Gut and Liver is an international journal of gastroenterology, focusing on the gastrointestinal tract, liver, biliary tree, pancreas, motility, and neurogastroenterology. Gut atnd Liver delivers up-to-date, authoritative papers on both clinical and research-based topics in gastroenterology. The Journal publishes original articles, case reports, brief communications, letters to the editor and invited review articles in the field of gastroenterology. The Journal is operated by internationally renowned editorial boards and designed to provide a global opportunity to promote academic developments in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. +MORE
Yong Chan Lee |
Professor of Medicine Director, Gastrointestinal Research Laboratory Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Univ. California San Francisco San Francisco, USA |
Jong Pil Im | Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea |
Robert S. Bresalier | University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA |
Steven H. Itzkowitz | Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA |
All papers submitted to Gut and Liver are reviewed by the editorial team before being sent out for an external peer review to rule out papers that have low priority, insufficient originality, scientific flaws, or the absence of a message of importance to the readers of the Journal. A decision about these papers will usually be made within two or three weeks.
The remaining articles are usually sent to two reviewers. It would be very helpful if you could suggest a selection of reviewers and include their contact details. We may not always use the reviewers you recommend, but suggesting reviewers will make our reviewer database much richer; in the end, everyone will benefit. We reserve the right to return manuscripts in which no reviewers are suggested.
The final responsibility for the decision to accept or reject lies with the editors. In many cases, papers may be rejected despite favorable reviews because of editorial policy or a lack of space. The editor retains the right to determine publication priorities, the style of the paper, and to request, if necessary, that the material submitted be shortened for publication.
Toshihiro Nishizawa1,2, Naohisa Yahagi1
Correspondence to: Naohisa Yahagi, Division of Research and Development for Minimally Invasive Treatment, Cancer Center, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160-8582, Japan, Tel: +81-3-5363-3437, Fax: +81-3-5363-3895, E-mail: yahagi.keio@gmail.com
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Gut Liver 2018;12(2):119-124. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl17095
Published online July 5, 2017, Published date March 15, 2018
Copyright © Gut and Liver.
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is becoming the main procedure for the resection of early gastric cancer (EGC). The absolute indications for treating EGC with endoscopic resection were established by the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association and have been generally accepted. However, the absolute indications for treating EGC are rather strict, and expanded indications have been developed. Many studies have reported favorable long-term outcomes for patients who received curative resection for the expanded indication. ESD preserves the stomach, thereby improving patients’ quality of life compared to surgery; however, a generally higher incidence of metachronous gastric cancer has been reported after ESD for EGC. Therefore, clinicians must pay careful attention during surveillance endoscopy, even after a curative ESD.
Keywords: Endoscopic submucosal dissection, Long-term outcomes, Early gastric cancer
Curative endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer (EGC) has been achieved only in selected patients, depending on the differentiation, size, and depth of invasion of the lesions. The absolute indications for treating EGC with endoscopic resection, established by the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, have been generally accepted. The absolute indications include differentiated EGCs less than 20 mm in diameter without ulceration or scarring; moreover, these lesions must be confined to the mucosa, with no lymphatic or vascular involvement (Table 1, Fig. 1).
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was developed in Japan in the late 1990s. ESD has been widely used for EGC worldwide. ESD has shown advantages over conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for the removal of larger or ulcerated EGC lesions in an
Choi
Kosaka
Tanabe
Nakamura
Min
Suzuki
Abe
Yamamoto
Endo
Kang
Ryu
Cho
Fukunaga
The available literature suggests that the long-term outcomes of ESD are acceptable for EGC. Compared with surgery, the benefits of ESD included fewer complications and shorter hospital stay duration. ESD preserves the stomach thereby improving patients’ quality of life compared to surgery, but a generally higher incidence of metachronous gastric cancer has been reported after ESD for EGC. Metachronous gastric cancer or local recurrence could be treated by ESD, if the lesion is detected early enough. Therefore, more careful attention must be paid during surveillance endoscopy after ESD.
A systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the application of expanded indications by comparing outcomes between absolute indication and expanded indication groups.17 Thirteen studies were identified and evaluated. The expanded indication group had lower rates of
On the other hand, patients with intractable disease cannot undergo surgery due to high operation risk. Palliative ESD for lesions beyond the expanded indication might be treatment option for patients with intractable disease in the future.
The key to improve therapeutic outcomes for EGC is early detection and accurate diagnosis.18,19 Early detection of gastric cancer or precancerous lesion is essential to curative ESD. Recently, several advances in diagnostic endoscopy including narrow-band imaging, and magnifying endoscopy have allowed improvement in tissue characterization by detailed imaging of the microvascular pattern and mucosal surface structures. Moreover, identifying a precise demarcation line is indispensable for pathological complete
Over the past decades, the refinements in ESD techniques, instruments, and devices have been achieved. The safety and success rates of gastric ESD have recently improved to favorable levels. Further development of training systems will promote world-wide standardization of gastric ESD.
These findings indicate that ESD represents a highly effective treatment modality for EGC. However, the results of all studies were obtained from a retrospective assessment based on the medical records. Thus, a prospective multicenter study with high follow-up rate is required for more precise evaluation of the long-term outcomes of gastric ESD.
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Absolute Indications and Expanded Indications for Treating Early Gastric Cancer with Endoscopic Resection
Absolute indications | Differentiated mucosal cancers <20 mm, without ulcer findings, no lymphatic vascular invasion |
Expanded indications | Differentiated mucosal cancers, without ulcer findings, no lymphatic vascular invasion, regardless of tumor size |
Differentiated mucosal cancers with ulcer findings <30 mm, no lymphatic vascular invasion | |
Differentiated minute (<500 μm) submucosal invasive cancers <30 mm, no lymphatic vascular invasion | |
Undifferentiated mucosal cancers <20 mm, without ulcerative findings, no lymphatic vascular invasion |
Long-Term Outcomes of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Gastric Cancer
Choi | Kosaka | Tanabe | Nakamura | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AI | EI | AI | EI | AI | EI | AI | EI | |
Follow-up period, median, mo | 24 | >60 | 65 | 29.5 | ||||
No. of patients | 343 | 179 | 297 | 107 | 262 | 159 | 907 | 425 |
97.1 | 96.1 | 98.0 | 89.7 | - | 99.0 | 97.4 | ||
Curative resection, % | 91.5 | 82.1 | 96.0 | 72.0 | 92.9 | 96.4 | 93.4 | |
Local recurrence, no. (%) | 6 (1.8) | 13 (7.0) | 1 (0.3) | 4 (3.7) | 0 | 1 (0.6) | 2 (0.2) | 4 (0.9) |
Metastatic recurrence, no. (%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0.6) | 0 | 1 (0.2) |
Long-Term Outcomes of Curative Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Differentiated-Type Early Gastric Cancer
Min | Suzuki | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
AI | EI | AI | EI | |
Follow-up period, median, mo | 48 | 83.3 | ||
No. of patients | 1,002 | 313 | 781 | 713 |
Local recurrence | 3 (0.3) | 0 | 0 | 1 (0.14) |
Metastatic recurrence | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 (0.3) |
Metachronous gastric cancer | 30 (3.0) | 6 (1.9) | 158 (20.2) | 181 (25.4) |
Long-Term Outcomes of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection as a Treatment for Undifferentiated-Type Early Gastric Cancer
Abe | Yamamoto | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Curative resection | Noncurative resection with surgery | Noncurative resection without surgery | Curative resection | Noncurative resection with surgery | Noncurative resection without surgery | |
Follow-up period, median, mo | 76.4 | 62.6 | ||||
No. of patients | 46 | 19 | 14 | 89 | 14 | 6 |
Local recurrence | 0 | 0 | 1 (7.1) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Metastatic recurrence | 0 | 1 (5.3) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Metachronous or synchronous cancer | 6 (13) | - | - | 7 (7.9) | 1 (7.1) | 0 |
Long-Term Outcomes of Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection beyond the Expanded Indication
Additional treatment | |||
---|---|---|---|
Endo | Kang | ||
Surgery | None | None | |
No. of patients | 44 | 13 | 39 |
Local recurrence, no. (%) | 0 | 0 | 4 (10.3) |
Metastatic recurrence, no. (%) | 0 | 0 | 2 (5.1) |
5-Year disease-specific survival, % | 100 | 100 | 97.4 |
5-Year overall survival, % | 86.4 | 76.9 | 97.4 |
ESD versus Surgical Resection for Early Gastric Cancer
Ryu | Cho | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
ESD | Surgery | ESD | Surgery | |
No. of patients | 81 | 144 | 88 | 88 |
Complete resection, % | 92.6 | 100 | 90.1 | 100 |
Local recurrence, % | 4.9 | 1.4 | 3.4 | 0 |
Metastatic recurrence, % | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Metachronous gastric cancer, % | 6.2 | 0.7 | 3.4 | 0 |
Hospital stay, median (range) or mean±SD, day | 7 (2–25) | 13 (6–49) | 7.3±2.9 | 14.2±8.4 |
Early complication, % | 12.3 | 23.6 | 8.0 | 5.7 |
Rate complication, % | 3.7 | 9.7 | 0 | 6.8 |
Gut and Liver 2018; 12(2): 119-124
Published online March 15, 2018 https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl17095
Copyright © Gut and Liver.
Toshihiro Nishizawa1,2, Naohisa Yahagi1
1Division of Research and Development for Minimally Invasive Treatment, Cancer Center, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan, 2Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
Correspondence to: Naohisa Yahagi, Division of Research and Development for Minimally Invasive Treatment, Cancer Center, Keio University School of Medicine, 35 Shinanomachi, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160-8582, Japan, Tel: +81-3-5363-3437, Fax: +81-3-5363-3895, E-mail: yahagi.keio@gmail.com
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is becoming the main procedure for the resection of early gastric cancer (EGC). The absolute indications for treating EGC with endoscopic resection were established by the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association and have been generally accepted. However, the absolute indications for treating EGC are rather strict, and expanded indications have been developed. Many studies have reported favorable long-term outcomes for patients who received curative resection for the expanded indication. ESD preserves the stomach, thereby improving patients’ quality of life compared to surgery; however, a generally higher incidence of metachronous gastric cancer has been reported after ESD for EGC. Therefore, clinicians must pay careful attention during surveillance endoscopy, even after a curative ESD.
Keywords: Endoscopic submucosal dissection, Long-term outcomes, Early gastric cancer
Curative endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer (EGC) has been achieved only in selected patients, depending on the differentiation, size, and depth of invasion of the lesions. The absolute indications for treating EGC with endoscopic resection, established by the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, have been generally accepted. The absolute indications include differentiated EGCs less than 20 mm in diameter without ulceration or scarring; moreover, these lesions must be confined to the mucosa, with no lymphatic or vascular involvement (Table 1, Fig. 1).
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was developed in Japan in the late 1990s. ESD has been widely used for EGC worldwide. ESD has shown advantages over conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for the removal of larger or ulcerated EGC lesions in an
Choi
Kosaka
Tanabe
Nakamura
Min
Suzuki
Abe
Yamamoto
Endo
Kang
Ryu
Cho
Fukunaga
The available literature suggests that the long-term outcomes of ESD are acceptable for EGC. Compared with surgery, the benefits of ESD included fewer complications and shorter hospital stay duration. ESD preserves the stomach thereby improving patients’ quality of life compared to surgery, but a generally higher incidence of metachronous gastric cancer has been reported after ESD for EGC. Metachronous gastric cancer or local recurrence could be treated by ESD, if the lesion is detected early enough. Therefore, more careful attention must be paid during surveillance endoscopy after ESD.
A systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the application of expanded indications by comparing outcomes between absolute indication and expanded indication groups.17 Thirteen studies were identified and evaluated. The expanded indication group had lower rates of
On the other hand, patients with intractable disease cannot undergo surgery due to high operation risk. Palliative ESD for lesions beyond the expanded indication might be treatment option for patients with intractable disease in the future.
The key to improve therapeutic outcomes for EGC is early detection and accurate diagnosis.18,19 Early detection of gastric cancer or precancerous lesion is essential to curative ESD. Recently, several advances in diagnostic endoscopy including narrow-band imaging, and magnifying endoscopy have allowed improvement in tissue characterization by detailed imaging of the microvascular pattern and mucosal surface structures. Moreover, identifying a precise demarcation line is indispensable for pathological complete
Over the past decades, the refinements in ESD techniques, instruments, and devices have been achieved. The safety and success rates of gastric ESD have recently improved to favorable levels. Further development of training systems will promote world-wide standardization of gastric ESD.
These findings indicate that ESD represents a highly effective treatment modality for EGC. However, the results of all studies were obtained from a retrospective assessment based on the medical records. Thus, a prospective multicenter study with high follow-up rate is required for more precise evaluation of the long-term outcomes of gastric ESD.
No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Table 1 Absolute Indications and Expanded Indications for Treating Early Gastric Cancer with Endoscopic Resection
Absolute indications | Differentiated mucosal cancers <20 mm, without ulcer findings, no lymphatic vascular invasion |
Expanded indications | Differentiated mucosal cancers, without ulcer findings, no lymphatic vascular invasion, regardless of tumor size |
Differentiated mucosal cancers with ulcer findings <30 mm, no lymphatic vascular invasion | |
Differentiated minute (<500 μm) submucosal invasive cancers <30 mm, no lymphatic vascular invasion | |
Undifferentiated mucosal cancers <20 mm, without ulcerative findings, no lymphatic vascular invasion |
Table 2 Long-Term Outcomes of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Gastric Cancer
Choi | Kosaka | Tanabe | Nakamura | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AI | EI | AI | EI | AI | EI | AI | EI | |
Follow-up period, median, mo | 24 | >60 | 65 | 29.5 | ||||
No. of patients | 343 | 179 | 297 | 107 | 262 | 159 | 907 | 425 |
97.1 | 96.1 | 98.0 | 89.7 | - | 99.0 | 97.4 | ||
Curative resection, % | 91.5 | 82.1 | 96.0 | 72.0 | 92.9 | 96.4 | 93.4 | |
Local recurrence, no. (%) | 6 (1.8) | 13 (7.0) | 1 (0.3) | 4 (3.7) | 0 | 1 (0.6) | 2 (0.2) | 4 (0.9) |
Metastatic recurrence, no. (%) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (0.6) | 0 | 1 (0.2) |
AI, absolute indication; EI, expanded indication.
Table 3 Long-Term Outcomes of Curative Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Differentiated-Type Early Gastric Cancer
Min | Suzuki | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
AI | EI | AI | EI | |
Follow-up period, median, mo | 48 | 83.3 | ||
No. of patients | 1,002 | 313 | 781 | 713 |
Local recurrence | 3 (0.3) | 0 | 0 | 1 (0.14) |
Metastatic recurrence | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 (0.3) |
Metachronous gastric cancer | 30 (3.0) | 6 (1.9) | 158 (20.2) | 181 (25.4) |
Data are presented as number (%).
AI, absolute indication; EI, expanded indication.
Table 4 Long-Term Outcomes of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection as a Treatment for Undifferentiated-Type Early Gastric Cancer
Abe | Yamamoto | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Curative resection | Noncurative resection with surgery | Noncurative resection without surgery | Curative resection | Noncurative resection with surgery | Noncurative resection without surgery | |
Follow-up period, median, mo | 76.4 | 62.6 | ||||
No. of patients | 46 | 19 | 14 | 89 | 14 | 6 |
Local recurrence | 0 | 0 | 1 (7.1) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Metastatic recurrence | 0 | 1 (5.3) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Metachronous or synchronous cancer | 6 (13) | - | - | 7 (7.9) | 1 (7.1) | 0 |
Data are presented as number (%).
Table 5 Long-Term Outcomes of Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection beyond the Expanded Indication
Additional treatment | |||
---|---|---|---|
Endo | Kang | ||
Surgery | None | None | |
No. of patients | 44 | 13 | 39 |
Local recurrence, no. (%) | 0 | 0 | 4 (10.3) |
Metastatic recurrence, no. (%) | 0 | 0 | 2 (5.1) |
5-Year disease-specific survival, % | 100 | 100 | 97.4 |
5-Year overall survival, % | 86.4 | 76.9 | 97.4 |
Table 6 ESD versus Surgical Resection for Early Gastric Cancer
Ryu | Cho | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
ESD | Surgery | ESD | Surgery | |
No. of patients | 81 | 144 | 88 | 88 |
Complete resection, % | 92.6 | 100 | 90.1 | 100 |
Local recurrence, % | 4.9 | 1.4 | 3.4 | 0 |
Metastatic recurrence, % | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Metachronous gastric cancer, % | 6.2 | 0.7 | 3.4 | 0 |
Hospital stay, median (range) or mean±SD, day | 7 (2–25) | 13 (6–49) | 7.3±2.9 | 14.2±8.4 |
Early complication, % | 12.3 | 23.6 | 8.0 | 5.7 |
Rate complication, % | 3.7 | 9.7 | 0 | 6.8 |
ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection.