Article Search
검색
검색 팝업 닫기

Metrics

Help

  • 1. Aims and Scope

    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

  • 2. Editorial Board

    Editor-in-Chief + MORE

    Editor-in-Chief
    Yong Chan Lee Professor of Medicine
    Director, Gastrointestinal Research Laboratory
    Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Univ. California San Francisco
    San Francisco, USA

    Deputy Editor

    Deputy Editor
    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
  • 3. Editorial Office
  • 4. Articles
  • 5. Instructions for Authors
  • 6. File Download (PDF version)
  • 7. Ethical Standards
  • 8. Peer Review

    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.

Search

Search

Year

to

Article Type

Perspective

Split Viewer

Challenges in Implementing Endoscopic Resection for T2 Colorectal Cancer

Katsuro Ichimasa1,2,3 , Shin-ei Kudo1 , Ker-Kan Tan3,4 , Jonathan Wei Jie Lee2,3 , Khay Guan Yeoh2,3

1Digestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Japan; 2Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore; 3Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore; 4Department of Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore

Correspondence to: Katsuro Ichimasa
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6675-1219
E-mail ichimasa@nus.edu.sg

Received: April 6, 2023; Revised: July 6, 2023; Accepted: August 15, 2023

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 2024;18(2):218-221. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl230125

Published online October 16, 2023, Published date March 15, 2024

Copyright © Gut and Liver.

The current standard treatment for muscularis propria-invasive (T2) colorectal cancer is surgical colectomy with lymph node dissection. With the advent of new endoscopic resection techniques, such as endoscopic full-thickness resection or endoscopic intermuscular dissection, T2 colorectal cancer, with metastasis to 20%-25% of the dissected lymph nodes, may be the next candidate for endoscopic resection following submucosal-invasive (T1) colorectal cancer. We present a novel endoscopic treatment strategy for T2 colorectal cancer and suggest further study to establish evidence on oncologic and endoscopic technical safety for its clinical implementation.

Keywords: Endoscopic full-thickness resection, Lymph node metastasis, Treatment strategy, T2 colorectal cancer

We provide a roadmap and evidence we need to establish for introducing endoscopic resection of muscularis propria-invasive (T2) colorectal cancer (CRC). The current standard treatment for all T2 CRC is surgical colectomy with lymph node dissection due to limitations in conventional endoscopic techniques such as endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection.1 However, advances in endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR), endoscopic intermuscular dissection (EID), and peranal endoscopic myectomy (PAEM) now enable endoscopic resection of T2 CRC, as evidenced by published case reports.2-6 Hence, the concept of a new treatment strategy called “resect and analysis” has emerged for T2 as well as T1 CRC.7,8 The “resect and analysis” strategy necessitates endoscopic resection followed by a pathological assessment to evaluate lymph node metastasis (LNM) risk and the need for additional bowel resection, with further evidence on oncologic and endoscopic technical safety required for practical implementation.

First, we must establish the curative criteria for endoscopic resection of T2 CRC based on the risk of LNM. According to the current guidelines for the treatment of T1 CRC, the risk factors for LNM are depth of submucosal invasion ≥1,000 µm, lymphovascular invasion positivity, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma/signet ring cell carcinoma/mucinous carcinoma, and tumor budding grade of 2 or 3 at the site of deepest invasion.1 For T1 CRC endoscopically resected with a negative vertical margin and no high-risk factors, follow-up without secondary surgery is acceptable, as guidelines effectively stratify the low-risk group, constituting about 30% of T1 CRC, and confirm curability from a prognostic perspective.9,10 For T2 CRC, however, there are no guidelines or consensuses regarding the risk factors for LNM, although some papers have focused on this topic.7,11 Previous studies identified lymphovascular invasion, tumor differentiation, and tumor budding as significant risk factors for LNM, with some reports suggesting female sex or myxoid cancer stroma.11,12 However, these studies faced limitations due to single-center designs, small sample sizes, and wide 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for LNM rates or odds ratios. In a recent study utilizing random forest known as a machine learning algorithm, the researchers developed an artificial intelligence-based risk-stratification system for LNM in T2 CRC.7 Their artificial intelligence algorithm incorporates eight clinicopathologic variables, namely: patient age and sex, tumor location and size, lymphatic and vascular invasion, histologic differentiation, and serum carcinoembryonic antigen concentration. With a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 88%, this algorithm has the potential to inform decisions regarding endoscopic resection of T2 CRC. Furthermore, while a systematic review investigating the risk factors for LNM in T2 CRC has been published, a meta-analysis has not been conducted because there are too few relevant articles.13 To determine risk factors for LNM in T2 CRC, large-scale multicenter studies are necessary, enabling the establishment of endoscopic curative criteria based on these identified factors.

Based on these risk stratifications of LNM, whether the decision on endoscopic treatment would be acceptable is a comparison with mortality rates for standard surgical procedures. Previous surveys in the United States have found that postoperative mortality rates vary from 1.5% to 8.0% depending on age: 1.5% for patients aged 69 years and younger, and 8.0% for those aged 85 years and older.14 Similarly, postoperative mortality rates in Japanese and Dutch cohorts, as reported in national surveys, were 1.3% and 2.4%, respectively.15,16 Therefore, percentages equal to or lower than these may be considered acceptable for the risk of simultaneous LNM. On the other hand, there is currently no evidence available regarding overall survival or disease-free survival. In T1 CRC, the low-risk group for LNM is strictly defined with oncologic safety as the highest priority, and its long-term prognosis have been reported to be acceptable.9 As these new treatment strategies for T2 CRC are introduced, it is crucial to establish stricter criteria. It would be acceptable if the recurrence rate in the endoscopically treated low-risk group for LNM was equal to or less than that of the surgical group (colon: 6.5%, rectum: 8.3%).1

Second, we need to investigate the technical safety of eFTR or EID/PAEM for T2 CRC. The three main indications for eFTR are T1 CRC, including deep submucosal invasion; non-lifting lesions; and secondary treatment after incomplete endoscopic resection, regardless of tumor location. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis underscored the effectiveness of eFTR, citing a technical success rate of 86.5% (95% CI, 83.3% to 89.1%) and a procedure-related adverse event rate of 15.4% (95% CI, 10.6% to 21.9%).17 The adverse events included perforation (4.4%; 95% CI, 1.6% to 11.2%), delayed bleeding (6.4%; 95% CI, 5.4% to 7.7%), and postpolypectomy syndrome (1.7%; 95% CI, 0.7% to 4.0%). This review also revealed that the R0 resection rates for lesions of <20 mm (84.0%; 95% CI, 79.9% to 87.4%) were significantly higher than for those of ≥20 mm (78.4%; 95% CI, 35.8% to 95.9%).

The indication for EID/PAEM is suspected T1 rectal cancer with deep submucosal invasion or rectal lesions with severe fibrosis.3,4 Endoscopic dissection for these lesions is performed between the inner and outer parts of the muscularis propria and has no tumor size restriction. In one study, the R0 resection rate was 81% (95% CI, 70% to 89%), and minor adverse events occurred in 12% of patients.3 While most eFTR and EID/PAEM studies focused on adenoma and T1 CRC, some included T2 CRC with R0 resection, and case reports described T2 CRC treated with these techniques (Table 1).2-5,18 Further investigation of technical success, R0 resection rates, adverse events, and recurrence rates for T2 CRC using these techniques is necessary.

Table 1. R0 Resection Rate of T2 CRC According to the Type of Endoscopic Resection

Author (year)Type of endoscopic resectionTotal
No.
T2 CRCIndications for each endoscopic resection
No.R0 rate, No. (%)
Zwager et al. (2022)2eFTR3302312/23 (52)
  • Primary treatment for lesions with an optical diagnosis of T1 CRC

  • Primary treatment for non-lifting lesions with histology proven adenocarcinoma

  • Secondary treatment after previous incomplete endoscopic resection of histology-proven low-risk adenocarcinoma (R1, Rx, or R0 with <1 mm lateral and/or deep resection margins)

Didden et al. (2022)18eFTR1363825/38 (66)
  • Non-pedunculated polyps with suspected deep submucosal invasion

  • Polyps with suspected superficial invasion or (previous) non-lifting but with a size up to 15 mm

Moons et al. (2022)3EID6714NASuspicion of T1 rectal cancer with deep submucosal invasion
Toyonaga et al. (2018)4PAEM1021/2 (50)Rectal lesions with severe fibrosis

CRC, colorectal cancer; eFTR, endoscopic full-thickness resection; EID, endoscopic intermuscular dissection; PAEM, peranal endoscopic myectomy; NA not available.


Drawing from previous findings, Fig. 1 presents a potential treatment strategy for T2 CRC using eFTR or EID/PAEM, with two initial options: (1) eFTR for lesions smaller than 20 mm, regardless of location, or (2) EID/PAEM for rectal tumors, irrespective of size. These treatments are considered technically feasible and account for 25% to 30% (<20 mm) and 25% to 30% (rectum) of all T2 CRCs, respectively.7 Approximately 35% to 40% of T2 CRC, excluding duplicates, fall into this category. After endoscopic resection, the need for additional surgical resection with lymph node dissection can be determined by comparing the risk of LNM through histopathology and surgical mortality assessment. Considering that the current endoscopic cure rate for T1 CRC is about 30%, it is expected to be less than 30% for extremely low-risk T2 CRC.9 Therefore, after verifying the safety of the strictly established curative criteria, the indications should be expanded.

Figure 1.A new potential treatment strategy for T2 CRC.
CRC, colorectal cancer; eFTR, endoscopic full-thickness resection; EID, endoscopic intermuscular dissection; PAEM, peranal endoscopic myectomy.

An endoscopic scoring system for predicting T2 invasion is crucial for the proposed strategy. Recently, two scoring systems for distinguishing T1b from T2 have been reported.19,20 Sasaki et al.19 assessed six endoscopic findings: tumor size, irregular base of depression, existence of depression, expansion appearance, convergency of folds, and erosion or white coat. Their system achieved an area under the curve of 0.89 with 84.5% sensitivity and 78.9% specificity on internal validation. Koyama et al.20 identified five endoscopic findings associated with T2 CRC: deep depression, demarcated depressed area, four-fold convergency, erosion or white plaque, and morphology of Borrmann types 2 or 3. Their system had an area under the curve of 0.76 on external validation. These scoring systems may enable selection of endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection for T1b CRC and eFTR or EID for T2 CRC.

In conclusion, establishing evidence for both the oncologic and technical safety of eFTR and EID/PAEM is essential to implement these endoscopic techniques for T2 CRC in practice.

  1. Hashiguchi Y, Muro K, Saito Y, et al. Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2019 for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 2020;25:1-42.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  2. Zwager LW, Bastiaansen BA, van der Spek BW, et al. Endoscopic full-thickness resection of T1 colorectal cancers: a retrospective analysis from a multicenter Dutch eFTR registry. Endoscopy 2022;54:475-485.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Moons LM, Bastiaansen BA, Richir MC, et al. Endoscopic intermuscular dissection for deep submucosal invasive cancer in the rectum: a new endoscopic approach. Endoscopy 2022;54:993-998.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Toyonaga T, Ohara Y, Baba S, et al. Peranal endoscopic myectomy (PAEM) for rectal lesions with severe fibrosis and exhibiting the muscle-retracting sign. Endoscopy 2018;50:813-817.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Wilson N, Abdallah M, Bilal M. Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic full-thickness resection for complete resection of a T2 colorectal adenocarcinoma in a nonsurgical candidate. Gastrointest Endosc 2023;98:136-137.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Liu BR, Liu D, Ullah S, Zhao L, Zheng Q, Ullah R. Endoscopic full-thickness resection and endoscopic lymphadenectomy for advanced colonic cancer in an inoperable patient: first human clinical experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2020;91:451-452.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Ichimasa K, Nakahara K, Kudo SE, et al. Novel "resect and analysis" approach for T2 colorectal cancer with use of artificial intelligence. Gastrointest Endosc 2022;96:665-672.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Kudo SE, Ichimasa K, Villard B, et al. Artificial intelligence system to determine risk of T1 colorectal cancer metastasis to lymph node. Gastroenterology 2021;160:1075-1084.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Ichimasa K, Kudo SE, Miyachi H, et al. Current problems and perspectives of pathological risk factors for lymph node metastasis in T1 colorectal cancer: systematic review. Dig Endosc 2022;34:901-912.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Tamaru Y, Oka S, Tanaka S, et al. Long-term outcomes after treatment for T1 colorectal carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective cohort study of Hiroshima GI Endoscopy Research Group. J Gastroenterol 2017;52:1169-1179.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Kajiwara Y, Ueno H, Hashiguchi Y, Mochizuki H, Hase K. Risk factors of nodal involvement in T2 colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2010;53:1393-1399.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Masaki T, Matsuoka H, Sugiyama M, et al. Tumor budding and evidence-based treatment of T2 rectal carcinomas. J Surg Oncol 2005;92:59-63.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Hartwig MF, Slumstrup L, Fiehn AK, Gögenur I. The risk of lymph node metastasis in patients with T2 colon cancer. Colorectal Dis 2023;25:853-860.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Jafari MD, Jafari F, Halabi WJ, et al. Colorectal cancer resections in the aging US population: a trend toward decreasing rates and improved outcomes. JAMA Surg 2014;149:557-564.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. Marubashi S, Takahashi A, Kakeji Y, et al. Surgical outcomes in gastroenterological surgery in Japan: report of the National Clinical Database 2011-2019. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 2021;5:639-658.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  16. Vermeer NC, Backes Y, Snijders HS, et al. National cohort study on postoperative risks after surgery for submucosal invasive colorectal cancer. BJS Open 2018;3:210-217.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  17. Dolan RD, Bazarbashi AN, McCarty TR, Thompson CC, Aihara H. Endoscopic full-thickness resection of colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2022;95:216-224.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Didden P, van Eijck van Heslinga RA, Schwartz MP, et al. Relevance of polyp size for primary endoscopic full-thickness resection of suspected T1 colorectal cancers. Endoscopy 2022;54:1062-1070.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Sasaki A, Shimizuguchi R, Takao A, et al. Endoscopic scoring system for T2 invasion in colorectal cancer. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc 2022;24:121-126.
    CrossRef
  20. Koyama Y, Yamada M, Makiguchi ME, et al. New scoring system to distinguish deep invasive submucosal and muscularis propria colorectal cancer during colonoscopy: a development and global multicenter external validation study (e-T2 Score). Gastrointest Endosc 2022;96:321-329.
    Pubmed CrossRef

Article

Perspective

Gut and Liver 2024; 18(2): 218-221

Published online March 15, 2024 https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl230125

Copyright © Gut and Liver.

Challenges in Implementing Endoscopic Resection for T2 Colorectal Cancer

Katsuro Ichimasa1,2,3 , Shin-ei Kudo1 , Ker-Kan Tan3,4 , Jonathan Wei Jie Lee2,3 , Khay Guan Yeoh2,3

1Digestive Disease Center, Showa University Northern Yokohama Hospital, Yokohama, Japan; 2Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore; 3Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore; 4Department of Surgery, National University Hospital, Singapore

Correspondence to:Katsuro Ichimasa
ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6675-1219
E-mail ichimasa@nus.edu.sg

Received: April 6, 2023; Revised: July 6, 2023; Accepted: August 15, 2023

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.

Abstract

The current standard treatment for muscularis propria-invasive (T2) colorectal cancer is surgical colectomy with lymph node dissection. With the advent of new endoscopic resection techniques, such as endoscopic full-thickness resection or endoscopic intermuscular dissection, T2 colorectal cancer, with metastasis to 20%-25% of the dissected lymph nodes, may be the next candidate for endoscopic resection following submucosal-invasive (T1) colorectal cancer. We present a novel endoscopic treatment strategy for T2 colorectal cancer and suggest further study to establish evidence on oncologic and endoscopic technical safety for its clinical implementation.

Keywords: Endoscopic full-thickness resection, Lymph node metastasis, Treatment strategy, T2 colorectal cancer

NEED FOR EVIDENCE ON THE NEW ENDOSCOPIC TREATMENT

We provide a roadmap and evidence we need to establish for introducing endoscopic resection of muscularis propria-invasive (T2) colorectal cancer (CRC). The current standard treatment for all T2 CRC is surgical colectomy with lymph node dissection due to limitations in conventional endoscopic techniques such as endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection.1 However, advances in endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR), endoscopic intermuscular dissection (EID), and peranal endoscopic myectomy (PAEM) now enable endoscopic resection of T2 CRC, as evidenced by published case reports.2-6 Hence, the concept of a new treatment strategy called “resect and analysis” has emerged for T2 as well as T1 CRC.7,8 The “resect and analysis” strategy necessitates endoscopic resection followed by a pathological assessment to evaluate lymph node metastasis (LNM) risk and the need for additional bowel resection, with further evidence on oncologic and endoscopic technical safety required for practical implementation.

CURABILITY OF ENDOSCOPIC RESECTION

First, we must establish the curative criteria for endoscopic resection of T2 CRC based on the risk of LNM. According to the current guidelines for the treatment of T1 CRC, the risk factors for LNM are depth of submucosal invasion ≥1,000 µm, lymphovascular invasion positivity, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma/signet ring cell carcinoma/mucinous carcinoma, and tumor budding grade of 2 or 3 at the site of deepest invasion.1 For T1 CRC endoscopically resected with a negative vertical margin and no high-risk factors, follow-up without secondary surgery is acceptable, as guidelines effectively stratify the low-risk group, constituting about 30% of T1 CRC, and confirm curability from a prognostic perspective.9,10 For T2 CRC, however, there are no guidelines or consensuses regarding the risk factors for LNM, although some papers have focused on this topic.7,11 Previous studies identified lymphovascular invasion, tumor differentiation, and tumor budding as significant risk factors for LNM, with some reports suggesting female sex or myxoid cancer stroma.11,12 However, these studies faced limitations due to single-center designs, small sample sizes, and wide 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for LNM rates or odds ratios. In a recent study utilizing random forest known as a machine learning algorithm, the researchers developed an artificial intelligence-based risk-stratification system for LNM in T2 CRC.7 Their artificial intelligence algorithm incorporates eight clinicopathologic variables, namely: patient age and sex, tumor location and size, lymphatic and vascular invasion, histologic differentiation, and serum carcinoembryonic antigen concentration. With a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 88%, this algorithm has the potential to inform decisions regarding endoscopic resection of T2 CRC. Furthermore, while a systematic review investigating the risk factors for LNM in T2 CRC has been published, a meta-analysis has not been conducted because there are too few relevant articles.13 To determine risk factors for LNM in T2 CRC, large-scale multicenter studies are necessary, enabling the establishment of endoscopic curative criteria based on these identified factors.

Based on these risk stratifications of LNM, whether the decision on endoscopic treatment would be acceptable is a comparison with mortality rates for standard surgical procedures. Previous surveys in the United States have found that postoperative mortality rates vary from 1.5% to 8.0% depending on age: 1.5% for patients aged 69 years and younger, and 8.0% for those aged 85 years and older.14 Similarly, postoperative mortality rates in Japanese and Dutch cohorts, as reported in national surveys, were 1.3% and 2.4%, respectively.15,16 Therefore, percentages equal to or lower than these may be considered acceptable for the risk of simultaneous LNM. On the other hand, there is currently no evidence available regarding overall survival or disease-free survival. In T1 CRC, the low-risk group for LNM is strictly defined with oncologic safety as the highest priority, and its long-term prognosis have been reported to be acceptable.9 As these new treatment strategies for T2 CRC are introduced, it is crucial to establish stricter criteria. It would be acceptable if the recurrence rate in the endoscopically treated low-risk group for LNM was equal to or less than that of the surgical group (colon: 6.5%, rectum: 8.3%).1

TECHNICAL SAFETY OF ENDOSCOPIC RESECTION

Second, we need to investigate the technical safety of eFTR or EID/PAEM for T2 CRC. The three main indications for eFTR are T1 CRC, including deep submucosal invasion; non-lifting lesions; and secondary treatment after incomplete endoscopic resection, regardless of tumor location. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis underscored the effectiveness of eFTR, citing a technical success rate of 86.5% (95% CI, 83.3% to 89.1%) and a procedure-related adverse event rate of 15.4% (95% CI, 10.6% to 21.9%).17 The adverse events included perforation (4.4%; 95% CI, 1.6% to 11.2%), delayed bleeding (6.4%; 95% CI, 5.4% to 7.7%), and postpolypectomy syndrome (1.7%; 95% CI, 0.7% to 4.0%). This review also revealed that the R0 resection rates for lesions of <20 mm (84.0%; 95% CI, 79.9% to 87.4%) were significantly higher than for those of ≥20 mm (78.4%; 95% CI, 35.8% to 95.9%).

The indication for EID/PAEM is suspected T1 rectal cancer with deep submucosal invasion or rectal lesions with severe fibrosis.3,4 Endoscopic dissection for these lesions is performed between the inner and outer parts of the muscularis propria and has no tumor size restriction. In one study, the R0 resection rate was 81% (95% CI, 70% to 89%), and minor adverse events occurred in 12% of patients.3 While most eFTR and EID/PAEM studies focused on adenoma and T1 CRC, some included T2 CRC with R0 resection, and case reports described T2 CRC treated with these techniques (Table 1).2-5,18 Further investigation of technical success, R0 resection rates, adverse events, and recurrence rates for T2 CRC using these techniques is necessary.

Table 1 . R0 Resection Rate of T2 CRC According to the Type of Endoscopic Resection.

Author (year)Type of endoscopic resectionTotal
No.
T2 CRCIndications for each endoscopic resection
No.R0 rate, No. (%)
Zwager et al. (2022)2eFTR3302312/23 (52)
  • Primary treatment for lesions with an optical diagnosis of T1 CRC.

  • Primary treatment for non-lifting lesions with histology proven adenocarcinoma.

  • Secondary treatment after previous incomplete endoscopic resection of histology-proven low-risk adenocarcinoma (R1, Rx, or R0 with <1 mm lateral and/or deep resection margins).

Didden et al. (2022)18eFTR1363825/38 (66)
  • Non-pedunculated polyps with suspected deep submucosal invasion.

  • Polyps with suspected superficial invasion or (previous) non-lifting but with a size up to 15 mm.

Moons et al. (2022)3EID6714NASuspicion of T1 rectal cancer with deep submucosal invasion
Toyonaga et al. (2018)4PAEM1021/2 (50)Rectal lesions with severe fibrosis

CRC, colorectal cancer; eFTR, endoscopic full-thickness resection; EID, endoscopic intermuscular dissection; PAEM, peranal endoscopic myectomy; NA not available..


POTENTIAL TREATMENT STRATEGY OF ENDOSCOPIC RESECTION FOR T2 CRC

Drawing from previous findings, Fig. 1 presents a potential treatment strategy for T2 CRC using eFTR or EID/PAEM, with two initial options: (1) eFTR for lesions smaller than 20 mm, regardless of location, or (2) EID/PAEM for rectal tumors, irrespective of size. These treatments are considered technically feasible and account for 25% to 30% (<20 mm) and 25% to 30% (rectum) of all T2 CRCs, respectively.7 Approximately 35% to 40% of T2 CRC, excluding duplicates, fall into this category. After endoscopic resection, the need for additional surgical resection with lymph node dissection can be determined by comparing the risk of LNM through histopathology and surgical mortality assessment. Considering that the current endoscopic cure rate for T1 CRC is about 30%, it is expected to be less than 30% for extremely low-risk T2 CRC.9 Therefore, after verifying the safety of the strictly established curative criteria, the indications should be expanded.

Figure 1. A new potential treatment strategy for T2 CRC.
CRC, colorectal cancer; eFTR, endoscopic full-thickness resection; EID, endoscopic intermuscular dissection; PAEM, peranal endoscopic myectomy.

An endoscopic scoring system for predicting T2 invasion is crucial for the proposed strategy. Recently, two scoring systems for distinguishing T1b from T2 have been reported.19,20 Sasaki et al.19 assessed six endoscopic findings: tumor size, irregular base of depression, existence of depression, expansion appearance, convergency of folds, and erosion or white coat. Their system achieved an area under the curve of 0.89 with 84.5% sensitivity and 78.9% specificity on internal validation. Koyama et al.20 identified five endoscopic findings associated with T2 CRC: deep depression, demarcated depressed area, four-fold convergency, erosion or white plaque, and morphology of Borrmann types 2 or 3. Their system had an area under the curve of 0.76 on external validation. These scoring systems may enable selection of endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection for T1b CRC and eFTR or EID for T2 CRC.

In conclusion, establishing evidence for both the oncologic and technical safety of eFTR and EID/PAEM is essential to implement these endoscopic techniques for T2 CRC in practice.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Fig 1.

Figure 1.A new potential treatment strategy for T2 CRC.
CRC, colorectal cancer; eFTR, endoscopic full-thickness resection; EID, endoscopic intermuscular dissection; PAEM, peranal endoscopic myectomy.
Gut and Liver 2024; 18: 218-221https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl230125

Table 1 R0 Resection Rate of T2 CRC According to the Type of Endoscopic Resection

Author (year)Type of endoscopic resectionTotal
No.
T2 CRCIndications for each endoscopic resection
No.R0 rate, No. (%)
Zwager et al. (2022)2eFTR3302312/23 (52)

Primary treatment for lesions with an optical diagnosis of T1 CRC

Primary treatment for non-lifting lesions with histology proven adenocarcinoma

Secondary treatment after previous incomplete endoscopic resection of histology-proven low-risk adenocarcinoma (R1, Rx, or R0 with <1 mm lateral and/or deep resection margins)

Didden et al. (2022)18eFTR1363825/38 (66)

Non-pedunculated polyps with suspected deep submucosal invasion

Polyps with suspected superficial invasion or (previous) non-lifting but with a size up to 15 mm

Moons et al. (2022)3EID6714NASuspicion of T1 rectal cancer with deep submucosal invasion
Toyonaga et al. (2018)4PAEM1021/2 (50)Rectal lesions with severe fibrosis

CRC, colorectal cancer; eFTR, endoscopic full-thickness resection; EID, endoscopic intermuscular dissection; PAEM, peranal endoscopic myectomy; NA not available.


References

  1. Hashiguchi Y, Muro K, Saito Y, et al. Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2019 for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 2020;25:1-42.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  2. Zwager LW, Bastiaansen BA, van der Spek BW, et al. Endoscopic full-thickness resection of T1 colorectal cancers: a retrospective analysis from a multicenter Dutch eFTR registry. Endoscopy 2022;54:475-485.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  3. Moons LM, Bastiaansen BA, Richir MC, et al. Endoscopic intermuscular dissection for deep submucosal invasive cancer in the rectum: a new endoscopic approach. Endoscopy 2022;54:993-998.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Toyonaga T, Ohara Y, Baba S, et al. Peranal endoscopic myectomy (PAEM) for rectal lesions with severe fibrosis and exhibiting the muscle-retracting sign. Endoscopy 2018;50:813-817.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  5. Wilson N, Abdallah M, Bilal M. Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic full-thickness resection for complete resection of a T2 colorectal adenocarcinoma in a nonsurgical candidate. Gastrointest Endosc 2023;98:136-137.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  6. Liu BR, Liu D, Ullah S, Zhao L, Zheng Q, Ullah R. Endoscopic full-thickness resection and endoscopic lymphadenectomy for advanced colonic cancer in an inoperable patient: first human clinical experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2020;91:451-452.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  7. Ichimasa K, Nakahara K, Kudo SE, et al. Novel "resect and analysis" approach for T2 colorectal cancer with use of artificial intelligence. Gastrointest Endosc 2022;96:665-672.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  8. Kudo SE, Ichimasa K, Villard B, et al. Artificial intelligence system to determine risk of T1 colorectal cancer metastasis to lymph node. Gastroenterology 2021;160:1075-1084.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  9. Ichimasa K, Kudo SE, Miyachi H, et al. Current problems and perspectives of pathological risk factors for lymph node metastasis in T1 colorectal cancer: systematic review. Dig Endosc 2022;34:901-912.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Tamaru Y, Oka S, Tanaka S, et al. Long-term outcomes after treatment for T1 colorectal carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective cohort study of Hiroshima GI Endoscopy Research Group. J Gastroenterol 2017;52:1169-1179.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  11. Kajiwara Y, Ueno H, Hashiguchi Y, Mochizuki H, Hase K. Risk factors of nodal involvement in T2 colorectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2010;53:1393-1399.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  12. Masaki T, Matsuoka H, Sugiyama M, et al. Tumor budding and evidence-based treatment of T2 rectal carcinomas. J Surg Oncol 2005;92:59-63.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  13. Hartwig MF, Slumstrup L, Fiehn AK, Gögenur I. The risk of lymph node metastasis in patients with T2 colon cancer. Colorectal Dis 2023;25:853-860.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  14. Jafari MD, Jafari F, Halabi WJ, et al. Colorectal cancer resections in the aging US population: a trend toward decreasing rates and improved outcomes. JAMA Surg 2014;149:557-564.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  15. Marubashi S, Takahashi A, Kakeji Y, et al. Surgical outcomes in gastroenterological surgery in Japan: report of the National Clinical Database 2011-2019. Ann Gastroenterol Surg 2021;5:639-658.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  16. Vermeer NC, Backes Y, Snijders HS, et al. National cohort study on postoperative risks after surgery for submucosal invasive colorectal cancer. BJS Open 2018;3:210-217.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  17. Dolan RD, Bazarbashi AN, McCarty TR, Thompson CC, Aihara H. Endoscopic full-thickness resection of colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2022;95:216-224.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  18. Didden P, van Eijck van Heslinga RA, Schwartz MP, et al. Relevance of polyp size for primary endoscopic full-thickness resection of suspected T1 colorectal cancers. Endoscopy 2022;54:1062-1070.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  19. Sasaki A, Shimizuguchi R, Takao A, et al. Endoscopic scoring system for T2 invasion in colorectal cancer. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc 2022;24:121-126.
    CrossRef
  20. Koyama Y, Yamada M, Makiguchi ME, et al. New scoring system to distinguish deep invasive submucosal and muscularis propria colorectal cancer during colonoscopy: a development and global multicenter external validation study (e-T2 Score). Gastrointest Endosc 2022;96:321-329.
    Pubmed CrossRef
Gut and Liver

Vol.18 No.3
May, 2024

pISSN 1976-2283
eISSN 2005-1212

qrcode
qrcode

Share this article on :

  • line

Popular Keywords

Gut and LiverQR code Download
qr-code

Editorial Office