Sections

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD)

Sections Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD)
Overview
Periprocedural Care
Technique
Medication
Laboratory Medicine
Media Gallery
Tables
References

Overview

Background

Endoscopic mucosal resection

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a technique used for the staging and treatment of superficial neoplasms of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. This technique was first developed in Japan for the treatment of early gastric cancer (EGC) and has since spread in use throughout the world for various indications, including dysplastic Barrett mucosa and sessile colonic neoplasms. The utility of EMR rests in its ability to do the following:

Provide accurate histologic staging of superficial GI neoplasms
Provide a minimally invasive technique for removal of superficial malignancies

Several variations of EMR are currently used, including injection-assisted, cap-assisted, and ligation-assisted techniques. All adhere to the basic principles of identification and demarcation of the lesion, submucosal injection to lift the lesion, and endoscopic snare resection. By virtue of its overall safety and efficacy in appropriately selected patient populations, EMR has become firmly integrated into the diagnostic and treatment algorithms of superficial GI malignancies.

Some authors have also studied the use of EMR in a procedure known as antireflux mucosectomy (ARMS) to treat refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).^{[1, 2]}

Endoscopic submucosal dissection

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was developed to resect larger tumors and aid in achieving higher rates of en-bloc resection than would be possible with EMR. The main goal of ESD is to achieve an R0 resection. In the United States, ESD is primarily performed in select centers by specialized endoscopists experienced in this technique. ESD is generally indicated for the following^[3]:

Tumors that are diagnosed as carcinomas with intramucosal–to–superficial submucosal invasion
Lesions with submucosal fibrosis that cannot be removed by EMR even if smaller than 20 mm
Cases where a snare is unlikely to enable a successful en-bloc resection with EMR
Removal of large polyps, early colorectal cancer, and those lesions that cannot be accessed transanally in patients who wish to avoid major surgical resection

Endoscopic and ultrasonographic characterization of lesions

Several classification systems for the staging of early GI cancers that may aid in the prediction of lymph node metastases have been developed. Much of this work was pioneered by Japanese gastroenterologists for the staging and treatment of EGC. The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE), working from large databases of EGC resections, classified lesions according to their endoscopic features and the implied risk of mural invasion.^[4]

The subsequent Paris classification, developed in 2002 at an international consensus meeting, echoed the structure of the JSGE system. In this classification, superficial (type 0) lesions are divided into polypoid (0-I) and nonpolypoid categories (0-II), which are further subcategorized as pedunculated (0-Ip), sessile (0-Is), slightly elevated (0-IIa), flat (0-IIb), slightly depressed (0-IIc), or excavated (0-III).^[5] (See the image below.)

Paris classification of superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms.

View Media Gallery

In the Vienna classification, lesions are divided into two broad categories, noninvasive (low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia [HGD]) and invasive (intramucosal cancer, cancer that infiltrates the submucosa).^[6]

The mucosal layer is divided into upper, middle, and lower layers: m1 (epithelium), m2 (lamina propria), and m3 (muscularis mucosae). The submucosa is similarly divided into three layers: sm1, sm2, and sm3. Submucosal tumor involvement of 500 μm or less below the muscularis mucosae is characterized as sm1 (superficial) disease, and involvement past 500 μm is categorized as sm2-3 (deep) disease.^{[5, 7]} The sm1 layer is further divided into sublayers a, b, and c on the basis of the lateral spread within the layer. (See the image below.)

Schematic of lesion penetration as determined by high-frequency endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS).

View Media Gallery

High-frequency (≥20 MHz) endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) produces an image of the mucosal wall comprising nine separate layers differentiated by their echogenicity. By carefully examining the depth of lesion penetration into the mucosal and submucosal layers, one may determine the risk of lymph node metastases with greater precision.^[8]

EUS has excellent sensitivity and specificity in accurately diagnosing the tumor depth and lymph node status of esophageal cancer^[9]and is considered the most accurate imaging modality currently available. Its accuracy ranges from 75% to 82% for T1 disease, from 88% to 100% for T4 disease, and from 72% to 80% for lymph node involvement.^[10]

A study assessing staging with radiologic and pathologic correlation in patients with esophageal cancer with lymph node metastases who were radiologically staged as N0 reported that whereas EUS, contrast-enhanced (CE) computed tomography (CT), and positron emission tomography (PET)/CT were all more likely to understage nodal disease, PET/CT was more likely to do so than EUS was.^[11]The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of EUS for N0 vs N+ disease were 55.4%, 42.6% and 75%. Most lymph nodes (82%) were smaller than 6 mm, making direct visualization challenging with current imaging techniques (probably the main reason for the discrepancy between radiologic and pathologic staging).

False-positive EUS images are attributed to peritumoral inflammation, whereas false-negative staging is often due to the microscopic spread of tumor not detectable by EUS. Micrometastases have been found in lymph nodes of early esophageal tumors (as many as 44% in one study^[11]). Because of the limitations of the technology, EUS is subject to significant rates of false positive and negative disease; however, EUS followed by EMR and histopathologic analysis remains the standard of care for early esophageal cancer staging.

Indications

Endoscopic resection may be considered for definitive treatment of superficial premalignant and well-to-moderately differentiated malignant lesions of the GI tract in the absence of lymph node or distant metastases (T1mN0M0). They also play an integral role in the staging algorithm of early GI cancers by providing a larger resection specimen than standard forceps biopsy, allowing accurate T staging and establishing the presence of lymphovascular involvement.^[12] Furthermore, pathologic examination of resected specimens frequently leads to significant alterations in patient management.^[13]

Esophageal lesions

Squamous cell carcinoma of esophagus

EMR is reserved for lesions smaller than 2 cm that are limited to esophageal mucosa (corresponding to stage T1a) and involve less than one third of the esophageal circumference. Larger lesions may be treated with ESD. Disease-specific survival rates are as high as 95%, and complication rates are low.^{[14, 15, 16]}

In a retrospective cohort of 300 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) who underwent ESD or EMR, local recurrence was 1% with ESD and 10% with EMR, and pathologic free margin was 78% with EMR and 97.4 with ESD; however, at 4-year follow-up, despite the significantly better disease-free survival with ESD, there was no difference in overall survival.^[17]EMR and ESD may be performed for staging of lesions lacking architectural or EUS features suggestive of deep submucosal invasion.

Adenocarcinoma of esophagus

ESD can be used for early adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ). Several case series have retrospectively evaluated the role of ESD for non-Barrett adenocarcinoma of the EGJ.^{[18, 19, 20]}The rate of en-bloc resection was 100%, with curative resection rates of 68-79%. Patients with noncurative resections were typically managed surgically. In studies involving mean follow-up durations of 15-30 months, patients with curative ESD resections had no local recurrences or metastatic cancer; in studies involving longer follow-up periods, a 5-year disease-specific survival rate of 100% was reproted for patients with curative resections.

Barrett esophagus with dysplasia and early adenocarcinoma

EMR should be used in segments of Barrett esophagus (BE) with mucosal irregularities, including nodularity, ulceration, or flat but irregular mucosal contour. This allows more accurate staging of the lesion, as well as potential therapeutic benefit if a lesion is completely resected. Accurate pathologic staging, the potential for cure, and a favorable safety profile are all reported advantages of EMR in this setting.^{[21, 22, 23, 24]}

As with squamous neoplasms, EMR is considered definitive therapy for cancer if the lesion is well-to-moderately differentiated, is limited to the mucosal layer, is 2 cm or smaller, and has no lymphovascular invasion. If an EMR specimen is a definitively resected Barrett cancer or shows only HGD, endoscopic ablative therapy of the remaining BE should be performed. If the EMR specimen demonstrates neoplasia at the deep margin, residual neoplasia should be assumed, and surgical or systemic therapy (chemotherapy, radiation, or a combination of the two) should be considered.^[25]

Investigations have demonstrated the efficacy of EMR applied to the treatment of larger lesions, as well as the complete eradication of BE with favorable results (albeit with potential increases in complications).^[26]

Gastric lesions

Early gastric cancer

As an established alternative to surgery, guidelines for the use of EMR in the treatment of EGC have been published by the JSGE.^[27]

Well-to-moderately differentiated tubular and papillary adenocarcinomas are classified as differentiated cancers, whereas signet-ring cell carcinomas and poorly differentiated adenocarcinomas are classified as undifferentiated cancers. Indications for endoscopic resection are classified as absolute, expanded, or out of indication and are based on the following:

Depth of invasion
Finding of ulceration (UL)
Lesion size
Classification as differentiated vs undifferentiated

Absolute indications for endoscopic resection include the following:

Macroscopically intramucosal (cT1a) differentiated carcinomas measuring less than 2 cm in diameter
Macroscopic type does not matter but no ulceration scar (UL[–])

Expanded indications include the following:

UL(–) cT1a differentiated carcinomas greater than 2 cm in diameter
UL(+) cT1a differentiated carcinomas less than 3 cm in diameter
UL(–) cT1a undifferentiated carcinomas less than 2 cm in diameter

Factors determining whether EMR or ESD is indicated include the following:

Histopathologic type
Lesion size
Depth of invasion
Presence or absence of ulceration

Given the risk of incomplete resection with EMR for lesions with expanded indications, ESD is recommended by the JSGE as the preferred modality. There have been no randomized controlled trials comparing clinical outcomes between gastric EMR and ESD.

In a Japanese retrospective gastric cancer registry of 12,647 patients comparing short- and long-term outcomes of EMR and ESD, 81% of patients underwent ESD and 19% underwent EMR.^[28]En-bloc and R0 resections were achieved in 79% and 89% of patients undergoing EMR and ESD, respectively. The total proportion of patients who underwent curative resection was 69%; 44% underwent curative resection for absolute-indication lesions, and 25% underwent curative resection for expanded-indication lesions.

In this study, the 5-year overall survival rate was 92% in patients with absolute indications and 90% in those with expanded indications after curative resection and 87% in those undergoing noncurative resection.^[28]The 5-year disease-specific survival rates were 99.9% for absolute indications and curative resection, 99.7% for expanded indications with curative resection, and 98.7% for noncurative resections

Criteria for ESD for EGC have expanded, as reflected in Japanese guidelines. Data comparing outcomes after ESD versus surgery in these patients are limited. (See Outcomes.)

Duodenal lesions

EMR and ESD have been used in the treatment and staging of ampullary and periampullary adenomas, early carcinomas, and ampullary submucosal lesions. Additional applications include nonampullary adenomas, neuroendocrine tumors, and submucosal lesions. Available evidence suggests that duodenal EMR and ESD may be associated with a substantial rate of complications, particularly in the treatment of submucosal lesions.

Colorectal lesions

EMR and ESD are commonly used for the resection of laterally spreading benign or malignant lesions of the colon, including early-stage colon and rectal cancers, flat adenomas, large superficial colorectal tumors, and rectal carcinoids. Additional indications also include those patients who refuse surgical intervention or in whom significant comorbidities are prohibitive. Appropriate indications for EMR include the following^[29]:

Well-differentiated or moderately differentiated tumors confined to the mucosa
Type 0-IIa lesions smaller than 2 cm
Type 0-IIb lesions smaller than 1 cm
Type 0-IIc lesions smaller than 1 cm

For large lesions whose size exceeds half of the circumference of the colorectal lumen, piecemeal EMR should be avoided, and ESD or a surgical resection should be performed.^[30]ESD provides a higher curative resection rate with a lower recurrence rate for colorectal tumors larger than 2 cm.

In 2015, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) published guidelines for colorectal EMR/ESD, including the following recommendations^[30]:

In nonmalignant lesions, endoscopic resection is recommended for adenomas 6 mm or larger
Resection is recommended for superficial depressed-type lesions (type 0-IIc) even when the lesion is 5 mm or smaller
Among early colorectal carcinomas (Tis/T1), lesions with little possibility of lymph node metastasis and a higher expectancy of curability with en-bloc resection on the basis of size and location are usually treated endoscopically
Obvious clinical T1b carcinomas (submucosal invasion depth ≥1000 μm) are usually treated surgically

When endoscopic treatment is performed for colorectal carcinomas, en-bloc resection is the principal approach; however, piecemeal EMR is permissible for some adenomatous and “carcinoma in adenoma” lesions when appropriately carried out and when the possibility of submucosal invasion can be definitively excluded.

Contraindications

Contraindications include the presence of or a high index of suspicion for lymph node or distant metastases.

Biopsy of the lesion before endoscopic resection (including ESD and EMR) may result in a false-positive result as a consequence of fibrosis at the biopsy site. Because the result of mucosal biopsies is unlikely to alter treatment algorithms, biopsy prior to referral for ESD/EMR should be avoided. If biopsy is undertaken, minimization of the time interval between biopsy and endoscpic resction may help reduce false-positive results.^[31]

The nonlifting sign, defined as the failure of a lesion to elevate above the surrounding mucosa after submucosal injection underneath the lesion, has been established as a highly accurate and specific predictor of submucosal invasion by colonic lesions.^[32]Regarding mucosal lesions with a nonlifting sign and residual or recurrent lesions, ESD often can resect those lesions for which EMR is generally difficult and for which en-bloc resection is desirable.^[30]

The presence of coagulopathy is a relative contraindication, in view of the risk of bleeding. Any contraindication that applies to standard endoscopy (eg, severe cardiopulmonary comorbidities) is also applicable to ESD and EMR.

The key curative difference between surgical and endoscopic resection of cancer is the lack of lymph node dissection with endoscopic resection. Therefore, endoscopic resection is not considered in lesions with more than a negligible risk of lymph node metastasis. Tumor depth of invasion correlates with risk of lymph node metastasis (see Table 1 below).^{[33, 34]}

Table 1. Lymph Node Metastasis Risk for T1 Tumor at Different Sites in Gastrointestinal Tract^[33] (Open Table in a new window)

Depth	Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma	Esophageal Adenocarcinoma	Gastric Adenocarcinoma	Colonic Adenocarcinoma
M1	0%	0%	0-0.4%	0%
M2	0.03%	0%
M3	9%	0.02%
Sm1	15-20%	200 μm 1.9% (if lesion is < 2 cm)	up to 500 μm < 3%	1000 μm < 1%
Sm2		10% without risky signs 33% with risky signs	~20%	6%
Sm3		10% without risky signs 33% with risky signs	~20%	14%

Procedural planning

Given the increasing risk of lymph node metastases associated with deeper tumor invasion into the wall, determination of the depth of lesion penetration is an integral step before endoscopic resection is considered.

The following two methods can be used to predict the depth of penetration:

Analysis of the endoscopic mucosal features of the target lesion (see the first image below)
Pre–endoscopic resection routine EUS and high-frequency EUS using a miniprobe (see the second image below)

Endoscopic view of superficial gastric neoplasm.

View Media Gallery

Probe-based high-frequency ultrasound image of superficial gastric neoplasm.

View Media Gallery

Certain lesion characteristics detectable on endoscopy (see Background) have been associated with risk of submucosal invasion, including the following^[35]:

Depression of the lesion ^{[5, 36]}(type IIc in the Paris classification)
Size greater than 15 mm
Failure to lift with submucosal injection of saline (see Contraindications)
Smooth nonindented circumference for elevated (0-IIa) or depressed (0-IIc) lesions

For those lesions with submucosal invasion, the risk of lymph node metastases is further modified by the presence or absence of lymphovascular invasion on histologic examination.^[37] In one study of HGD and early cancer in BE, lymph node metastases were detected in 0%, 23%, and 69% of lesions within the sm1, sm2, and sm3 layers, respectively.^[38]

Several retrospective studies of patients with T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) undergoing esophagectomy have found that 16-18% of patients have lymph node metastasis and 27-34% have lymphovascular invasion.^[39] Studies comparing lymph node metastases between sm1 and sm2-3 disease, all retrospective and including small numbers of patients, have shown conflicting results.^{[40, 41, 42]}

Similarly, in a study of more than 3000 patients who had undergone gastrectomy with lymph node dissection for EGC, no lymph node metastases were seen with well-differentiated to moderately differentiated lesions smaller than 3 cm that were confined to the mucosal or sm1 layers without lymphovascular invasion.^[43]

Standard EUS, with a probe frequency of 7.5-12 MHz, is the most commonly used method of determining the presence of lymph node metastases immediately before EMR. Compared with high-frequency EUS, standard EUS provides greater tissue penetration, displaying a five-layer mucosal wall while allowing visualization of locoregional lymph nodes.

In evaluating for lymph node metastases in BE-HGD and early-stage Barrett-associated EAC, EUS demonstrated an accuracy of 93% in an early series.^[38] In a second study, EUS identified suspicious lymph node metastases in 28% of patients referred for EMR of BE-HGD and BE-EAC, and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) confirmed metastases in 71% of these cases.^[44]

A subsequent study examined the accuracy of staging with radiologic and pathologic correlation in patients who had esophageal cancer with lymph node metastases and who were radiologically staged as N0.^[11] EUS correctly identified N0 vs N+ disease in 55.4% of cases. Its sensitivity for identifying N0 vs N+ disease was 42.6%, and its specificity was 75%.

The impact of the information provided by EUS beyond that of a careful endoscopic examination has been questioned.^[45] As a result, the use of EUS before endoscopic resection has been somewhat controversial.^{[46, 47]}

Endoscopic submucosal dissection

The adoption of ESD in western practice has been limited by its technical difficulty, steep learning curve, and limited learning opportunities. ESD, however, provides several advantages over EMR for appropriately selected patients and is also a valuable technique in removing lesions with submucosal fibrosis from a prior resection. Because it is difficult to perform en-bloc resection with EMR for lesions larger than 20 mm, ESD is also more suitable for these lesions. The ability to predict depth of invasion in an attempt to decide whether to pursue EMR, ESD, or surgical resection remains difficult to achieve.

ESD is a technically demanding modality for endoscopic resection, carrying an increased risk of adverse events. In the case of colonic ESD, challenges include the following^[48]:

Difficulties achieving scope stability as a consequence of looping
Peristalsis, flexures, and folds making manipulation of the knife challenging
Thin colonic wall allowing little margin of error during dissection
Risk of peritonitis from a perforation

Hybrid techniques using ESD to perform a circumferential mucosal incision with partial submucosal dissection, followed by EMR, can also be used where either complete ESD is too technically challenging or sufficient expertise to achieve en-bloc resection is lacking.

Resection of a lesion with ESD can result in the creation of a large mucosal defect that can cause delayed adverse events (eg, bleeding or perforation) after the procedure. There appears to be a learning curve with ESD, and complications decrease as the endoscopist's experience increases. When small perforations occur, endoscopic clipping or suturing can be used to close the site. In more severe cases or situations where endoscopic closure cannot be accomplished, surgical intervention is often needed.

A key technical consideration for ESD is procedure time. Because ESD is a technically challenging procedure, it can have a significantly longer procedure time than EMR does. In addition, patients may require admission for observation after ESD. Finally, the availability of expert endoscopists with experience in performing ESD is limited in Western practice, as is access to appropriate training opportunities.

Complication prevention

EMR and ESD should be performed by experienced operators in a center of expertise. Appropriate adjuncts to treatment should be readily available in the procedure room (see Periprocedural Care). Additionally, interventional radiology and surgical backup should be available in the event of uncontrolled hemorrhage or perforation.

Esophagus

ESD vs EMR

In large retrospective series that evaluated ESD for non-Barrett EGJ adenocarcinoma, the rate of en-bloc resection was 100%, with curative resection rates of 68-79%.^{[18, 19, 20]} Patients with curative ESD resections had no local recurrences or metastatic cancer detected in mean follow-up durations of 15 months to 5 years.

A retrospective cohort study of 300 patients with early SCC who underwent ESD or EMR excluded all patients found to have histologic evidence of submucosal invasion.^[17]This study reported en-bloc resection rates of 100% for ESD (mean lesion size, 30 mm) and 53% for EMR (mean lesion size, 20 mm). Local recurrence was lower in the ESD group (1%) than in the EMR group (10%). There was no difference in survival at a follow-up of more than 4 years.

Another retrospective series of 70 patients with SCCs 2 cm or larger showed that there was no recurrence of lesions treated by en-bloc resection and that lesions treated with EMR had a significantly higher recurrence rate than lesions treated with ESD.^[49]

Stomach

ESD

Large retrospective series evaluating ESD for early gastric adenocarcinoma reported en-bloc resection rates of 86-97%, R0 (negative lateral and vertical margins) rates of 88-93%, and local recurrence rates of approximately 1%. The studies showed a high 5-year overall survival (96-100%) with a remarkable 5-year disease-specific survival (99-100%).^{[50, 51, 52, 53, 54]}

ESD vs EMR

Two meta-analyses of ESD versus EMR for treatment of EGC reported en-bloc resection rates of 92% for ESD and 52% for EMR; R0 resection rates of 82-92% for ESD and 42-43% for EMR; and local recurrence rates of 0.8% for ESD and 5.0-6.4% for EMR.^{[55, 56]}

ESD vs surgery

A single-center retrospective study (N = 308) from Japan compared the outcomes of ESD (n = 181) and surgery (n = 127) in patients with differentiated-type EGC meeting expanded-indication criteria.^[57]Outcomes with a propensity-matched subset of these groups comprising 74 matched pairs were analyzed as well. Before matching, 5-year overall survival (OS) was not significantly different between groups (ESD, 99%; surgery, 92%; median follow-up, 43 mo). Adverse events were significantly more common with surgery (24% vs. 9%). In the propensity-matched cohort, 5-year OS was significantly higher after ESD than after surgery (97% vs. 86%; median follow-up, 43.5 mo).

Colon

ESD vs EMR

Large retrospective series comparing EMR with ESD for colorectal tumors larger than 2 cm showed that in the ESD group, the lesions were larger (29-37 mm vs 22-28 mm), en-bloc resection rates were higher (84-95% vs 33-57%), and local recurrence rates were lower (0-2% vs 12-26%).^{[58, 59, 60, 61]}

ESD vs transanal endoscopic microsurgery

One retrospective study compared ESD and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for Tis or T1 rectal cancers.^[62]Patients treated with ESD (n = 30) and those treated with TEM (n = 33) had similar rates of en-bloc resections (96.7% vs 100%) and R0 resections (96.7% vs 97.0%). Neither group had local recurrences or distant metastases. ESD was associated with a shorter total procedure time and a shorter hospital stay than TEM was.

A meta-analysis that included data from from 11 ESD and 10 TEM series (N = 2077) evaluated outcomes in the treatment of rectal neoplasms larger than 2 cm.^[63]TEM was associated with higher rates of en-bloc resection (99% vs 88%) and R0 resection (89% vs 75%) than ESD was, but a higher percentage of lesions in the ESD group were cancers as compared with those in the TEM group, which were mostly adenomas. Also, there was a trend toward fewer local recurrences in the ESD group than in the TEM group (2.6% vs 5.2%).^{[63, 33]}

ESD vs laparoscopy-assisted colorectal surgery including lymphadenectomy

A large retrospective series from the National Cancer Center in Tokyo evaluated 589 patients with colorectal cancer (297 patients with colorectal intramucosal or slightly submucosal invasive cancers undergoing ESD; 292 patients with T1 colorectal cancers undergoing laparoscopy-assisted colorectal surgery [LAC]).^[64]In this study, ESD was associated with a lower complication rate than LAC, with favorable en-bloc and curative resection rates.

Periprocedure

Yoo IK, Ko WJ, Kim HS, Kim HK, Kim JH, Kim WH, et al. Anti-reflux mucosectomy using a cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection method for refractory gastroesophageal disease: a prospective feasibility study. Surg Endosc. 2020 Mar. 34 (3):1124-1131. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Hedberg HM, Kuchta K, Ujiki MB. First Experience with Banded Anti-reflux Mucosectomy (ARMS) for GERD: Feasibility, Safety, and Technique (with Video). J Gastrointest Surg. 2019 Jun. 23 (6):1274-1278. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Fujishiro M, Yahagi N, Kakushima N, Kodashima S, Muraki Y, Ono S, et al. Outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal epithelial neoplasms in 200 consecutive cases. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007 Jun. 5 (6):678-83; quiz 645. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
The general rules for The gastric cancer study in surgery. Jpn J Surg. 1973 Mar. 3 (1):61-71. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Dec. 58 (6 Suppl):S3-43. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Willis J, Riddell RH. Biology versus terminology: East meets West in surgical pathology. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Mar. 57 (3):369-76. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Tian J, Prasad GA, Lutzke LS, Lewis JT, Wang KK. Outcomes of T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma patients. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Dec. 74 (6):1201-6. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Akahoshi K, Chijiwa Y, Hamada S, Sasaki I, Nawata H, Kabemura T, et al. Pretreatment staging of endoscopically early gastric cancer with a 15 MHz ultrasound catheter probe. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998 Nov. 48 (5):470-6. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Napier KJ, Scheerer M, Misra S. Esophageal cancer: A Review of epidemiology, pathogenesis, staging workup and treatment modalities. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014 May 15. 6 (5):112-20. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
Souquet JC, Napoléon B, Pujol B, Keriven O, Ponchon T, Descos F, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography in the preoperative staging of esophageal cancer. Endoscopy. 1994 Nov. 26 (9):764-6. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Foley KG, Christian A, Fielding P, Lewis WG, Roberts SA. Accuracy of contemporary oesophageal cancer lymph node staging with radiological-pathological correlation. Clin Radiol. 2017 Aug. 72 (8):693.e1-693.e7. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Larghi A, Lightdale CJ, Memeo L, Bhagat G, Okpara N, Rotterdam H. EUS followed by EMR for staging of high-grade dysplasia and early cancer in Barrett's esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005 Jul. 62 (1):16-23. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Moss A, Bourke MJ, Hourigan LF, Gupta S, Williams SJ, Tran K, et al. Endoscopic resection for Barrett's high-grade dysplasia and early esophageal adenocarcinoma: an essential staging procedure with long-term therapeutic benefit. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010 Jun. 105 (6):1276-83. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Takeshita K, Tani M, Inoue H, Saeki I, Hayashi S, Honda T, et al. Endoscopic treatment of early oesophageal or gastric cancer. Gut. 1997 Jan. 40 (1):123-7. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
Inoue H, Fukami N, Yoshida T, Kudo SE. Endoscopic mucosal resection for esophageal and gastric cancers. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2002 Apr. 17 (4):382-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Ciocirlan M, Lapalus MG, Hervieu V, Souquet JC, Napoléon B, Scoazec JY, et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection for squamous premalignant and early malignant lesions of the esophagus. Endoscopy. 2007 Jan. 39 (1):24-9. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Takahashi H, Arimura Y, Masao H, Okahara S, Tanuma T, Kodaira J, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection is superior to conventional endoscopic resection as a curative treatment for early squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Aug. 72 (2):255-64, 264.e1-2. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Yoshinaga S, Gotoda T, Kusano C, Oda I, Nakamura K, Takayanagi R. Clinical impact of endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial adenocarcinoma located at the esophagogastric junction. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 Feb. 67 (2):202-9. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Kakushima N, Yahagi N, Fujishiro M, Kodashima S, Nakamura M, Omata M. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection for tumors of the esophagogastric junction. Endoscopy. 2006 Feb. 38 (2):170-4. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Hirasawa K, Kokawa A, Oka H, Yahara S, Sasaki T, Nozawa A, et al. Superficial adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: long-term results of endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Nov. 72 (5):960-6. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Ell C, May A, Gossner L, Pech O, Günter E, Mayer G, et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection of early cancer and high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus. Gastroenterology. 2000 Apr. 118 (4):670-7. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Nijhawan PK, Wang KK. Endoscopic mucosal resection for lesions with endoscopic features suggestive of malignancy and high-grade dysplasia within Barrett's esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000 Sep. 52 (3):328-32. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Vieth M, Ell C, Gossner L, May A, Stolte M. Histological analysis of endoscopic resection specimens from 326 patients with Barrett's esophagus and early neoplasia. Endoscopy. 2004 Sep. 36 (9):776-81. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Yamashita DT, Li C, Bethune D, Henteleff H, Ellsmere J. Endoscopic mucosal resection for high-grade dysplasia and intramucosal carcinoma: a Canadian experience. Can J Surg. 2017 Apr. 60 (2):129-133. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
[Guideline] Shaheen NJ, Falk GW, Iyer PG, Gerson LB, American College of Gastroenterology. ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016 Jan. 111 (1):30-50; quiz 51. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Chennat J, Konda VJ, Ross AS, de Tejada AH, Noffsinger A, Hart J, et al. Complete Barrett's eradication endoscopic mucosal resection: an effective treatment modality for high-grade dysplasia and intramucosal carcinoma--an American single-center experience. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009 Nov. 104 (11):2684-92. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Ono H, Kondo H, Gotoda T, Shirao K, Yamaguchi H, Saito D, et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection for treatment of early gastric cancer. Gut. 2001 Feb. 48 (2):225-9. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
Tanabe S, Hirabayashi S, Oda I, Ono H, Nashimoto A, Isobe Y, et al. Gastric cancer treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection or endoscopic mucosal resection in Japan from 2004 through 2006: JGCA nationwide registry conducted in 2013. Gastric Cancer. 2017 Sep. 20 (5):834-842. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Yokota T, Sugihara K, Yoshida S. Endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal neoplastic lesions. Dis Colon Rectum. 1994 Nov. 37 (11):1108-11. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
[Guideline] Tanaka S, Kashida H, Saito Y, Yahagi N, Yamano H, Saito S, et al. JGES guidelines for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection. Dig Endosc. 2015 May. 27 (4):417-34. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Han KS, Sohn DK, Choi DH, Hong CW, Chang HJ, Lim SB, et al. Prolongation of the period between biopsy and EMR can influence the nonlifting sign in endoscopically resectable colorectal cancers. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 Jan. 67 (1):97-102. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Uno Y, Munakata A. The non-lifting sign of invasive colon cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 1994 Jul-Aug. 40 (4):485-9. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
ASGE Technology Committee., Maple JT, Abu Dayyeh BK, Chauhan SS, Hwang JH, Komanduri S, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015. 81 (6):1311-25. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Bhatt A, Abe S, Kumaravel A, Vargo J, Saito Y. Indications and Techniques for Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Jun. 110 (6):784-91. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Kojima T, Parra-Blanco A, Takahashi H, Fujita R. Outcome of endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer: review of the Japanese literature. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998 Nov. 48 (5):550-4; discussion 554-5. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Barbour AP, Jones M, Brown I, Gotley DC, Martin I, Thomas J, et al. Risk stratification for early esophageal adenocarcinoma: analysis of lymphatic spread and prognostic factors. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 Sep. 17 (9):2494-502. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Tajima Y, Nakanishi Y, Ochiai A, Tachimori Y, Kato H, Watanabe H, et al. Histopathologic findings predicting lymph node metastasis and prognosis of patients with superficial esophageal carcinoma: analysis of 240 surgically resected tumors. Cancer. 2000 Mar 15. 88 (6):1285-93. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Buskens CJ, Westerterp M, Lagarde SM, Bergman JJ, ten Kate FJ, van Lanschot JJ. Prediction of appropriateness of local endoscopic treatment for high-grade dysplasia and early adenocarcinoma by EUS and histopathologic features. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Nov. 60 (5):703-10. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Badreddine RJ, Prasad GA, Lewis JT, Lutzke LS, Borkenhagen LS, Dunagan KT, et al. Depth of submucosal invasion does not predict lymph node metastasis and survival of patients with esophageal carcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 Mar. 8 (3):248-53. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
Lorenz D, Origer J, Pauthner M, Graupe F, Fisseler-Eckhoff A, Stolte M, et al. Prognostic risk factors of early esophageal adenocarcinomas. Ann Surg. 2014 Mar. 259 (3):469-76. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Sepesi B, Watson TJ, Zhou D, Polomsky M, Litle VR, Jones CE, et al. Are endoscopic therapies appropriate for superficial submucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma? An analysis of esophagectomy specimens. J Am Coll Surg. 2010 Apr. 210 (4):418-27. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Westerterp M, Koppert LB, Buskens CJ, Tilanus HW, ten Kate FJ, Bergman JJ, et al. Outcome of surgical treatment for early adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or gastro-esophageal junction. Virchows Arch. 2005 May. 446 (5):497-504. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Gotoda T, Yanagisawa A, Sasako M, Ono H, Nakanishi Y, Shimoda T, et al. Incidence of lymph node metastasis from early gastric cancer: estimation with a large number of cases at two large centers. Gastric Cancer. 2000 Dec. 3 (4):219-225. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Shami VM, Villaverde A, Stearns L, Chi KD, Kinney TP, Rogers GB, et al. Clinical impact of conventional endosonography and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration in the assessment of patients with Barrett's esophagus and high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal carcinoma who have been referred for endoscopic ablation therapy. Endoscopy. 2006 Feb. 38 (2):157-61. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Hizawa K, Iwai K, Esaki M, Matsumoto T, Suekane H, Iida M. Is endoscopic ultrasonography indispensable in assessing the appropriateness of endoscopic resection for gastric cancer?. Endoscopy. 2002 Dec. 34 (12):973-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
May A, Günter E, Roth F, Gossner L, Stolte M, Vieth M, et al. Accuracy of staging in early oesophageal cancer using high resolution endoscopy and high resolution endosonography: a comparative, prospective, and blinded trial. Gut. 2004 May. 53 (5):634-40. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Yanai H, Noguchi T, Mizumachi S, Tokiyama H, Nakamura H, Tada M, et al. A blind comparison of the effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopy in staging early gastric cancer. Gut. 1999 Mar. 44 (3):361-5. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
Emmanuel A, Gulati S, Burt M, Hayee B, Haji A. Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: patient selection and special considerations. Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2017. 10:121-131. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Ishihara R, Iishi H, Takeuchi Y, Kato M, Yamamoto S, Yamamoto S, et al. Local recurrence of large squamous-cell carcinoma of the esophagus after endoscopic resection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 May. 67 (6):799-804. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Tanabe S, Ishido K, Higuchi K, Sasaki T, Katada C, Azuma M, et al. Long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a retrospective comparison with conventional endoscopic resection in a single center. Gastric Cancer. 2014 Jan. 17 (1):130-6. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Chung IK, Lee JH, Lee SH, Kim SJ, Cho JY, Cho WY, et al. Therapeutic outcomes in 1000 cases of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric neoplasms: Korean ESD Study Group multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Jun. 69 (7):1228-35. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Ahn JY, Jung HY, Choi KD, Choi JY, Kim MY, Lee JH, et al. Endoscopic and oncologic outcomes after endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer: 1370 cases of absolute and extended indications. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Sep. 74 (3):485-93. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Choi MK, Kim GH, Park DY, Song GA, Kim DU, Ryu DY, et al. Long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a single-center experience. Surg Endosc. 2013 Nov. 27 (11):4250-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Goto O, Fujishiro M, Kodashima S, Ono S, Omata M. Outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer with special reference to validation for curability criteria. Endoscopy. 2009 Feb. 41 (2):118-22. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Park YM, Cho E, Kang HY, Kim JM. The effectiveness and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Surg Endosc. 2011 Aug. 25 (8):2666-77. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Lian J, Chen S, Zhang Y, Qiu F. A meta-analysis of endoscopic submucosal dissection and EMR for early gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Oct. 76 (4):763-70. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Fukunaga S, Nagami Y, Shiba M, Ominami M, Tanigawa T, Yamagami H, et al. Long-term prognosis of expanded-indication differentiated-type early gastric cancer treated with endoscopic submucosal dissection or surgery using propensity score analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Jan. 85 (1):143-152. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
Nakajima T, Saito Y, Tanaka S, Iishi H, Kudo SE, Ikematsu H, et al. Current status of endoscopic resection strategy for large, early colorectal neoplasia in Japan. Surg Endosc. 2013 Sep. 27 (9):3262-70. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Saito Y, Fukuzawa M, Matsuda T, Fukunaga S, Sakamoto T, Uraoka T, et al. Clinical outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal tumors as determined by curative resection. Surg Endosc. 2010 Feb. 24 (2):343-52. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Lee EJ, Lee JB, Lee SH, Youk EG. Endoscopic treatment of large colorectal tumors: comparison of endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic mucosal resection-precutting, and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Surg Endosc. 2012 Aug. 26 (8):2220-30. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Terasaki M, Tanaka S, Oka S, Nakadoi K, Takata S, Kanao H, et al. Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for laterally spreading tumors larger than 20 mm. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012 Apr. 27 (4):734-40. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Park SU, Min YW, Shin JU, Choi JH, Kim YH, Kim JJ, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection or transanal endoscopic microsurgery for nonpolypoid rectal high grade dysplasia and submucosa-invading rectal cancer. Endoscopy. 2012 Nov. 44 (11):1031-6. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Arezzo A, Passera R, Saito Y, Sakamoto T, Kobayashi N, Sakamoto N, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus transanal endoscopic microsurgery for large noninvasive rectal lesions. Surg Endosc. 2014 Feb. 28 (2):427-38. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Kiriyama S, Saito Y, Yamamoto S, Soetikno R, Matsuda T, Nakajima T, et al. Comparison of endoscopic submucosal dissection with laparoscopic-assisted colorectal surgery for early-stage colorectal cancer: a retrospective analysis. Endoscopy. 2012 Nov. 44 (11):1024-30. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Curcio G, Granata A, Ligresti D, Tarantino I, Barresi L, Liotta R, et al. Underwater colorectal EMR: remodeling endoscopic mucosal resection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 May. 81 (5):1238-42. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Cadoni S, Liggi M, Gallittu P, Mura D, Fuccio L, Koo M, et al. Underwater endoscopic colorectal polyp resection: Feasibility in everyday clinical practice. United European Gastroenterol J. 2018 Apr. 6 (3):454-462. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
Yamasaki Y, Uedo N, Takeuchi Y, Higashino K, Hanaoka N, Akasaka T, et al. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial nonampullary duodenal adenomas. Endoscopy. 2018 Feb. 50 (2):154-158. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Yamashina T, Uedo N, Akasaka T, Iwatsubo T, Nakatani Y, Akamatsu T, et al. Comparison of Underwater vs Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Intermediate-Size Colorectal Polyps. Gastroenterology. 2019 Aug. 157 (2):451-461.e2. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Tada M, Murata M, Murakami F, Shimada M, Mizumachi M, Arima K. Development of the strip-off biopsy [in Japanese with English abstract]. Gastrointest Endosc. 1984 Jun. 26 (6):833-9.
Larghi A, Waxman I. State of the art on endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2007 Jul. 17 (3):441-69, v. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Yamamoto H, Sekine Y, Higashizawa T, Kihira K, Kaneko Y, Hosoya Y, et al. Successful en bloc resection of a large superficial gastric cancer by using sodium hyaluronate and electrocautery incision forceps. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001 Nov. 54 (5):629-32. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Fujishiro M, Yahagi N, Nakamura M, Kakushima N, Kodashima S, Ono S, et al. Successful outcomes of a novel endoscopic treatment for GI tumors: endoscopic submucosal dissection with a mixture of high-molecular-weight hyaluronic acid, glycerin, and sugar. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006 Feb. 63 (2):243-9. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Uraoka T, Fujii T, Saito Y, Sumiyoshi T, Emura F, Bhandari P, et al. Effectiveness of glycerol as a submucosal injection for EMR. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005 May. 61 (6):736-40. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Giday SA, Magno P, Buscaglia JM, Canto MI, Ko CW, Shin EJ, et al. Is blood the ideal submucosal cushioning agent? A comparative study in a porcine model. Endoscopy. 2006 Dec. 38 (12):1230-4. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Sato T. A novel method of endoscopic mucosal resection assisted by submucosal injection of autologous blood (blood patch EMR). Dis Colon Rectum. 2006 Oct. 49 (10):1636-41. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Yandrapu H, Desai M, Siddique S, Vennalganti P, Vennalaganti S, Parasa S, et al. Normal saline solution versus other viscous solutions for submucosal injection during endoscopic mucosal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Apr. 85 (4):693-699. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Inoue H, Endo M, Takeshita K, Yoshino K, Muraoka Y, Yoneshima H. A new simplified technique of endoscopic esophageal mucosal resection using a cap-fitted panendoscope (EMRC). Surg Endosc. 1992 Sep-Oct. 6 (5):264-5. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Fleischer DE, Wang GQ, Dawsey S, Tio TL, Newsome J, Kidwell J, et al. Tissue band ligation followed by snare resection (band and snare): a new technique for tissue acquisition in the esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996 Jul. 44 (1):68-72. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Chaves DM, Sakai P, Mester M, Spinosa SR, Tomishige T, Ishioka S. A new endoscopic technique for the resection of flat polypoid lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. 1994 Mar-Apr. 40 (2 Pt 1):224-6. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Kawahara Y, Hori K, Takenaka R, Nasu J, Kawano S, Kita M, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection of esophageal cancer using the Mucosectom2 device: a feasibility study. Endoscopy. 2013 Nov. 45 (11):869-75. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Wang S, Gao S, Yang W, Guo S, Li Y. Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus local excision for early rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol. 2016 Jan. 20 (1):1-9. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Nakamura F, Saito Y, Sakamoto T, Otake Y, Nakajima T, Yamamoto S, et al. Potential perioperative advantage of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection versus laparoscopy-assisted colectomy. Surg Endosc. 2015 Mar. 29 (3):596-606. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Baldaque-Silva F, Marques M, Andrade AP, Sousa N, Lopes J, Carneiro F, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastrointestinal lesions on an outpatient basis. United European Gastroenterol J. 2019 Mar. 7 (2):326-334. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Ahn SY, Jang SI, Lee DW, Jeon SW. Gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection is safe for day patients. Clin Endosc. 2014 Nov. 47 (6):538-43. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Phee SJ, Reddy N, Chiu PW, Rebala P, Rao GV, Wang Z, et al. Robot-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection is effective in treating patients with early-stage gastric neoplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012 Oct. 10 (10):1117-21. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Lee HL, Kwon OW, Lee KN, Jun DW, Eun CS, Lee OY, et al. Endoscopic histologic diagnosis of gastric GI submucosal tumors via the endoscopic submucosal dissection technique. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Sep. 74 (3):693-5. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Kataoka Y, Tsuji Y, Sakaguchi Y, Minatsuki C, Asada-Hirayama I, Niimi K, et al. Bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection: Risk factors and preventive methods. World J Gastroenterol. 2016 Jul 14. 22 (26):5927-35. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Oh TH, Jung HY, Choi KD, Lee GH, Song HJ, Choi KS, et al. Degree of healing and healing-associated factors of endoscopic submucosal dissection-induced ulcers after pantoprazole therapy for 4 weeks. Dig Dis Sci. 2009 Jul. 54 (7):1494-9. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
Okano A, Hajiro K, Takakuwa H, Nishio A, Matsushita M. Predictors of bleeding after endoscopic mucosal resection of gastric tumors. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 May. 57 (6):687-90. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Lee SH, Park JH, Park DH, Chung IK, Kim HS, Park SH, et al. Clinical efficacy of EMR with submucosal injection of a fibrinogen mixture: a prospective randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006 Nov. 64 (5):691-6. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Choi JY, Park YS, Na G, Park SJ, Yoon H, Shin CM, et al. Safety and effectiveness of endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric neoplasia within 2 days' hospital stay. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019 Aug. 98 (32):e16578. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
ASGE Technology Committee., Hwang JH, Konda V, Abu Dayyeh BK, Chauhan SS, Enestvedt BK, et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Aug. 82 (2):215-26. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Tomizawa Y, Iyer PG, Wong Kee Song LM, Buttar NS, Lutzke LS, Wang KK. Safety of endoscopic mucosal resection for Barrett's esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Sep. 108 (9):1440-7; quiz 1448. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
Ayoub F, Westerveld DR, Forde JJ, Forsmark CE, Draganov PV, Yang D. Effect of prophylactic clip placement following endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal lesions on delayed polypectomy bleeding: A meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2019 May 14. 25 (18):2251-2263. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
Ono H. Early gastric cancer: diagnosis, pathology, treatment techniques and treatment outcomes. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006 Aug. 18 (8):863-6. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Inoue H, Fukami N, Yoshida T, Kudo SE. Endoscopic mucosal resection for esophageal and gastric cancers. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2002 Apr. 17 (4):382-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Park YM, Cho E, Kang HY, Kim JM. The effectiveness and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Surg Endosc. 2011 Aug. 25 (8):2666-77. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Daoud DC, Suter N, Durand M, Bouin M, Faulques B, von Renteln D. Comparing outcomes for endoscopic submucosal dissection between Eastern and Western countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2018 Jun 21. 24 (23):2518-2536. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Yoshikane H, Hidano H, Sakakibara A, Ayakawa T, Mori S, Kawashima H, et al. Endoscopic repair by clipping of iatrogenic colonic perforation. Gastrointest Endosc. 1997 Nov. 46 (5):464-6. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Kim HS, Lee DK, Jeong YS, Kim KH, Baik SK, Kwon SO, et al. Successful endoscopic management of a perforated gastric dysplastic lesion after endoscopic mucosal resection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000 May. 51 (5):613-5. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Binmoeller KF, Grimm H, Soehendra N. Endoscopic closure of a perforation using metallic clips after snare excision of a gastric leiomyoma. Gastrointest Endosc. 1993 Mar-Apr. 39 (2):172-4. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Kantsevoy SV, Bitner M, Mitrakov AA, Thuluvath PJ. Endoscopic suturing closure of large mucosal defects after endoscopic submucosal dissection is technically feasible, fast, and eliminates the need for hospitalization (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Mar. 79 (3):503-7. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Takahashi R, Yoshio T, Horiuchi Y, Omae M, Ishiyama A, Hirasawa T, et al. Endoscopic tissue shielding for esophageal perforation caused by endoscopic resection. Clin J Gastroenterol. 2017 Jun. 10 (3):214-219. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Konda VJ, Gonzalez Haba Ruiz M, Koons A, Hart J, Xiao SY, Siddiqui UD, et al. Complete endoscopic mucosal resection is effective and durable treatment for Barrett's-associated neoplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Dec. 12 (12):2002-10.e1-2. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
van Vilsteren FG, Pouw RE, Seewald S, Alvarez Herrero L, Sondermeijer CM, Visser M, et al. Stepwise radical endoscopic resection versus radiofrequency ablation for Barrett's oesophagus with high-grade dysplasia or early cancer: a multicentre randomised trial. Gut. 2011 Jun. 60 (6):765-73. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Seewald S, Akaraviputh T, Seitz U, Brand B, Groth S, Mendoza G, et al. Circumferential EMR and complete removal of Barrett's epithelium: a new approach to management of Barrett's esophagus containing high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia and intramucosal carcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Jun. 57 (7):854-9. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Peters FP, Kara MA, Rosmolen WD, ten Kate FJ, Krishnadath KK, van Lanschot JJ, et al. Stepwise radical endoscopic resection is effective for complete removal of Barrett's esophagus with early neoplasia: a prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Jul. 101 (7):1449-57. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Qumseya B, Panossian AM, Rizk C, Cangemi D, Wolfsen C, Raimondo M, et al. Predictors of esophageal stricture formation post endoscopic mucosal resection. Clin Endosc. 2014 Mar. 47 (2):155-61. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].
Pech O, Behrens A, May A, Nachbar L, Gossner L, Rabenstein T, et al. Long-term results and risk factor analysis for recurrence after curative endoscopic therapy in 349 patients with high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia and mucosal adenocarcinoma in Barrett's oesophagus. Gut. 2008 Sep. 57 (9):1200-6. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Pouw RE, Seewald S, Gondrie JJ, Deprez PH, Piessevaux H, Pohl H, et al. Stepwise radical endoscopic resection for eradication of Barrett's oesophagus with early neoplasia in a cohort of 169 patients. Gut. 2010 Sep. 59 (9):1169-77. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].
Chung A, Bourke MJ, Hourigan LF, Lim G, Moss A, Williams SJ, et al. Complete Barrett's excision by stepwise endoscopic resection in short-segment disease: long term outcomes and predictors of stricture. Endoscopy. 2011 Dec. 43 (12):1025-32. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

Media Gallery

Principles of mucosal resection.
Schematic of lesion penetration as determined by high-frequency endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS).
Endoscopic view of superficial gastric neoplasm.
Probe-based high-frequency ultrasound image of superficial gastric neoplasm.
Transparent endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) cap.
Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Resection specimen reveals negative deep and lateral margins.
Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Aspiration of tissue during ligation-assisted EMR.
Superficial gastric neoplasm (arrow) demonstrated with chromoendoscopy prior to cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).
Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Combined cap-and-snare device.
Paris classification of superficial gastrointestinal neoplasms.
This video, captured via esophagogastroduodenoscopy, shows use of HALO 90 device to perform radiofrequency ablation in patient with Barrett esophagus. Barrett esophagus increases risk of developing esophageal cancer. Video courtesy of Dawn Sears, MD, and Dan C Cohen, MD, Division of Gastroenterology, Scott & White Healthcare.
This video shows circumferential Barrett esophagus via esophagoscopy. HALO 360 device is in esophageal lumen, ready to perform radiofrequency ablation. Video courtesy of Dawn Sears, MD, and Dan C Cohen, MD, Division of Gastroenterology, Scott & White Healthcare.
This video, captured via esophagoscopy, shows Barrett esophagus after having just undergone treatment with radiofrequency ablation using HALO 360. Video courtesy of Dawn Sears, MD, and Dan C Cohen, MD, Division of Gastroenterology, Scott & White Healthcare.
This video, captured via esophagoscopy, shows long circumferential segment of Barrett esophagus. Video courtesy of Dawn Sears, MD, and Dan C Cohen, MD, Division of Gastroenterology, Scott & White Healthcare.
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Mucosal lesion defined with high-definition white-light imaging.
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Thermal mucosal marking of lesion.
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Circumferential mucosal incision.
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Submucosal dissection.
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Completion of submucosal dissection
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD): stomach.

of 20

Table 1. Lymph Node Metastasis Risk for T1 Tumor at Different Sites in Gastrointestinal Tract^[33]

Table 1. Lymph Node Metastasis Risk for T1 Tumor at Different Sites in Gastrointestinal Tract ^[33]

Depth	Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma	Esophageal Adenocarcinoma	Gastric Adenocarcinoma	Colonic Adenocarcinoma
M1	0%	0%	0-0.4%	0%
M2	0.03%	0%
M3	9%	0.02%
Sm1	15-20%	200 μm 1.9% (if lesion is < 2 cm)	up to 500 μm < 3%	1000 μm < 1%
Sm2		10% without risky signs 33% with risky signs	~20%	6%
Sm3		10% without risky signs 33% with risky signs	~20%	14%

Back to List

Author

Raymond E Kim, MD Associate Professor of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Maryland School of Medicine; Head, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Maryland Midtown Campus

Raymond E Kim, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Coauthor(s)

Varun Kesar, MD Assistant Professor of Medicine, Associate Program Director of Gastroenterology Fellowship Program, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine

Varun Kesar, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editor Board

Mary L Windle, PharmD Adjunct Associate Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Kurt E Roberts, MD Associate Professor, Division of Bariatric and Minimally Invasive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine; Chair, Department of Surgery, Saint Francis Hospital, Trinity Health of New England Medical Group

Kurt E Roberts, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, Society of Laparoscopic and Robotic Surgeons

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Additional Contributors

Bruce D Greenwald, MD Professor of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Maryland School of Medicine

Bruce D Greenwald, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American College of Gastroenterology, American College of Physicians, American Gastroenterological Association, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Matthew Hudson, MD Fellow, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Maryland Medical System

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Fariha H Ramay, MD, MBA Advanced Therapeutic Endoscopy Fellow, Gastroenterology and Hepatology Fellow, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Maryland Medical Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine

Fariha H Ramay, MD, MBA is a member of the following medical societies: American Gastroenterological Association, American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Women in Interventional Endoscopy

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Babak Torabi Sagvand, MD Fellow, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Maryland Medical Center

Babak Torabi Sagvand, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Gastroenterology, American Medical Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Acknowledgements

William R Brugge, MD Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School; Director, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital

William R Brugge, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Gastroenterology, American College of Physicians, American Federation for Clinical Research, American Gastroenterological Association, American Pancreatic Association, American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and Crohns and Colitis Foundation of America

Disclosure: RedPath Grant/research funds Consulting

Rabindra Watson, MD Clinical Instructor, Interventional Endoscopy Services, Division of Gastroenterology, University of California, Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine

Rabindra Watson, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association, and American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Acknowledgments

Medscape Reference thanks Dawn Sears, MD, Associate Professor of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Scott and White Memorial Hospital; and Dan C Cohen, MD, Fellow in Gastroenterology, Scott and White Hospital, Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine, for assistance with the video contribution to this article.