Endoscopic full-thickness resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection in the treatment of colonic neoplastic lesions ≤ 30 mm—a single-center experience

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00098892%3A_____%2F22%3A10157165" target="_blank" >RIV/00098892:_____/22:10157165 - isvavai.cz</a>

Nalezeny alternativní kódy

RIV/61989592:15110/22:73606738

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-021-08492-0" target="_blank" >https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00464-021-08492-0</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08492-0" target="_blank" >10.1007/s00464-021-08492-0</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Endoscopic full-thickness resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection in the treatment of colonic neoplastic lesions ≤ 30 mm—a single-center experience

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (FTR) is a novel technique of endoscopic treatment of colorectal neoplastic lesions not suitable for endoscopic polypectomy or mucosal resection. FTR appears to be a reasonable alternative to technically demanding endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for lesions ≤  30 mm. However, comparison between FTR and ESD has not been published yet and their mutual positioning in the treatment algorithm is still unclear. The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate efficacy and safety of FTR in the treatment of colorectal lesions ≤ 30 mm by comparing prospectively followed FTR cohort to retrospective ESD cohort in the setting of single tertiary endoscopy center. Primary outcomes were technical success rate, R0 resection and curative resection rate, and complication rate. A total of 52 patients in FTR and 50 patients in ESD group were treated between 2015 and 2018. Technical success rate was significantly higher in FTR group (92 vs. 74%, P = 0.01) as well as R0 resection rate (85 vs. 62%, P = 0.01) and curative resection rate (75 vs. 56%, P = 0.01). Complications occurred more frequently in ESD group (40 vs. 13%, P = 0.002), mainly due to high incidence of electrocoagulation syndrome (24 vs. 0%). Total procedure time was substantially shorter in FTR group (26.4 ± 11.0 min vs. estimated 90-240 min). Local residual neoplastic lesions were detected numerically more often in FTR group (12 vs. 5%, P = 0.12). No patient died during follow-up. Compared to ESD, FTR proved significantly higher technical success rate, higher R0 and curative resection rate, and shorter procedure time. In the FTR group, there were significantly less complications but higher incidence of local residual neoplasia. Further research including randomized trials is needed to compare both resection techniques.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Endoscopic full-thickness resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection in the treatment of colonic neoplastic lesions ≤ 30 mm—a single-center experience

Popis výsledku anglicky

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (FTR) is a novel technique of endoscopic treatment of colorectal neoplastic lesions not suitable for endoscopic polypectomy or mucosal resection. FTR appears to be a reasonable alternative to technically demanding endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for lesions ≤  30 mm. However, comparison between FTR and ESD has not been published yet and their mutual positioning in the treatment algorithm is still unclear. The purpose of the analysis was to evaluate efficacy and safety of FTR in the treatment of colorectal lesions ≤ 30 mm by comparing prospectively followed FTR cohort to retrospective ESD cohort in the setting of single tertiary endoscopy center. Primary outcomes were technical success rate, R0 resection and curative resection rate, and complication rate. A total of 52 patients in FTR and 50 patients in ESD group were treated between 2015 and 2018. Technical success rate was significantly higher in FTR group (92 vs. 74%, P = 0.01) as well as R0 resection rate (85 vs. 62%, P = 0.01) and curative resection rate (75 vs. 56%, P = 0.01). Complications occurred more frequently in ESD group (40 vs. 13%, P = 0.002), mainly due to high incidence of electrocoagulation syndrome (24 vs. 0%). Total procedure time was substantially shorter in FTR group (26.4 ± 11.0 min vs. estimated 90-240 min). Local residual neoplastic lesions were detected numerically more often in FTR group (12 vs. 5%, P = 0.12). No patient died during follow-up. Compared to ESD, FTR proved significantly higher technical success rate, higher R0 and curative resection rate, and shorter procedure time. In the FTR group, there were significantly less complications but higher incidence of local residual neoplasia. Further research including randomized trials is needed to compare both resection techniques.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

30219 - Gastroenterology and hepatology

Projekt

<a href="/cs/project/NV18-08-00246" target="_blank" >NV18-08-00246: Endoskopická transmurální resekce versus standardní endoskopická terapie v léčbě kolorektální neoplázie – prospektivní randomizovaná studie</a><br>

Návaznosti

P - Projekt vyzkumu a vyvoje financovany z verejnych zdroju (s odkazem do CEP)

Rok uplatnění

2022

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques

ISSN

0930-2794

e-ISSN

1432-2218

Svazek periodika

36

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

3

Stát vydavatele periodika

US - Spojené státy americké

Počet stran výsledku

8

Strana od-do

2062-2069

Kód UT WoS článku

000640473600004

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

2-s2.0-85104819950