Shahini Endrit, Libânio Diogo, Lo Secco Giacomo, Pisani Antonio, Arezzo Alberto
Department of Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, National Institute of Research "Saverio De Bellis," Castellana Grotte (Bari) 70013, Italy.
Department of Gastroenterology, Portuguese Oncology Institute, Porto 4200-072, Portugal.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Aug 16;13(8):275-295. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v13.i8.275.
In the last years, endoscopic techniques gained a crucial role in the treatment of colorectal flat lesions. At the same time, the importance of a reliable assessment of such lesions to predict the malignancy and the depth of invasion of the colonic wall emerged. The current unsolved dilemma about the endoscopic excision techniques concerns the necessity of a reliable submucosal invasive cancer assessment system that can stratify the risk of the post-procedural need for surgery. Accordingly, this narrative literature review aims to compare the available diagnostic strategies in predicting malignancy and to give a guide about the best techniques to employ. We performed a literature search using electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library). We collected all articles about endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) registering the outcomes. Moreover, we analyzed all meta-analyses comparing EMR ESD outcomes for colorectal sessile or non-polypoid lesions of any size, preoperatively estimated as non-invasive. Seven meta-analysis studies, mainly Eastern, were included in the analysis comparing 124 studies and overall 22954 patients who underwent EMR and ESD procedures. Of these, eighty-two were retrospective, twenty-four perspective, nine case-control, and six cohorts, while three were randomized clinical trials. A total of 18118 EMR and 10379 ESD were completed for a whole of 28497 colorectal sessile or non-polypoid lesions > 5-10 mm in size. In conclusion, it is crucial to enhance the preoperative diagnostic workup, especially in deciding the most suitable endoscopic method for radical resection of flat colorectal lesions at risk of underlying malignancy. Additionally, the ESD necessitates further improvement because of the excessively time-consuming as well as the intraprocedural technical hindrances and related complications. We found a higher rate of resections and R0 for ESD than EMR for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions. Nevertheless, despite the lower local recurrence rates, ESD had greater perforation rates and needed lengthier procedural times. The prevailing risk for additional surgery in ESD rather than EMR for complications or oncologic reasons is still uncertain.
在过去几年中,内镜技术在结直肠扁平病变的治疗中发挥了关键作用。与此同时,对这类病变进行可靠评估以预测恶性肿瘤及结肠壁浸润深度的重要性也日益凸显。当前关于内镜切除技术尚未解决的难题在于,需要一个可靠的黏膜下浸润癌评估系统,能够对术后手术需求的风险进行分层。因此,本篇叙述性文献综述旨在比较现有的预测恶性肿瘤的诊断策略,并就最佳应用技术提供指导。我们使用电子数据库(MEDLINE/PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆)进行了文献检索。我们收集了所有关于内镜黏膜切除术(EMR)和内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)并记录结果的文章。此外,我们分析了所有比较EMR和ESD治疗任何大小的结直肠无蒂或非息肉样病变(术前估计为非侵袭性)结果的荟萃分析。分析纳入了七项荟萃分析研究,主要来自东方,比较了124项研究以及总共22954例接受EMR和ESD手术的患者。其中,82项为回顾性研究,24项为前瞻性研究,9项为病例对照研究,6项为队列研究,3项为随机临床试验。总共完成了18118例EMR和10379例ESD,用于治疗总共28497例大小>5 - 10毫米的结直肠无蒂或非息肉样病变。总之,加强术前诊断检查至关重要,尤其是在为有潜在恶性风险的扁平结直肠病变选择最适合的根治性切除内镜方法时。此外,ESD由于耗时过长、术中技术障碍及相关并发症,需要进一步改进。我们发现,对于非带蒂结直肠病变,ESD的切除率和R0率高于EMR。然而,尽管ESD的局部复发率较低,但其穿孔率更高,手术时间更长。ESD因并发症或肿瘤原因而进行额外手术的主要风险仍不确定,相比EMR而言,这种风险仍然不明朗。