Ian Holmes; Shai Friedland

doi:10.5946/ce.2016.077

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 49(5); 2016 > Article

Review Endoscopic Mucosal Resection versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Large Polyps: A Western Colonoscopist’s View: Ian Holmes¹, Shai Friedland²; Clinical Endoscopy 2016;49(5):454-456.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2016.077
Published online: August 26, 2016

¹Department of Gastroenterology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA

²VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, USA

Correspondence: Shai Friedland, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, 711 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94301, USA Tel: +1-650-787-7099, Fax: +1-650-321-7917, E-mail: shai_friedland@yahoo.com

• Received: May 27, 2016 • Revised: July 3, 2016 • Accepted: July 13, 2016

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

9,536 Views
294 Download
30 Web of Science
25 Crossref
31 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
EMR OUTCOMES IN WESTERN CENTERS
TREATMENT OF RECURRENCES AFTER EMR
COMPARISON OF EMR AND ESD
CONCLUSIONS
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

To discuss the rationale for the widespread application of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) rather than endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in Western centers. In Western centers, EMR is the treatment of choice for most non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas >2 cm in size. EMR is sufficiently effective and safe to be performed without post-procedure hospitalization. Advances in EMR have led to reduced recurrence rates, and recent studies have demonstrated excellent outcomes with endoscopic treatment of recurrent adenomas. While studies from Asia have demonstrated lower recurrence rates with ESD, concern about the higher perforation risk and lengthy procedure time of ESD are two of the barriers preventing widespread adoption of ESD in the West. EMR is likely to continue as the dominant method for the treatment of large colorectal adenomas in Western centers until the limitations of ESD are overcome.
Keywords: Colonic polyps; Colonoscopy; Colorectal neoplasms

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is widely used in Western centers for the treatment of non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas >2 cm in size. Colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for the treatment of these adenomas is rarely performed outside of Japan and Korea [1]. EMR is associated with a low risk of adverse events, rapid procedure times, and relatively low technical complexity; it is also suitable for outpatient treatment as patients generally only need to be observed for a few hours after the procedure and can go home the same day [2]. ESD is technically complex, involves a long procedure time, and is associated with a significant risk of intraprocedure and delayed colon perforation; patients require hospitalization for observation after the procedure [3]. The main advantage of ESD is the excellent rate of en bloc resection, which reduces local recurrence rates and ensures precise histopathologic staging if malignancy is detected. However, advances in endoscopic optics have improved the visual assessment of malignancy, and improvements in endoscopic techniques have significantly reduced the local recurrence rate after EMR and facilitated the treatment of recurrences. EMR is therefore likely to continue as the widely used technique for the treatment of large colorectal adenomas in the West.

EMR OUTCOMES IN WESTERN CENTERS

Outcomes of EMR

Multiple large observational studies have documented the safety and efficacy of EMR for the treatment of non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas >2 cm in size. The prospective multicenter Australian Colonic EMR (ACE) study demonstrated an intention-to-treat rate of 84% of successful EMRs with a mean procedure duration of 25 minutes [2]. Submucosal invasive cancer was found in 6.9% of the cases and was generally treated with surgery. The adverse event rate was 7.7%: 2.1% of the cases required overnight hospitalization for post-procedure pain, 1.5% required a 3 to 5 day hospitalization and antibiotics for serositis, 2.9% required hospitalization for post-procedure bleeding, and 1.3% developed a perforation. A subsequent publication that included more patients and more extensive follow-up demonstrated a local recurrence rate of 16% at 4-month follow-up, with an additional 4% recurrence rate found at 16 months [4].

Risk factors associated with recurrence include lesion size >40 mm; use of argon plasma to ablate residual adenoma not amenable to snare resection; and prior manipulations leading to fibrosis, such as partial snare polypectomy, tattoo application at the site of the lesion, or aggressive biopsies of the lesion [3-5].

New Advances in EMR

Increased experience and improved endoscopic imaging using higher resolution cameras, dual focus design allowing closer inspection, and proprietary imaging techniques (narrow band imaging, blue laser imaging, and iScan) show significant promise in improving the endoscopic differentiation of benign and malignant colorectal lesions [6,7]. This may influence treatment planning, as piecemeal resection with EMR is generally considered acceptable for benign adenomas, but en bloc resection should be performed for malignancies.

Avulsion, a newly described technique utilizing hot biopsy forceps with cutting current, enables complete removal of many fibrotic islands of residual adenoma encountered during EMR. In a comparative analysis involving argon plasma coagulation, the use of avulsion resulted in significantly higher rates of complete removal of all visible neoplasia during EMR and markedly reduced recurrence rates [8].

Thermal ablation of the margin of the resection site after EMR can potentially reduce the incidence of recurrence by ablating microscopic areas of non-visible residual adenoma. Preliminary results from a multicenter randomized study presented in abstract form in 2016 demonstrated a reduction in adenoma recurrence from 20% to 6% with thermal ablation of the margin [9].

Underwater EMR is another recently described technique in which colorectal adenomas are removed using a snare underwater, without submucosal injection [10]. Underwater EMR is particularly well suited for non-lifting lesions with fibrosis from prior incomplete resection attempts or other manipulations. In this setting, it increases the complete resection rate of visible neoplasia and reduces recurrence [11]. Successful underwater en bloc snare resection of 2- to 4-cm large adenomas has also been reported, challenging the conventional approach of avoiding en bloc snare resection of lesions >2 cm due to the fear of perforation [12]. If ongoing studies confirm the excellent efficacy and safety profile of this initial report, underwater en bloc resection may become more widely adopted.

TREATMENT OF RECURRENCES AFTER EMR

The majority of recurrences after EMR are unifocal and <5 mm in size [4]. Over 90% of the recurrences can be treated with conventional snare polypectomy, EMR, or ablation [4]. A second recurrence is found in 10% to 40% of all patients after treatment of the first recurrence [4,11]. Underwater EMR appears to be superior to conventional EMR for treating recurrences, with a higher rate of complete removal of visible neoplasia and a lower second recurrence rate [11]. Even lesions that recur two or more times can be treated successfully with additional EMR or underwater EMR [13]. Treatment of recurrences with EMR or underwater EMR appears to be as safe as the treatment of naive lesions, with a low risk of bleeding or perforation [4,11,13]. Progression to malignancy during treatment is very rare [4,13].

COMPARISON OF EMR AND ESD

In expert centers, ESD enables complete en bloc resection of >85% of all colorectal adenomas and superficial cancers [3]. In contrast, en bloc resection rates for colorectal adenomas >2 cm in size are typically 25% or less with EMR [8]. Adenoma recurrence is significantly more common with EMR than with ESD: recurrence rates for adenomas >2 cm in size treated with EMR are typically approximately 16% in Western centers [4] and 7% in Japanese centers [13], while recurrence rates with ESD are 1.4% in Japan [13]. However, ESD requires significantly longer time to perform than EMR: the mean procedure time for EMR in a large Western study was 25 minutes while that for ESD in a large Japanese study was 116 minutes [2,3]. In the same two studies, perforation occurred in 1.3% of the patients undergoing EMR and in 4.9% of the patients undergoing ESD. Hospitalization was required in <10% of the Western patients who underwent EMR, while 100% of Japanese patients undergoing colorectal ESD are typically hospitalized for >3 days [14].

While piecemeal EMR of adenomas results in good clinical outcomes in most patients, en bloc resection with ESD is preferable for cancers with slight submucosal invasion and favorable histologic features, as it provides curative endoscopic treatment without the need for surgery [15]. Piecemeal resection with EMR may reduce the accuracy of histologic analysis and may lead to poor oncologic outcomes due to local recurrence. With current technology, endoscopic differentiation between adenoma and cancer is only 70% to 90% accurate, and the accuracy of differentiating between slight and deep submucosal invasion is only 70% to 80%; therefore, precise histologic staging with an en bloc resection using ESD is preferable for lesions that have a significant likelihood of being invasive cancers [15].

CONCLUSIONS

EMR is safe and effective for treating colorectal adenomas. Compared with ESD, EMR is significantly faster to perform, has a much lower perforation rate, and does not require post-procedure hospitalization. Advances in EMR techniques have led to reduced local recurrence rates, and the modern treatment of recurrences is technically simple, safe, and usually effective. While ESD in expert centers still offers a superior technical result and lower recurrence rate, the procedural complexity, additional unreimbursed procedure time, perforation risk, and requirement of post-procedure hospitalization make it unlikely to be widely adopted in the West for treatment of colorectal adenomas. Improvements in endoscopic visual assessment of early submucosal invasive cancer may enable identification of a limited number of patients who may be suitable candidates for ESD in Western centers, if additional data showing safety and long-term efficacy comparable to surgery become available.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Klein A, Bourke MJ. Advanced polypectomy and resection techniques. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2015;25:303–333.Article PubMed
2. Moss A, Bourke MJ, Williams SJ, et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection outcomes and prediction of submucosal cancer from advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2011;140:1909–1918.Article PubMed
3. Saito Y, Uraoka T, Yamaguchi Y, et al. A prospective, multicenter study of 1111 colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissections (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:1217–1225.Article PubMed
4. Moss A, Williams SJ, Hourigan LF, et al. Long-term adenoma recurrence following wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (WF-EMR) for advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia is infrequent: results and risk factors in 1000 cases from the Australian Colonic EMR (ACE) study. Gut 2015;64:57–65.Article PubMed
5. Kim HG, Thosani N, Banerjee S, Chen A, Friedland S. Effect of prior biopsy sampling, tattoo placement, and snare sampling on endoscopic resection of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:204–213.Article PubMed
6. Burgess NG, Pellise M, Nanda KS, et al. Clinical and endoscopic predictors of cytological dysplasia or cancer in a prospective multicentre study of large sessile serrated adenomas/polyps. Gut 2016;65:437–446.Article PubMed
7. Rey JW, Kiesslich R, Hoffman A. New aspects of modern endoscopy. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2014;6:334–344.Article PubMed PMC
8. Holmes I, Kim HG, Yang DH, Friedland S. Avulsion is superior to argon plasma coagulation for treatment of visible residual neoplasia during EMR of colorectal polyps (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2016 Apr 11 [Epub]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2016.03.1512Article
9. Klein A, Jayasekeran V, Hourigan LF, et al. A multi-center randomized control trial of thermal aablation of the margin of the post endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) mucosal defect in the prevention of adenoma recurrence following EMR: preliminary results from the “SCAR” study. Gastroenterology 2016;150(4 Suppl 1):S1266–S1267.Article
10. Binmoeller KF, Weilert F, Shah J, Bhat Y, Kane S. “Underwater” EMR without submucosal injection for large sessile colorectal polyps (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:1086–1091.Article PubMed
11. Kim HG, Thosani N, Banerjee S, Chen A, Friedland S. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for recurrences after previous piecemeal resection of colorectal polyps (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2014;80:1094–1102.Article PubMed
12. Binmoeller KF, Hamerski CM, Shah JN, Bhat YM, Kane SD, Garcia-Kennedy R. Attempted underwater en bloc resection for large (2-4 cm) colorectal laterally spreading tumors (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:713–718.Article PubMed
13. Oka S, Tanaka S, Saito Y, et al. Local recurrence after endoscopic resection for large colorectal neoplasia: a multicenter prospective study in Japan. Am J Gastroenterol 2015;110:697–707.Article PubMed PDF
14. Tomiki Y, Kawai M, Takehara K, et al. Clinical pathway to discharge 3 days after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Dig Endosc 2015;27:679–686.Article PubMed
15. Tanaka S, Kashida H, Saito Y, et al. JGES guidelines for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection. Dig Endosc 2015;27:417–434.Article PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Outcome after colorectal full-thickness resection and management of recurrence
Julius Mueller, Valentin Miedtke, Armin Kuellmer, Moritz Schiemer, Dominik Bettinger, Robert Thimme, Arthur Schmidt
Endoscopy International Open.2024; 12(08): E989. CrossRef
Identification of Iatrogenic Perforation in Pediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Oren Ledder, Marek Woynarowski, Diana Kamińska, Izabella Łazowska-Przeorek, Stanislaw Pieczarkowski, Claudio Romano, Raffi Lev-Tzion, Magdalena Holon, Andreia Nita, Anna Rybak, Elżbieta Jarocka-Cyrta, Bartosz Korczowski, Elzbieta Czkwianianc, Iva Hojsak,
Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology & Nutrition.2023; 77(3): 401. CrossRef
Current status of endoscopic full‐thickness resection with the full‐thickness resection device
Julius Mueller, Armin Kuellmer, Moritz Schiemer, Robert Thimme, Arthur Schmidt
Digestive Endoscopy.2023; 35(2): 232. CrossRef
Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection with an external additional working channel (EMR+ and ESD+) are equivalent to using a double-channel endoscope: a systematic evaluation in a porcine ex vivo model
Richard F. Knoop, Ahmad Amanzada, Golo Petzold, Volker Ellenrieder, Michael Engelhardt, Albrecht Neesse, Sebastian C. B. Bremer, Steffen Kunsch
Surgical Endoscopy.2023; 37(10): 7749. CrossRef
High-Quality Colonoscopy: A Review of Quality Indicators and Best Practices
Mason Soeder, Alla Turshudzhyan, Lisa Rosenberg, Micheal Tadros
Gastroenterology Insights.2022; 13(2): 162. CrossRef
Risk factors for local recurrence of large gastrointestinal lesions after endoscopic mucosal resection
Yasar Colak, Badar Hasan, Walid Hassaballa, Mamoon Ur Rashid, Victor Strassmann, Giovanna DaSilva, Steven D. Wexner, Tolga Erim
Techniques in Coloproctology.2022; 26(7): 545. CrossRef
From advanced diagnosis to advanced resection in early neoplastic colorectal lesions: Never-ending and trending topics in the 2020s
Francesco Auriemma, Sandro Sferrazza, Mario Bianchetti, Maria Flavia Savarese, Laura Lamonaca, Danilo Paduano, Nicole Piazza, Enrica Giuffrida, Lupe Sanchez Mete, Alessandra Tucci, Sebastian Manuel Milluzzo, Chiara Iannelli, Alessandro Repici, Benedetto M
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery.2022; 14(7): 632. CrossRef
Endoscopic submucosal dissection with an additional working channel (ESD+): a novel technique to improve procedure time and safety of ESD
Richard F. Knoop, Edris Wedi, Golo Petzold, Sebastian C. B. Bremer, Ahmad Amanzada, Volker Ellenrieder, Albrecht Neesse, Steffen Kunsch
Surgical Endoscopy.2021; 35(7): 3506. CrossRef
The Mettle to Use the Petals: Using Over-the-Scope Rings to Optimize Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
Mike T. Wei, George Triadafilopoulos, Shai Friedland
Digestive Diseases and Sciences.2021; 66(4): 989. CrossRef
Current Endoscopic Resection Techniques for Gastrointestinal Lesions: Endoscopic Mucosal Resection, Submucosal Dissection, and Full-Thickness Resection
Arthur Hoffman, Raja Atreya, Timo Rath, Markus Ferdinand Neurath
Visceral Medicine.2021; 37(5): 358. CrossRef
Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society guidelines for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection
Shinji Tanaka, Hiroshi Kashida, Yutaka Saito, Naohisa Yahagi, Hiroo Yamano, Shoichi Saito, Takashi Hisabe, Takashi Yao, Masahiko Watanabe, Masahiro Yoshida, Yusuke Saitoh, Osamu Tsuruta, Ken‐ichi Sugihara, Masahiro Igarashi, Takashi Toyonaga, Yoichi Ajiok
Digestive Endoscopy.2020; 32(2): 219. CrossRef
Features of endoscopic procedure site reaction associated with a recently approved submucosal lifting agent
Carlos A. Castrodad-Rodríguez, Nicole C. Panarelli, Adam J. Gersten, Qiang Liu, Michael Feely, Tony El Jabbour
Modern Pathology.2020; 33(8): 1581. CrossRef
Efficacy and safety of three different endoscopic methods in treatment of 6–20 mm colorectal polyps
Dazhou Li, Wen Wang, Jiao Xie, Gang Liu, Rong Wang, Chuanshen Jiang, Zhou Ye, Binbin Xu, Xiaojian He, Donggui Hong
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology.2020; 55(3): 362. CrossRef
ESD and Pit Pattern Diagnosis: Lessons from a Japanese Endoscopist Working in the United States
Makoto Nishimura
Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery.2020; 33(06): 329. CrossRef
Long‐term clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia with or without the hybrid technique
DU Kang, JC Park, SW Hwang, SH Park, DH Yang, KJ Kim, BD Ye, SJ Myung, SK Yang, JS Byeon
Colorectal Disease.2020; 22(12): 2008. CrossRef
Evaluation of recurrence and surgical complementation rates after endoscopic resection of large colorectal non-pedunculated lesions
Alanna Alexandre Silva de Azevedo, Maria Cecilia del Picchia Novaes Ribeiro, Fernando Lander Mota, Paulo Alberto Falco Pires Correa, Jarbas Faraco Maldonado Loureiro
Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas.2020;[Epub] CrossRef
How Is Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Gastrointestinal Lesions Being Implemented? Results from an International Survey
Miguel Araújo-Martins, Pedro Pimentel-Nunes, Diogo Libânio, Marta Borges-Canha, Mário Dinis-Ribeiro
GE - Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology.2020; 27(1): 1. CrossRef
Comparison of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Primary and Recurrent Colorectal Lesions: A Single-Center European Study
Michał Spychalski, Aleksander Skulimowski, Makoto Nishimura, Adam Dziki
Journal of Laparoendoscopic & Advanced Surgical Techniques.2019; 29(3): 366. CrossRef
Modular laser-based endoluminal ablation of the gastrointestinal tract: in vivo dose–effect evaluation and predictive numerical model
Giuseppe Quero, Paola Saccomandi, Jung-Myun Kwak, Bernard Dallemagne, Guido Costamagna, Jacques Marescaux, Didier Mutter, Michele Diana
Surgical Endoscopy.2019; 33(10): 3200. CrossRef
Endoscopic resection techniques for colorectal neoplasia: Current developments
Franz Ludwig Dumoulin, Ralf Hildenbrand
World Journal of Gastroenterology.2019; 25(3): 300. CrossRef
Cost Analysis of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for the Treatment of Colorectal Lesions in China
Ning Cui, Yu Zhao, Honggang Yu
BioMed Research International.2019; 2019: 1. CrossRef
Endoscopic management of iatrogenic gastrointestinal perforations
Kan Wang, Jihao Shi, Linna Ye
Laparoscopic, Endoscopic and Robotic Surgery.2019; 2(2): 41. CrossRef
Using Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection as a Routine Component of the Standard Treatment Strategy for Large and Complex Colorectal Lesions in a Western Tertiary Referral Unit
Andrew Emmanuel, Shraddha Gulati, Margaret Burt, Bu’Hussain Hayee, Amyn Haji
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2018; 61(6): 743. CrossRef
Endoscopic resection of large colorectal adenomas – clinical experience of a tertiary referral centre
L. Mlynarsky, S. Zelber‐Sagi, E. Miller, R. Kariv
Colorectal Disease.2018; 20(5): 391. CrossRef
Implementation of mentor-assisted colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection in Sweden; learning curve and clinical outcomes
Shunsuke Yamamoto, Tomasz Radomski, Morteza Shafazand
Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology.2018; 53(9): 1146. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Large Polyps: A Western Colonoscopist’s View

Clin Endosc. 2016;49(5):454-456. Published online August 26, 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2016.077

XML Download

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Large Polyps: A Western Colonoscopist’s View