Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2024; 12(07): E868-E874
DOI: 10.1055/a-2325-3747
Original article

Endoscopic resection in subepithelial lesions of the upper gastrointestinal tract: Experience at a tertiary referral hospital in The Netherlands

Cynthia Verloop 
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands (Ringgold ID: RIN6993)
2   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, Netherlands (Ringgold ID: RIN7000)
,
Lieke Hol
2   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, Netherlands (Ringgold ID: RIN7000)
,
Marco Bruno
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands (Ringgold ID: RIN6993)
,
Lydi Van Driel
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands (Ringgold ID: RIN6993)
,
Arjun Dave Koch
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands (Ringgold ID: RIN6993)
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Histological confirmation of subepithelial lesions (SELs) in the upper gastrointestinal tract remains challenging. Endoscopic resection of SELs is increasingly used for its excellent diagnostic yield and opportunity to do away with continued surveillance. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the indications, success rates and complications of different endoscopic resection techniques for SELs at a large, tertiary referral hospital in Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Patients and methods Data between October 2013 and December 2021 were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Main outcomes were R0-resection rate, en bloc resection rate, recurrence rate, and procedure-related adverse events (AEs) (Clavien-Dindo). Secondary outcomes were procedure time, need for surgical intervention, and clinical impact on patient management.

Results A total of 58 patients were referred for endoscopic resection of upper gastrointestinal SELs. The median diameter of lesions was 20 mm (range 7–100 mm). Median follow-up time was 5 months (range 0.4–75.7). Forty-eight procedures (83%) were completed successfully leading to en bloc resection in 85% and R0-resection in 63%. Procedure-related AEs occurred in six patients (13%). Severe complications (CD grade 3a) were seen in three patients. The local recurrence rate for (pre)malignant diagnosis was 2%. Additional surgical intervention was needed in seven patients (15%). A total of 32 patients (67%) could be discharged from further surveillance after endoscopic resection.

Conclusions Endoscopic resection is a safe and effective treatment for SELs and offers valuable information about undetermined SELs for which repeated sampling attempts have failed to provide adequate tissue for diagnosis.

Keywords

Endoscopy Upper GI Tract - Endoscopic resection (ESD, EMRc, ...) - Endoscopic ultrasonography - Subepithelial lesions - Tissue diagnosis

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 25 September 2023

Accepted after revision: 03 May 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
13 May 2024

Article published online:
10 July 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Humphris JL, Jones DB. Subepithelial mass lesions in the upper gastrointestinal tract. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 23: 556-566
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Faulx AL, Kothari S, Acosta RD. et al. The role of endoscopy in subepithelial lesions of the GI tract. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 1117-1132
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Landi B, Palazzo L. The role of endosonography in submucosal tumours. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2009; 23: 679-701
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Joo HH, Saunders MD, Rulyak SJ. et al. A prospective study comparing endoscopy and EUS in the evaluation of GI subepithelial masses. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 202-208
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Chen H, Li B, Li L. et al. Current status of endoscopic resection of gastric subepithelial tumors. Am J Gastroenterol 2019; 114: 718-725
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 McCarty TR, Ryou M. Endoscopic diagnosis and management of gastric subepithelial lesions. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2020; 36: 530-537
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Bhagat VH, Kim M, Kahaleh M. A review of endoscopic full-thickness resection, submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection, and endoscopic submucosal dissection for resection of subepithelial lesions. J Clin Gastroenterol 2021; 55: 309-315
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Kim SY, Kim KO. Endoscopic treatment of subepithelial tumors. Clin Endosc 2018; 51: 19-27
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML. et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 2009; 250: 187-196
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Deprez PH, Moons LMG, O'Toole D. et al. Endoscopic management of subepithelial lesions including neuroendocrine neoplasms: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 412-429
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Jacobson BC, Bhatt A, Greer KB. et al. ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Lesions. Am J Gastroenterol 2023; 118: 46-58
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Minoda Y, Chinen T, Osoegawa T. et al. Superiority of mucosal incision-assisted biopsy over ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy in diagnosing small gastric subepithelial lesions: A propensity score matching analysis. BMC Gastroenterol 2020; 20: 19
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Ikehara H, Li Z, Watari J. et al. Histological diagnosis of gastric submucosal tumors: A pilot study of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy vs mucosal cutting biopsy. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 7: 1142-1149
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Inoue T, Okumura F, Sano H. et al. Impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy on the diagnosis of subepithelial tumors: A propensity score-matching analysis. Gastroenterol Endosc 2020; 62: 85-92
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Dhaliwal A, Kolli S, Dhindsa BS. et al. Clinical efficacy and safety of mucosal incision-assisted biopsy for the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Gastroenterol 2020; 33: 155-161
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Sanaei O, Fernandez-Esparrach G, De La Serna-Higuera C. et al. EUS-guided 22-gauge fine needle biopsy versus single-incision with needle knife for the diagnosis of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: a randomized controlled trial. Endosc Int Open 2020; 8: E266-E273
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Osoegawa T, Minoda Y, Ihara E. et al. Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy versus endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with a rapid on-site evaluation for gastric subepithelial lesions: A randomized cross-over study. Dig Endosc 2019; 31: 413-421
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Kobara H, Mori H, Nishimoto N. et al. Comparison of submucosal tunneling biopsy versus EUS-guided FNA for gastric subepithelial lesions: A prospective study with crossover design. Endosc Int Open 2017; 5: E695-E705
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Kuroha M, Shiga H, Kanazawa Y. et al. Factors associated with fibrosis during colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: does pretreatment biopsy potentially elicit submucosal fibrosis and affect endoscopic submucosal dissection outcomes?. Digestion 2021; 102: 590-598
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Kim HG, Thosani N, Banerjee S. et al. Effect of prior biopsy sampling, tattoo placement, and snare sampling on endoscopic resection of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 204-213
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Tan Y, Tang X, Huang J. et al. Efficacy, feasibility, and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2022; 56: E283-E292
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Kushnir VM, Keswani RN, Hollander TG. et al. Compliance with surveillance recommendations for foregut subepithelial tumors is poor: results of a prospective multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 1378-1384
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Sharzehi K, Sethi A, Savides T. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Management of Subepithelial Lesions Encountered During Routine Endoscopy: Expert Review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 20: 2435-2443.e4
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Li B, Chen T, Qi ZP. et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection for small submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer in the gastric fundus. Surg Endosc 2019; 33: 2553-2561
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Meng FS, Zhang ZH, Hong YY. et al. Comparison of endoscopic submucosal dissection and surgery for the treatment of gastric submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer: a single-center study (with video). Surg Endosc 2016; 30: 5099-5107
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Liu YB, Liu XY, Fang Y. et al. Comparison of safety and short-term outcomes between endoscopic and laparoscopic resections of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors with a diameter of 2–5 cm. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 37: 1333-1341
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Meng Y, Li W, Han L. et al. Long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus laparoscopic resection for gastric stromal tumors less than 2 cm. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 32: 1693-1697
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Demetri GD, von Mehren M, Antonescu CR. et al. NCCN Task Force report: update on the management of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2010; 8: 1-44
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Bang CS, Baik GH, Shin IS. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric subepithelial tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Intern Med 2016; 31: 860-871
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Peng W, Tan S, Huang S. et al. Efficacy and safety of submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection for upper gastrointestinal submucosal tumors with more than 1-year' follow-up: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2019; 54: 397-406
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Bialek A, Wiechowska-Kozlowska A, Pertkiewicz J. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for treatment of gastric subepithelial tumors (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 276-286
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Zhang Y, Ye LP, Zhou XB. et al. Safety and efficacy of endoscopic excavation for gastric subepithelial tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer: results from a large study in China. J Clin Gastroenterol 2013; 47: 689-694
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Kong M, Liu G, Zhuo H. et al. Association between R1 resection and oncological outcome in resectable gastrointestinal stromal tumors without tumor rupture: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 2021; 47: 1526-1534
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar