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.
Keun Young Shin*, Seong Woo Jeon*, Kwang Bum Cho†, Kyung Sik Park†, Eun Soo Kim†, Chang Keun Park‡, Yun Jin Chung‡, Joong Goo Kwon§, Jin Tae Jung§, Eun Young Kim§, Kyeong Ok Kim||, Byung Ik Jang||, Si Hyung Lee||, Jeong Bae Park¶, and Chang Hun Yang¶
*Department of Internal Medicine, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea
†Department of Internal Medicine, Keimyung University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea
‡Department of Internal Medicine, Fatima Hospital, Daegu, Korea
§Department of Internal Medicine, Daegu Catholic University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea
||Department of Internal Medicine, Yeungnam University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea
¶Department of Internal Medicine, Dongkuk University School of Medicine, Gyeongju, Korea
Correspondence to: Seong Woo Jeon, Department of Internal Medicine, Kyungpook National University Hospital, 130 Dongdeok-ro, Jung-gu, Daegu 700-721, Korea, Tel: +82-53-420-5515, Fax: +82-53-426-8773, E-mail: sw-jeon@hanmail.net
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.
Gut Liver 2015;9(2):181-187. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl13417
Published online June 18, 2014, Published date March 31, 2015
Copyright © Gut and Liver.
Advances in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) techniques have led to the development of expanded criteria for endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer (EGC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes for ESD using indication criteria.
A total of 1,105 patients underwent ESD for EGC at six medical centers. The patients were classified into the following two groups based on the lesion size, presence of ulceration and pathological review: an absolute criteria group (n=517) and an expanded criteria group (n=588).
The curative resection rates (91.1% vs 91.3%, p=0.896) were similar in the absolute criteria group and the expanded criteria group. The
The expanded criteria for ESD in cases of EGC is comparable with the widely accepted pre-existing criteria.
Keywords: Stomach neoplasms, Endoscopy, gastrointestinal, Criteria
Gastric cancer is the most prevalent malignant neoplasm in Korea, and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the world.1,2 Early gastric cancer (EGC) is defined as gastric cancer that is confined to the mucosa or submucosa (T1 cancer), irrespective of the presence of regional lymph node metastasis.3 As current growing number of health examinations and developments in endoscopic technology, more cases of EGC are being detected, corresponding to 47.4% of all gastric cancers in Korea as of 2004.4 Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is widely accepted as an alternative treatment of EGC with a low risk of lymph node metastasis, as it is minimally invasive and has a good safety profile.5,6 At present, the standard guideline criteria for endoscopic resection, which were established by the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, have been generally accepted, and as follows: a differentiated-type adenocarcinoma without ulcerative findings, of which the depth of invasion is clinically diagnosed as T1a and the diameter is ≤2 cm.7 However conventional EMR nearly always results in piecemeal resection when lesions are larger than 20 mm in diameter, and is not reliable for lesions with ulcer findings.8,9 Conventional EMR is associated with a high risk of local recurrence (2% to 35%), especially when resections are not accomplished
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been developed to dissect directly along the submucosal layer using specialized devices, and has advantage over conventional EMR for removing larger or ulcerated EGC lesions in an
A total of 1,105 EGCs in 1,105 consecutive EGC patients were treated by ESD at the six hospitals in the Daegu Kyungpook area in Korea from February 2003 to May 2010. The patients were enrolled based on the criteria proposed by Gotoda
The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of each medical center. Before ESD, all patients provided oral and written informed consent for the procedure. We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively maintained database of all patients with EGC treated with ESD.
The patients were divided into two groups according to the endoscopic findings and histopathological diagnoses. The absolute criteria A group is defined as a differentiated-type adenocarcinoma without ulcerative findings, of which the depth of invasion is clinically diagnosed as T1a and the diameter is ≤2 cm. The expanded criteria E group is defined as tumors clinically diagnosed as T1a and: (a) of differentiated-type, ulcer (−), but >2 cm in diameter (b) of differentiated-type, ulcer (+), and ≤3 cm in diameter (c) of undifferentiated-type, ulcer (−), and ≤2 cm in diameter.
The ESD procedure was carried out in a standardized way. After informed consent was obtained, the ESD was performed in patients under conscious sedation with intravenous midazolam and meperidine. The procedure was performed by experienced endoscopists who performed EMR or EMR-precutting (EMR-P) over 100 cases. To determine the resection margin, chromoendoscopy with indigo carmine or narrow-band imaging (NBI) was performed in addition to conventional white light endoscopy. And then the area at about 5 mm lateral to the lesions was marked with spotty cautery with various endoscopic knives (IT knife or hook knife; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). Then, submucosal injection of hypertonic saline mixed with epinephrine (1:10,000) or glycerol, and sodium hyaluronate was performed to lift the lesion. The endoscope was passed to the submucosa and dissection was performed under direct vision with an endoscopic knife in the caudal direction. The resected lesion was spread to mark the orientation with pins and fixed with 10% formalin solution; it was then brought to pathology for histological evaluation and diagnosis.
The perforations were divided into two types: macroperforation, defined as a gross defect noted during the procedure, with extraluminal organs, fatty tissues or space visualized through the lesion endoscopically, irrespective of the presence of air accumulation in the abdomen, retroperitoneum, or mediastinum; or microperforation defined as a perforation that was invisible during procedure but was recognized as free air on a plain radiography (abdomen, retroperitoneum, mediastinum) after the procedure.13
The macroscopic lesions were classified into the elevated type and the flat/depressed type. EGC location was classified into the upper, middle, and lower third of the stomach. Ulcer was defined as mucosal defect, mucosal deformity, or converging fold by endoscopic findings, or submucosal fibrosis. Resection specimens were stretched with needles and sent for histopathological assessment and sectioned perpendicularly at 2 mm intervals. The histology was divided into differentiated adenocarcinoma (well or moderately differentiated or papillary adenocarcinoma) or undifferentiated adenocarcinoma (poorly differentiated or signet ring cell carcinoma). Tumor involvement to the horizontal and deep margins, lymphatic and vascular involvement, tumor size, and presence or absence of submucosal invasion were assessed. In cases with submucosal infiltration, invasion depth was measured and described quantitatively.
The patients were followed up with an endoscopic examinations with a biopsy at 3, 6, and 12 months after ESD and then annually. To avoid case losses, we attempted to identify details by questionnaires or telephone conversation with the patients, in particular in those who delayed the follow up period. To access the presence of local recurrence or metachronous cancer, biopsy was done from the treatment-related scar or any other suspicious abnormalities. In addition, an abdominal computed tomography (CT) and/or positron emission tomography/CT was performed annually to detect lymph node and distant metastases.
The cumulative disease-specific and overall survivals were estimated.
The significance of differences in patients’ characteristics and clinicopathological features was determined using chi-square test, Fisher exact test, the Mann-Whitney U-test, or Student t-test. Factors associated with curability of ESD were analyzed using logistic regression analysis. Odds ratios, together with 95% confidence intervals, were calculated to estimate the relative risk of noncurative resection and their associations with various parameters. Data for the long-term outcomes were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and analyzed by the log rank test. p-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.
A total of 1,105 EGCs in 1,105 consecutive patients were included in our analysis and they were divided into two groups; A group (517 patients) and E group (588 patients). We targeted one EGC lesion by each person, which was the largest one or was included the highest criteria group. The E group consisted of 232 mucosal cancer without ulcer findings larger than 2 cm in tumor size, 281 mucosal cancer with ulcer findings ≤3 cm in diameter, 27 minute (<500 μm from the muscularis mucosae) submucosal invasive cancer ≤3 cm in size, and 48 undifferentiated type mucosal cancer ≤2 cm in size without ulceration (Fig. 1).
The median age of the patients was 64 years (33 to 87 years) for the A group, 66 years (27 to 87 years) for the E group. All of the groups have higher distribution of men than women (Table 1). Major comorbidity included malignancies other than EGC, cerebrovascular event, cardiopulmonary diseases, chronic kidney or hepatic diseases, and hematologic diseases which result the limitation of physical activities and need periodic treatment. Patients with major comorbidities accounted for 6.4% in the A group, and 5.3% in the E group (p=0.430).
The most common location of the lesion was the lower third of the stomach in all groups (69.2%/65.5%, respectively). The elevated type of lesion was more common in the A group than in the E group (Table 1), and this difference was statistically significant (53.5%/42.6%, p<0.001). The mean tumor size was 12.51±0.23 mm in the A group, and 22.91±0.55 mm in the E group; The A group has significantly smaller lesion size than the E group (p<0.001). The ulcer findings by gross appearance were 50.0% in the E group.
The frequency of endoscopic
Table 3 shows the association of various factors with curability of ESD. On univariate analysis, the location of the lesion, and the presence of ulcer and
The rate of surgical treatment was 3.8% (42/1,105) in all patients; 3.5% (18/517) in the A group, and 4.1% (24/588) in the E group (Fig. 2). These 42 patients who underwent surgical treatment and the patients with a follow-up period of <1 year were excluded from the disease-free survival and overall survival analysis, and thus 1,063 patients treated by ESD were eligible for the analyses.
The cumulative disease-free survival rates did not significantly differ between the A group and the E group (p=0.778). The 1-year disease-free rates were 99.3% in the A group, and 99.6% in the E group, and the 3-year disease-free survival rates were 98.1%, and 97.1%, respectively (Fig. 3).
The cumulative overall survival rates did not differ significantly between the groups (Fig. 4). The 3-year overall survival rates were 99.0% in the A group, and 98.6% in the E group (p=0.654).
Perforation occurred in 32 out of 1,105 lesions. Macroperforations occurred during ESD in seven lesions and microperforation was identified in 25 lesions. They were successfully managed by decompression of the pneumoperitoneum with an 18-gauge puncture needle and/or hemoclipping of the perforation site and with systemic antibiotics.
Delayed bleeding occurred in 44 out of 1,105 lesions, and the mean time to bleeding was 98 hours after the procedure; all patients recovered with endoscopic intervention and conservative treatment, there was no need for surgical intervention. There was no difference in the frequency of delayed bleeding and perforation based on the criteria in this study (p=0.300 and p=0.688).
Endoscopic resection is less invasive and more cost-effective than surgery,10 and preserving the organ involved as well as patient quality of life. Thus, endoscopic resection has recently become an alternative treatment modality for EGC patients at low risk of lymph node metastasis or for whom surgery might be dangerous.6,10,15 Despite the expanding use of the criterias of ESD for EGC in clinical practice, the clinical outcomes for this new criterias have not been fully evaluated.7 Our study was designed to have an evidence for this clinical practice.
In this present study,
Another recent study evaluated the validity of expanding the criterias for ESD and reported the 1-year disease-free survival rate and the cumulative disease-free survival rate did not differ significantly between the A group and the E group.18 We also found that the cumulative disease-free survival rate did not differ significantly between the A group and E group. A recent study reported a comparable overall survival between the A group and the E group.16 Our study also found that the 3-year overall survival rates did not significantly different among the A group and the E group.
Using logistic regression analysis, we assessed the impact of various factors on the curability of ESD. The location of lesion and
A recent study on the comparison of the outcomes of 1,627 cases EGCs after endoscopic resection based on the criteria20 reported that with the ESD method, the absolute criteria group has significantly higher rates of complete resection (97.8% vs 91.1%, p<0.001) and margin-negative status (98.8% vs 91.7%, p<0.001) than those in the expanded criteria group. They also reported the 3-year disease-specific, local recurrence-free rate 98.8% to 99.0% in the A group and 98.5% in the E group, and differences between criteria groups were not significant (p=0.547). Our 3-year local and metachronous recurrence-free survival rates were slightly lower than that (98.1% vs 97.1%, p=0.778). At a median follow-up period of 32 months, we observed 22 locally and metachronous recurrent tumors (2.1%). None of them was died in the follow-up period, and five were treated by surgery.
The major complications associated with the ESD were bleeding and perforation.21 The frequency of hemorrhagic complications has been reported to be 1.5% to 24%; the variation is due to the definition used as well as the type of resected lesion reported.11,21 Immediate bleeding developed in 172 cases out of the 1,105 cases (15.6%) in this study, and delayed bleeding developed in 44 cases out of the 1,105 cases (4.0%); most of them were minor bleeding that occurred during or after the procedure without changes in the vital signs. Perforation is another major complication; the frequency of perforation has been reported to be 0% to 6.7%.16,21,22 The overall frequency of perforations found in this study was 2.9% (microperforation, 2.3%; macroperforation, 0.6%), and they were diagnosed during or after ESD, managed with endoscopic procedures and conservative treatment without the need for further surgery.
There are several limitations in this study. First, this was retrospective study design, so there was potential for a selection bias. To minimize the selection bias, we included almost all patients with EGC treated by ESD who were identified within the database. Second, because the data were collected from multicenter, the ESD procedures were performed by several endoscopists. This could make differences in the indications of ESD or histopathological diagnoses. Lastly, this study has relatively short median follow-up period, so further study is needed with long-term results over 5 years and in prospective manner to establish the validity of ESD results.
In conclusion, ESD was effective for treatment of expanded criteria of EGC. The rate of E group’s
Clinicopathological Characteristics Based on the Indication Criteria
Characteristic | Absolute criteria group (n=517) | Expanded criteria group (n=588) | p-value |
---|---|---|---|
Age, yr | 64 (33–87) | 66 (27–87) | 0.143 |
Gender, female/male, % | 34.6/65.4 | 30.3/69.7 | 0.123 |
Macroscopic appearance | <0.001 | ||
Elevated | 277 (53.6) | 251 (42.7) | |
Flat/depressed | 240 (46.4) | 337 (57.3) | |
Tumor size, mm | <0.001 | ||
<20 | 517 (100.0) | 309 (52.6) | |
20–30 | 183 (31.1) | ||
>30 | 96 (16.3) | ||
Location | 0.237 | ||
Upper | 24 (4.6) | 23 (3.9) | |
Middle | 135 (26.1) | 180 (30.6) | |
Lower | 358 (69.2) | 385 (65.5) | |
Ulcer findings | <0.001 | ||
Present | 0 | 294 (50.0) | |
Abscent | 517 (100.0) | 294 (50.0) | |
Invasion depth | <0.001 | ||
M | 517 (100.0) | 540 (91.8) | |
SM1 | 0 | 48 (8.2) | |
SM2 | 0 | 0 | |
Major comorbidity | 33 (6.4) | 31 (5.3) | 0.430 |
Delayed bleeding | 17 (3.3) | 27 (4.6) | 0.269 |
Perforation | 14 (2.7) | 18 (3.1) | 0.727 |
Microperforation | 11 | 14 | |
Macroperforation | 3 | 4 |
Resectability, Completeness, and Curability of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Gastric Cancer and the Indication Criteria
Absolute criteria group (n=517) | Expanded criteria group (n=588) | p-value | |
---|---|---|---|
Resectability | 0.488 | ||
| 483 | 543 | |
Piecemeal resection | 34 | 45 | |
| 93.4 | 92.3 | |
Completeness | 0.357 | ||
Complete | 508 | 573 | |
Incomplete | 9 | 15 | |
Complete resection rate, % | 98.3 | 97.4 | |
Curability | 0.896 | ||
Curative | 471 | 537 | |
Noncurative | 46 | 51 | |
Curative resection rate, % | 91.1 | 91.3 |
Association of Clinicopathological Characteristics of the 1,105 Early Gastric Cancer Lesions with Curability of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
Characteristic | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
OR (95% CI) | p-value | OR (95% CI) | p-value | |
Age | 0.995 (0.973–1.017) | 0.633 | - | - |
Gender | ||||
Female | 1 | - | ||
Male | 0.666 (0.413–1.076) | 0.097 | - | - |
Tumor size, cm | ||||
<2.0 | 1 | - | ||
2.0–3.0 | 0.659 (0.392–1.109) | 0.116 | - | - |
>3.0 | 0.660 (0.335–1.299) | 0.229 | - | - |
Tumor location | ||||
Upper | 1 | 1 | ||
Middle | 3.381 (1.619–7.061) | 0.001 | 2.632 (1.128–6.144) | 0.025 |
Lower | 5.081 (2.527–10.216) | <0.001 | 3.497 (1.560–7.842) | 0.002 |
Macroscopic appearance | ||||
Elevated | 1 | - | ||
Flat/depressed | 1.213 (0.795–1.853) | 0.370 | - | - |
Ulcer findings | ||||
Absent | 1 | 1 | ||
Present | 1.928 (1.108–3.354) | 0.020 | 1.644 (0.917–2.947) | 0.095 |
Resectability | ||||
| 14.183 (8.491–23.693) | <0.001 | 12.576 (7.442–21.250) | <0.001 |
Piecemeal | 1 | 1 |
Gut Liver 2015; 9(2): 181-187
Published online March 31, 2015 https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl13417
Copyright © Gut and Liver.
Keun Young Shin*, Seong Woo Jeon*, Kwang Bum Cho†, Kyung Sik Park†, Eun Soo Kim†, Chang Keun Park‡, Yun Jin Chung‡, Joong Goo Kwon§, Jin Tae Jung§, Eun Young Kim§, Kyeong Ok Kim||, Byung Ik Jang||, Si Hyung Lee||, Jeong Bae Park¶, and Chang Hun Yang¶
*Department of Internal Medicine, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea
†Department of Internal Medicine, Keimyung University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea
‡Department of Internal Medicine, Fatima Hospital, Daegu, Korea
§Department of Internal Medicine, Daegu Catholic University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea
||Department of Internal Medicine, Yeungnam University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea
¶Department of Internal Medicine, Dongkuk University School of Medicine, Gyeongju, Korea
Correspondence to: Seong Woo Jeon, Department of Internal Medicine, Kyungpook National University Hospital, 130 Dongdeok-ro, Jung-gu, Daegu 700-721, Korea, Tel: +82-53-420-5515, Fax: +82-53-426-8773, E-mail: sw-jeon@hanmail.net
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.
Advances in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) techniques have led to the development of expanded criteria for endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer (EGC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes for ESD using indication criteria.
A total of 1,105 patients underwent ESD for EGC at six medical centers. The patients were classified into the following two groups based on the lesion size, presence of ulceration and pathological review: an absolute criteria group (n=517) and an expanded criteria group (n=588).
The curative resection rates (91.1% vs 91.3%, p=0.896) were similar in the absolute criteria group and the expanded criteria group. The
The expanded criteria for ESD in cases of EGC is comparable with the widely accepted pre-existing criteria.
Keywords: Stomach neoplasms, Endoscopy, gastrointestinal, Criteria
Gastric cancer is the most prevalent malignant neoplasm in Korea, and the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the world.1,2 Early gastric cancer (EGC) is defined as gastric cancer that is confined to the mucosa or submucosa (T1 cancer), irrespective of the presence of regional lymph node metastasis.3 As current growing number of health examinations and developments in endoscopic technology, more cases of EGC are being detected, corresponding to 47.4% of all gastric cancers in Korea as of 2004.4 Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is widely accepted as an alternative treatment of EGC with a low risk of lymph node metastasis, as it is minimally invasive and has a good safety profile.5,6 At present, the standard guideline criteria for endoscopic resection, which were established by the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association, have been generally accepted, and as follows: a differentiated-type adenocarcinoma without ulcerative findings, of which the depth of invasion is clinically diagnosed as T1a and the diameter is ≤2 cm.7 However conventional EMR nearly always results in piecemeal resection when lesions are larger than 20 mm in diameter, and is not reliable for lesions with ulcer findings.8,9 Conventional EMR is associated with a high risk of local recurrence (2% to 35%), especially when resections are not accomplished
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been developed to dissect directly along the submucosal layer using specialized devices, and has advantage over conventional EMR for removing larger or ulcerated EGC lesions in an
A total of 1,105 EGCs in 1,105 consecutive EGC patients were treated by ESD at the six hospitals in the Daegu Kyungpook area in Korea from February 2003 to May 2010. The patients were enrolled based on the criteria proposed by Gotoda
The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of each medical center. Before ESD, all patients provided oral and written informed consent for the procedure. We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively maintained database of all patients with EGC treated with ESD.
The patients were divided into two groups according to the endoscopic findings and histopathological diagnoses. The absolute criteria A group is defined as a differentiated-type adenocarcinoma without ulcerative findings, of which the depth of invasion is clinically diagnosed as T1a and the diameter is ≤2 cm. The expanded criteria E group is defined as tumors clinically diagnosed as T1a and: (a) of differentiated-type, ulcer (−), but >2 cm in diameter (b) of differentiated-type, ulcer (+), and ≤3 cm in diameter (c) of undifferentiated-type, ulcer (−), and ≤2 cm in diameter.
The ESD procedure was carried out in a standardized way. After informed consent was obtained, the ESD was performed in patients under conscious sedation with intravenous midazolam and meperidine. The procedure was performed by experienced endoscopists who performed EMR or EMR-precutting (EMR-P) over 100 cases. To determine the resection margin, chromoendoscopy with indigo carmine or narrow-band imaging (NBI) was performed in addition to conventional white light endoscopy. And then the area at about 5 mm lateral to the lesions was marked with spotty cautery with various endoscopic knives (IT knife or hook knife; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). Then, submucosal injection of hypertonic saline mixed with epinephrine (1:10,000) or glycerol, and sodium hyaluronate was performed to lift the lesion. The endoscope was passed to the submucosa and dissection was performed under direct vision with an endoscopic knife in the caudal direction. The resected lesion was spread to mark the orientation with pins and fixed with 10% formalin solution; it was then brought to pathology for histological evaluation and diagnosis.
The perforations were divided into two types: macroperforation, defined as a gross defect noted during the procedure, with extraluminal organs, fatty tissues or space visualized through the lesion endoscopically, irrespective of the presence of air accumulation in the abdomen, retroperitoneum, or mediastinum; or microperforation defined as a perforation that was invisible during procedure but was recognized as free air on a plain radiography (abdomen, retroperitoneum, mediastinum) after the procedure.13
The macroscopic lesions were classified into the elevated type and the flat/depressed type. EGC location was classified into the upper, middle, and lower third of the stomach. Ulcer was defined as mucosal defect, mucosal deformity, or converging fold by endoscopic findings, or submucosal fibrosis. Resection specimens were stretched with needles and sent for histopathological assessment and sectioned perpendicularly at 2 mm intervals. The histology was divided into differentiated adenocarcinoma (well or moderately differentiated or papillary adenocarcinoma) or undifferentiated adenocarcinoma (poorly differentiated or signet ring cell carcinoma). Tumor involvement to the horizontal and deep margins, lymphatic and vascular involvement, tumor size, and presence or absence of submucosal invasion were assessed. In cases with submucosal infiltration, invasion depth was measured and described quantitatively.
The patients were followed up with an endoscopic examinations with a biopsy at 3, 6, and 12 months after ESD and then annually. To avoid case losses, we attempted to identify details by questionnaires or telephone conversation with the patients, in particular in those who delayed the follow up period. To access the presence of local recurrence or metachronous cancer, biopsy was done from the treatment-related scar or any other suspicious abnormalities. In addition, an abdominal computed tomography (CT) and/or positron emission tomography/CT was performed annually to detect lymph node and distant metastases.
The cumulative disease-specific and overall survivals were estimated.
The significance of differences in patients’ characteristics and clinicopathological features was determined using chi-square test, Fisher exact test, the Mann-Whitney U-test, or Student t-test. Factors associated with curability of ESD were analyzed using logistic regression analysis. Odds ratios, together with 95% confidence intervals, were calculated to estimate the relative risk of noncurative resection and their associations with various parameters. Data for the long-term outcomes were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and analyzed by the log rank test. p-values <0.05 were considered statistically significant.
A total of 1,105 EGCs in 1,105 consecutive patients were included in our analysis and they were divided into two groups; A group (517 patients) and E group (588 patients). We targeted one EGC lesion by each person, which was the largest one or was included the highest criteria group. The E group consisted of 232 mucosal cancer without ulcer findings larger than 2 cm in tumor size, 281 mucosal cancer with ulcer findings ≤3 cm in diameter, 27 minute (<500 μm from the muscularis mucosae) submucosal invasive cancer ≤3 cm in size, and 48 undifferentiated type mucosal cancer ≤2 cm in size without ulceration (Fig. 1).
The median age of the patients was 64 years (33 to 87 years) for the A group, 66 years (27 to 87 years) for the E group. All of the groups have higher distribution of men than women (Table 1). Major comorbidity included malignancies other than EGC, cerebrovascular event, cardiopulmonary diseases, chronic kidney or hepatic diseases, and hematologic diseases which result the limitation of physical activities and need periodic treatment. Patients with major comorbidities accounted for 6.4% in the A group, and 5.3% in the E group (p=0.430).
The most common location of the lesion was the lower third of the stomach in all groups (69.2%/65.5%, respectively). The elevated type of lesion was more common in the A group than in the E group (Table 1), and this difference was statistically significant (53.5%/42.6%, p<0.001). The mean tumor size was 12.51±0.23 mm in the A group, and 22.91±0.55 mm in the E group; The A group has significantly smaller lesion size than the E group (p<0.001). The ulcer findings by gross appearance were 50.0% in the E group.
The frequency of endoscopic
Table 3 shows the association of various factors with curability of ESD. On univariate analysis, the location of the lesion, and the presence of ulcer and
The rate of surgical treatment was 3.8% (42/1,105) in all patients; 3.5% (18/517) in the A group, and 4.1% (24/588) in the E group (Fig. 2). These 42 patients who underwent surgical treatment and the patients with a follow-up period of <1 year were excluded from the disease-free survival and overall survival analysis, and thus 1,063 patients treated by ESD were eligible for the analyses.
The cumulative disease-free survival rates did not significantly differ between the A group and the E group (p=0.778). The 1-year disease-free rates were 99.3% in the A group, and 99.6% in the E group, and the 3-year disease-free survival rates were 98.1%, and 97.1%, respectively (Fig. 3).
The cumulative overall survival rates did not differ significantly between the groups (Fig. 4). The 3-year overall survival rates were 99.0% in the A group, and 98.6% in the E group (p=0.654).
Perforation occurred in 32 out of 1,105 lesions. Macroperforations occurred during ESD in seven lesions and microperforation was identified in 25 lesions. They were successfully managed by decompression of the pneumoperitoneum with an 18-gauge puncture needle and/or hemoclipping of the perforation site and with systemic antibiotics.
Delayed bleeding occurred in 44 out of 1,105 lesions, and the mean time to bleeding was 98 hours after the procedure; all patients recovered with endoscopic intervention and conservative treatment, there was no need for surgical intervention. There was no difference in the frequency of delayed bleeding and perforation based on the criteria in this study (p=0.300 and p=0.688).
Endoscopic resection is less invasive and more cost-effective than surgery,10 and preserving the organ involved as well as patient quality of life. Thus, endoscopic resection has recently become an alternative treatment modality for EGC patients at low risk of lymph node metastasis or for whom surgery might be dangerous.6,10,15 Despite the expanding use of the criterias of ESD for EGC in clinical practice, the clinical outcomes for this new criterias have not been fully evaluated.7 Our study was designed to have an evidence for this clinical practice.
In this present study,
Another recent study evaluated the validity of expanding the criterias for ESD and reported the 1-year disease-free survival rate and the cumulative disease-free survival rate did not differ significantly between the A group and the E group.18 We also found that the cumulative disease-free survival rate did not differ significantly between the A group and E group. A recent study reported a comparable overall survival between the A group and the E group.16 Our study also found that the 3-year overall survival rates did not significantly different among the A group and the E group.
Using logistic regression analysis, we assessed the impact of various factors on the curability of ESD. The location of lesion and
A recent study on the comparison of the outcomes of 1,627 cases EGCs after endoscopic resection based on the criteria20 reported that with the ESD method, the absolute criteria group has significantly higher rates of complete resection (97.8% vs 91.1%, p<0.001) and margin-negative status (98.8% vs 91.7%, p<0.001) than those in the expanded criteria group. They also reported the 3-year disease-specific, local recurrence-free rate 98.8% to 99.0% in the A group and 98.5% in the E group, and differences between criteria groups were not significant (p=0.547). Our 3-year local and metachronous recurrence-free survival rates were slightly lower than that (98.1% vs 97.1%, p=0.778). At a median follow-up period of 32 months, we observed 22 locally and metachronous recurrent tumors (2.1%). None of them was died in the follow-up period, and five were treated by surgery.
The major complications associated with the ESD were bleeding and perforation.21 The frequency of hemorrhagic complications has been reported to be 1.5% to 24%; the variation is due to the definition used as well as the type of resected lesion reported.11,21 Immediate bleeding developed in 172 cases out of the 1,105 cases (15.6%) in this study, and delayed bleeding developed in 44 cases out of the 1,105 cases (4.0%); most of them were minor bleeding that occurred during or after the procedure without changes in the vital signs. Perforation is another major complication; the frequency of perforation has been reported to be 0% to 6.7%.16,21,22 The overall frequency of perforations found in this study was 2.9% (microperforation, 2.3%; macroperforation, 0.6%), and they were diagnosed during or after ESD, managed with endoscopic procedures and conservative treatment without the need for further surgery.
There are several limitations in this study. First, this was retrospective study design, so there was potential for a selection bias. To minimize the selection bias, we included almost all patients with EGC treated by ESD who were identified within the database. Second, because the data were collected from multicenter, the ESD procedures were performed by several endoscopists. This could make differences in the indications of ESD or histopathological diagnoses. Lastly, this study has relatively short median follow-up period, so further study is needed with long-term results over 5 years and in prospective manner to establish the validity of ESD results.
In conclusion, ESD was effective for treatment of expanded criteria of EGC. The rate of E group’s
Table 1 Clinicopathological Characteristics Based on the Indication Criteria
Characteristic | Absolute criteria group (n=517) | Expanded criteria group (n=588) | p-value |
---|---|---|---|
Age, yr | 64 (33–87) | 66 (27–87) | 0.143 |
Gender, female/male, % | 34.6/65.4 | 30.3/69.7 | 0.123 |
Macroscopic appearance | <0.001 | ||
Elevated | 277 (53.6) | 251 (42.7) | |
Flat/depressed | 240 (46.4) | 337 (57.3) | |
Tumor size, mm | <0.001 | ||
<20 | 517 (100.0) | 309 (52.6) | |
20–30 | 183 (31.1) | ||
>30 | 96 (16.3) | ||
Location | 0.237 | ||
Upper | 24 (4.6) | 23 (3.9) | |
Middle | 135 (26.1) | 180 (30.6) | |
Lower | 358 (69.2) | 385 (65.5) | |
Ulcer findings | <0.001 | ||
Present | 0 | 294 (50.0) | |
Abscent | 517 (100.0) | 294 (50.0) | |
Invasion depth | <0.001 | ||
M | 517 (100.0) | 540 (91.8) | |
SM1 | 0 | 48 (8.2) | |
SM2 | 0 | 0 | |
Major comorbidity | 33 (6.4) | 31 (5.3) | 0.430 |
Delayed bleeding | 17 (3.3) | 27 (4.6) | 0.269 |
Perforation | 14 (2.7) | 18 (3.1) | 0.727 |
Microperforation | 11 | 14 | |
Macroperforation | 3 | 4 |
Data are presented as median (range) or number (%).
M, mucosa; SM, submucosa.
Table 2 Resectability, Completeness, and Curability of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Gastric Cancer and the Indication Criteria
Absolute criteria group (n=517) | Expanded criteria group (n=588) | p-value | |
---|---|---|---|
Resectability | 0.488 | ||
| 483 | 543 | |
Piecemeal resection | 34 | 45 | |
| 93.4 | 92.3 | |
Completeness | 0.357 | ||
Complete | 508 | 573 | |
Incomplete | 9 | 15 | |
Complete resection rate, % | 98.3 | 97.4 | |
Curability | 0.896 | ||
Curative | 471 | 537 | |
Noncurative | 46 | 51 | |
Curative resection rate, % | 91.1 | 91.3 |
Data are presented as number.
Table 3 Association of Clinicopathological Characteristics of the 1,105 Early Gastric Cancer Lesions with Curability of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
Characteristic | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
OR (95% CI) | p-value | OR (95% CI) | p-value | |
Age | 0.995 (0.973–1.017) | 0.633 | - | - |
Gender | ||||
Female | 1 | - | ||
Male | 0.666 (0.413–1.076) | 0.097 | - | - |
Tumor size, cm | ||||
<2.0 | 1 | - | ||
2.0–3.0 | 0.659 (0.392–1.109) | 0.116 | - | - |
>3.0 | 0.660 (0.335–1.299) | 0.229 | - | - |
Tumor location | ||||
Upper | 1 | 1 | ||
Middle | 3.381 (1.619–7.061) | 0.001 | 2.632 (1.128–6.144) | 0.025 |
Lower | 5.081 (2.527–10.216) | <0.001 | 3.497 (1.560–7.842) | 0.002 |
Macroscopic appearance | ||||
Elevated | 1 | - | ||
Flat/depressed | 1.213 (0.795–1.853) | 0.370 | - | - |
Ulcer findings | ||||
Absent | 1 | 1 | ||
Present | 1.928 (1.108–3.354) | 0.020 | 1.644 (0.917–2.947) | 0.095 |
Resectability | ||||
| 14.183 (8.491–23.693) | <0.001 | 12.576 (7.442–21.250) | <0.001 |
Piecemeal | 1 | 1 |
OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.