Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background For almost 30 years, transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) has been the mainstay treatment for large rectal lesions. With the advent of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), flexible endoscopy has aimed at en bloc R0 resection of superficial lesions of the digestive tract. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the safety and effectiveness of ESD and full-thickness rectal wall excision by TEM in the treatment of large nonpedunculated rectal lesions preoperatively assessed as noninvasive. Methods A systematic review of the literature published between 1984 and 2010 was conducted (Registration no. CRD42012001882). Data were integrated with those from the original databases requested from the study authors when needed. Pooled estimates of the proportions of patients with en bloc R0 resection, complications, recurrence, and need for further treatment in the ESD and TEM series were compared using random-effects single-arm meta-analysis. Results This review included 11 ESD and 10 TEM series (2,077 patients). The en bloc resection rate was 87.8 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 84.3–90.6) for the ESD patients versus 98.7 % (95 % CI 97.4–99.3 %) for the TEM patients ( P  < 0.001). The R0 resection rate was 74.6 % (95 % CI 70.4–78.4 %) for the ESD patients versus 88.5 % (95 % CI 85.9–90.6 %) for the TEM patients ( P  < 0.001). The postoperative complications rate was 8.0 % (95 %, CI 5.4–11.8 %) for the ESD patients versus 8.4 % (95 % CI 5.2–13.4 %) for the TEM patients ( P  = 0.874). The recurrence rate was 2.6 % (95 % CI 1.3–5.2 %) for the ESD patients versus 5.2 % (95 % CI 4.0–6.9 %) for the TEM patients ( P  < 0.001). Nevertheless, the rate for the overall need of further abdominal treatment, defined as any type of surgery performed through an abdominal access, including both complications and pathology indications, was 8.4 % (95 % CI 4.9–13.9 %) for the ESD patients versus 1.8 % (95 % CI 0.8–3.7 %) for the TEM patients ( P  < 0.001). Conclusions The ESD procedure appears to be a safe technique, but TEM achieves a higher R0 resection rate when performed in full-thickness fashion, significantly reducing the need for further abdominal treatment.

Epstein–Barr virus-associated gastric carcinoma (EBVaGC) is the most common malignancy caused by EBV infection. EBVaGC has definite histological characteristics similar to gastric carcinoma with lymphoid stroma. Clinically, EBVaGC has a significantly low frequency of lymph node metastasis compared with EBV-negative gastric cancer, resulting in a better prognosis. The Cancer Genome Atlas of gastric adenocarcinomas proposed a molecular classification divided into four molecular subtypes: (1) EBVaGC; (2) microsatellite instability; (3) chromosomal instability; and (4) genomically stable tumors. EBVaGC harbors a DNA methylation phenotype, PD-L1 and PD-L2 overexpression, and frequent alterations in the PIK3CA gene. We review clinical importance of EBVaGC and discuss novel therapeutic applications for EBVaGC.

Background and Aim: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a grasping-type knife, called Clutch Cutter (CC), for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD). Methods: This was a randomized prospective study. Patients who underwent C-ESD for colorectal neoplasms >20 mm and <50 mm in size were enrolled, dividing into two groups: ESD using needle type of dual knife alone (D-group) and circumferential incision using dual knife followed by submucosal dissection using CC (CC-group). The primary outcome was the self-completion rate. The secondary outcomes were intraoperative complication rate, procedure time, and en bloc resection rate. Results: A total of 45 patients were allocated to the D-group and 43 to the CC-group were allocated. The self-completion rate was higher in the CC-group (87% [39/45] vs. 98% [42/43]). All of the six patients with an incomplete procedure in the D-group were completely resected with CC use. The intraoperative complication rate was not significant in either group (D vs. CC: 2% vs. 0%). The mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the D-group than that in the CC-group (62.0 vs. 81.1 min; p = 0.0036). The en bloc resection rate was 100% in the D-group and 98% in the CC-group. Conclusions: While dual knife use is superior to CC in terms of time efficiency, the use of CC may be a safe and efficacious option for achieving complete C-ESD.

BackgroundWhen total submucosal dissection is difficult to achieve during conventional colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD), the lesion can be resected by final snaring through salvage hybrid ESD (SH-ESD). This study aimed to examine the outcomes of SH-ESD and identify its indications that could achieve en bloc resection.MethodsWe recruited 1039 consecutive patients with colorectal lesions that underwent ESD at Hiroshima University Hospital between January 2015 and December 2020. C-ESD was attempted thoroughly in 924 lesions (C-ESD group, including 9 lesions in which ESD was discontinued), and SH-ESD was performed owing to some difficulties in 115 lesions (SH-ESD group). Risk factors for incomplete resection by SH-ESD and ESD discontinuation were evaluated using multivariate analysis. The outcomes were compared between cases with remaining undissected submucosa of < 20 mm in diameter in the SH-ESD and C-ESD groups, using propensity score matching.ResultsMultivariate analysis revealed that a procedure time > 80 min and remaining undissected submucosa ≥ 20 mm in diameter were significant risk factors for incomplete resection after SH-ESD and ESD discontinuation. By propensity score matching analysis, procedure time was significantly shorter in the SH-ESD group with remaining undissected submucosa < 20 mm in diameter than in the C-ESD group (71 min vs. 90 min, p = 0.0053), although no significant difference was found in the en bloc resection rate (94% vs. 87%, p = 0.0914).ConclusionSH-ESD can be an alternative surgical method when conventional ESD is difficult to continue in cases in which the remaining undissected submucosa is < 20 mm in diameter.

Background and AimsHybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a colorectal lesion resection procedure that includes both planned and salvage procedures. Previous colorectal hybrid ESD studies have involved single institutions or few operators over a short timeframe, and the size for indication has not been established. In this multicentre study, we investigated the clinical outcomes of hybrid ESD for colorectal tumors that met the 30 mm lesion size criterion.MethodsFrom January 2008 to December 2018, colorectal hybrid ESD was performed for 172 lesions (diameter range, ≥ 20– < 30 mm) at Hiroshima GI Endoscopy Research Group. We compared clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes between 56 and 116 lesions in planned and salvage groups, respectively. We also compared data between 2008 and 2013 (the first period) and 2014 and 2018 (the second period) to assess operator experience.ResultsNo significant difference was found in the complete en bloc resection rate between the planned and salvage groups (92.9% vs. 83.6%, respectively). Procedure time was shorter in the planned group (44.5 min) than in the salvage group (72.0 min, p < 0.01). The perforation rate was higher in the salvage group (21.6%) than in the planned group (0%, p < 0.01); however, the perforation rate during snaring in the salvage group was 1.8%. During the second period relative to the first period, we recorded a significantly higher complete en bloc resection rate (95.7% vs. 75.6%, respectively, p < 0.01) and experienced operator rate (75.5% vs. 53.9%, respectively, p < 0.01). Furthermore, no significant difference was found in the complete en bloc resection rate between the planned and salvage groups during the second period (100% vs. 94.4%, respectively).ConclusionColorectal hybrid ESD, especially salvage hybrid ESD performed by experienced operators, is adoptable and safe for lesions with diameters ranging from ≥ 20 to < 30 mm.

Background and AimsHybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (H-ESD), a modified ESD with a snare, has become increasingly utilized to overcome the limitations of conventional ESD (C-ESD). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of Planned H-ESD and C-ESD for colorectal lesions.MethodsPropensity score matching was performed to control for confounding variables in this retrospective study. Outcomes included en bloc resection and complete resection (R0) rates, procedure time, adverse event rates, and local recurrence rate.Results1286 lesions were enrolled in the study. After matching, 263 lesions were assigned to each group. The Planned H-ESD group has lower en bloc rate but similar R0 resection rate compared to the C-ESD group (90.9% vs 98.1%, P = 0.001; 77.2% vs 77.9%, P = 0.917). The median procedure time was shorter in the Planned H-ESD group (27.0 min vs 35.0 min, P = 0.001). There were no significant differences in adverse events rates or local recurrence rate. Subgroup analysis based on lesion size revealed that a significantly lower en bloc resection rate in the Planned H-ESD group compared to the C-ESD group for lesions ≥ 40 mm (71.0% vs 94.3%, P = 0.027), but there was no significant difference for lesions < 40 mm.ConclusionThe Planned H-ESD has a lower en bloc resection rate but a similar R0 resection rate, adverse event rates, local recurrence rate, and shorter procedure duration. Compared to C-ESD, Planned H-ESD presents advantages for managing colorectal neoplasms below 40 mm.

BackgroundTo evaluate the effectiveness of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions (SENL).MethodsA comprehensive search for studies investigating the efficacy of ESTD and ESD for SENL was conducted to search for relevant studies through PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, SinoMed, CNKI, and Wanfang. Weighted pooled rates were calculated for en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, operation time, dissection area, dissection speed, and adverse events. The 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) for effect size were used to calculate the pooled value using the fixed- or random-effects model.ResultsA total of seventeen studies with 1161 patients were identified and included in the meta-analysis. The pooled analysis showed that ESTD had significantly higher en bloc resection (OR 3.98; 95% CI 1.74 to 9.12; p = 0.001) and R0 resection rates (OR 2.29; 95% CI 1.54 to 3.46; p < 0.001) than ESD. The operation time in the ESTD group was shorter than that in the ESD group (SMD = − 0.57; 95% CI − 0.95 to − 0.19; p = 0.003). The dissection area of the ESTD group was larger than that in the ESD group (SMD = 0.49; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.83; p = 0.004), and the dissection speed is faster than that in the ESD group (SMD = 1.52; 95%CI 1.09 to 0.83; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in esophageal stenosis (p = 0.94) between the two techniques. However, ESTD was superior to ESD in other adverse events (p < 0.05).ConclusionESTD has a significant advantage over ESD in the treatment of SENL. ESTD has significantly higher en bloc and R0 resection rates and reduced adverse events.

BackgroundA novel method for the prevention of bleeding after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is necessary, as the numbers of patients taking antithrombotic agents have increased. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the covering method using polyglycolic acid (PGA) sheets and fibrin glue for ESD-induced ulcer in preventing post-ESD bleeding in patients under continued antithrombotic agents.MethodsOne hundred five consecutive gastric tumors among 84 patients who were treated by ESD under continued antithrombotic agents between April 2014 and September 2015 were enrolled in this study. The patients were classified into two groups, the covering group (52 lesions among 38 patients; those with ESD in whom PGA sheets and fibrin glue were used as the covering method) and the control group (53 lesions among 46 patients; ESD only), and their post-ESD bleeding rates were compared.ResultsNo significant differences were seen in the number and type of antithrombotic agents, lesion location, median procedure time, and median resected specimen size between the groups. ESD was completed in all cases, with no cases of uncontrollable bleeding during the procedure. Post-ESD bleeding occurred in 5.8% (3/52) and 20.8% (11/53) in the covering and control groups, respectively. The post-ESD bleeding rate significantly differed between the groups (P = 0.04; odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidential interval, 0.06–0.89). No adverse events were associated with the use of PGA sheets and fibrin glue.ConclusionsThe covering method using PGA sheets and fibrin glue has the potential to reduce post-ESD bleeding in patients receiving continued antithrombotic agents.

Background In recent years, studies have demonstrated that magnetic anchor-guided endoscopic submucosal dissection (MAG-ESD) is feasible and safe and may facilitate the treatment of all difficult lesions. However, the major problem with MAG-ESD is the inability to deliver the magnetic anchor to the gastrointestinal tract without withdrawal or reinsertion of the endoscope. Therefore, our team developed a magnetic anchor that could be easily inserted through the biopsy channel, facilitating ESD traction and evaluated its effectiveness and safety. Methods The study was conducted between October 2020 and June 2021 at The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, China. One hundred and twelve patients with colorectal tumors treated with ESD were divided into two groups for historical control comparison. A channel-placed magnetic anchor (CPMAG) group and a control group consisting of patients who had conventional ESD without adjuvant traction. The rate of en bloc resection and resection with tumor-free lateral/basal margins (R0 resection), dissection speeds, procedure time, intraoperative bleeding and perforation complications, and postoperative follow-up were compared between the two groups, so as to evaluate the clinical effect and safety of the new magnetic anchor. Results The en bloc resection and R0 resection rate with CPMAG-ESD were slightly higher than with conventional ESD but this was not statistically significant. The median dissection speeds with CPMAG-ESD were higher than with conventional ESD, but the difference was not statistically significant. Intraoperative bleeding and postoperative complications with the CPMAG-ESD were less than with conventional ESD, but this was not statistically significant. The median operating time was shorter with CPMAG- ESD than with conventional ESD (24.5 min [range 15.8–66.5 min] vs 39 min [range 29–58 min], p  = 0.024), and this difference was statistically significant. Conclusions The new magnetic anchor-guided ESD technique appears to be a feasible and safe method for treating early colorectal tumors with en bloc resection, with improvement of the submucosal visual field, and less adverse events.

Objectives This study aimed to compare the short‐term therapeutic outcomes between conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (C‐ESD) and gel immersion ESD (GI‐ESD) for superficial non‐ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients with SNADETs who underwent C‐ESD or GI‐ESD between June 2016 and May 2024. To reduce proficiency bias, the first 50 cases per endoscopist were excluded. C‐ESD was performed using a scissor‐type knife under CO2 insufflation, while GI‐ESD was performed using the same knife under gel immersion. Primary outcomes included en bloc and R0 resection rates; secondary outcomes were resection time, adverse events, and inflammatory response. Results Overall, 51 C‐ESD and 49 GI‐ESD procedures were analyzed. Both groups achieved 100% en bloc resection. R0 resection rates were comparable (C‐ESD: 92.6%, GI‐ESD: 90.2%, p = 0.661). Muscle layer exposure was significantly lower in the GI‐ESD group (1.9%) than in the C‐ESD group (16.7%, p = 0.032). The mean white blood cell count was also significantly lower in the GI‐ESD group (p = 0.038). The incidence of adverse events in the C‐ESD and GI‐ESD groups was 5.6% and 1.9%, respectively (p = 0.627). However, no cases of perforation or aspiration were observed in the GI‐ESD group. Conclusions GI‐ESD is a safe and effective alternative to conventional ESD for SNADETs, offering comparable resection outcomes and low risk of adverse events with a reduced risk of muscle layer exposure.