspicion of focal deep invasion. It found that ESD is feasible and safe for colorectal lesions with an FDIP <= 15 mm. It achieved high resection and en bloc resection rates, making it a potential valid option for low-risk T1 cancer patients.
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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available