Thank you Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon ladies and gentleman. First of all, I would like to express my special thanks to the organizing committee especially Dr. Massimo for inviting me to this wonderful course. Today, I would like to talk about “Our perspective on endoscopic resection for colorectal neoplasms”.
Of course, EMR is … In contrast, surgical operation is …
So, EMR should be performed only for early CRC without risk of LNM or adenoma. According to the “Paris classification”, these 3 factors are considered as a risk of LNM. Of course, after EMR, we need to assess histopathologically. If it doesn’t meet this criteria, we need to recommend additional surgical operation.
Endoscopically, we can predict only the “depth of invasion”. It is impossible to predict lymphovascular invasion and poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma component in advance.
As I already mentioned, Non-polypoid CRNs are current topic. Among them,
This is the relationship between the lesion size and clinicopathological findings. During this period, we treated 1989 flat early stage colorectal neoplasms in our center. Based on the lesion size, we divided into three groups. Surprisingly, about 60% lesions located in the right-sided colon. Among the lesions judged as less than 5mm, almost all lesions were LGD. In contrast, the lesions diagnosed as so-called LSTs, 55% were high grade dysplasia or early invasive cancer.
As for the LST lesions, we usually classify into three groups. In short, LST-G uniform type, LST-G mixed type and LST-NG type.
As you can see, the incidence of SM cancer in this LST-G uniform type is very low less than 1%. In contrast, in these groups, about 13% cases are SM invasive cancer. Especially, large LST-NG type over 20mm has high incidence of SM invasion.
This is our treatment strategy for colorectal neoplasms. We usually decide the therapeutic plan based on the…
This slide shows the results of 250 colorectal ESD cases. The mean size of the lesion was about 4cm, and mean procedure time was 1hr and half. The rate of En-bloc resection was 84%, and complication’s rate was totally 7%. But, fortunately all cases except one case treated without emergent operation.
Our Perspective on Endoscopic Resection for Colorectal Neoplasms 11-12 February, 2011, ROME Takahisa Matsuda, M.D, Ph.D National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo Endoscopy Division - Piecemeal EMR/ ESD - 3rd course on E NDOSCOPY IN GASTROINTESTINAL ONCOLOGY
Risk factors of lymph node metastasis (LNM)* - Endoscopic Treatment? Surgical Operation? * Paris Classification, Gastrointest Endosc 2003 How to Decide the “Therapeutic Plan”?
Importance of Estimation of SM Invasion Risk factors for lymph node metastasis in patients with submucosal cancer O We can predict only the “Depth of Invasion” X Lymphovascular invasion X P/D adenocarcinoma Vascular involvement (+) Submucosal deep invasion (+)
Pre-operative Endoscopic Depth Diagnosis Magnifying Colonoscopy Pit Pattern (Kudo’s) Classification Matsuda T, Fujii T, Saito Y, et al : Am J Gastroenterol, 2008 Endoscopic Treatment (EMR) Operation (OPE) No Treatment
& Demarcated area Irregular, distorted crypts 0.05% Crystal violet staining There is a strong relationship between this pattern and invasive cancer Demarcated area Irregular, distorted crypts Invasive pattern
Non-Invasive pattern Almost all the lesions of this pattern are intra-mucosal lesions (LGD or HGD)
LST-NG LST-NG IIa (< 5mm) LST-G IIa (5-10mm) LST (> 10mm) * LST: laterally spreading tumor; “Flat elevated lesion >10mm” Non-polypoid (Flat & Depressed) CRNs are Current Topic Clinically, it is very important “How to manage these LST lesions”. Flat Lesions
Relationship Between Lesion Size and Clinicopathological Findings － 1989 Flat early stage colorectal neoplasms, NCCH, 1998-2003 － Adenoma (LGD) M-SM Ca Size Pathology (HGD- Early Invasive ca) Location (C/A/T: D/S: R) 508:288:34 387:276:43 260:111:82 ( 61% :35%:4%) ( 55% :39%:6%) ( 57% :25%:18%) Total 1155:675:159 ( 58% :34%:8%) Matsuda T, Saito Y, et al : Dig Endoscopy, 2010 Flat Lesions < 5mm (830) 5-10mm (706) ≥ 10mm (453: 23% ) 828 (99.8%) 657 (93.1%) 203 (44.8%) 1688 (84.9%) 2 (0.2%) 49 (6.9%) 250 (55.2%) 301 (15.1%)
LST (Laterally spreading tumor) Saito Y, et al. Endoscopy 2001;33: 682-686. - Subclassification of LSTs - LST-granular (LST-G) uniform type LST-granular (LST-G) mixed type LST-nongranular (LST-NG) LST-G LST-NG
LST-NG 10mm - 20mm - 30mm - 12/246 (4.9%) 24/106 (22.6%) 11/33 (33.3%) Total 55/402 (13.7%) 0/115 (0%) 0/70 (0%) 1/31 (3.2%) 1/227 LST-G (uniform) LST-G (mixed) 4/72 (5.6%) 6/70 (8.6%) 9/65 (13.8%) 44/321 (0.4%) (13.7%) 40mm - 8/17 (47.0%) 0/13 (0%) 25/114 (21.9%) Relationship Between the Size of LSTs & the Rate of SM Invasion NCCH 1998-2006 Matsuda T, Saito Y, Conio M, et al : Gastroenterol Clin Biol, 2010
16 (84%) 3 (16%) 19 Under the large nodule Under the depressed area 9 (27%) 23 (72%) 32 Multifocal Under the depressed area LST-G LST-NG The Area of SM Penetration Uraoka T, Saito Y, Matsuda T, et al. Gut. 2006. The extent of SM penetration of LST-G is easy to diagnose endoscopically. In contrast, the prediction of SM penetration of LST-NG is difficult.
EMR Strategy for LST LST-G En-bloc Resection 1 st; As large as possible LST-NG Endoscopic piecemeal resection (EPMR) is feasible for LST-granular type. In contrast, we should perform En-bloc resection for LST-non-granular type.
Treatment Strategy for Colorectal Neoplasms “ Based on the Lesion’s SIZE , MACROSCOPIC TYPE and Estimated DEPTH of INVASION ” SIZE DEPTH of Invasion 2cm 4cm SM ca 1000 µ m LAC (Laparoscopic Surgery) Open Surgery Conventional EMR Hot biopsy/ Polypectomy ESD EPMR M ca/ Adenoma Adv.ca (<5mm) (>5mm)
Hotta K, Saito Y, Matsuda T, et al. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2008 Local Recurrence Rate Size (mm) 10-19 20-29 30+ Total En-bloc Piecemeal Total 0.8% 0% 0% 0.7% (3/366) (0/65) (0/9) (3/440) 14.7% 21.7% 34.2% 23.5% (5/34) (13/60) (13/38) (31/132) 2.0% 10.4 % 27.7% 5.9% (8/400) (13/125) (13/47) (34/572)
A B C D E F G Recurrent Case: Rs, 50mm, Is+IIa (LST-G: mixed) A-C: Piecemeal EMR , W/D adenocarcinoma, pM (HGD) D-F: Follow-up CF (after 6M) -> Additional hot biopsy G: Follow-up CF (after 12M) -> No re-recurrence
High Complication Rate (e.g. perforation, bleeding etc.)
Long Operation Time
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection with Circumferential Incision
■ ESD Using Several Knives under CO 2 Insufflations Ball tip B-knife IT knife CO2 insufflations COLORECTAL ESD PROCEDURE Zeon Medical Co. Olympus Co. Olympus Co. Colorectal ESD Olympus Co. Dual knife Water jet Scope Olympus Co.
cf. The revised Vienna classification Category Diagnosis Clinically equivalent terms 3 Mucosal low-grade neoplasia LGIN, low grade adenoma/ dysplasia 4 Mucosal high-grade neoplasia 4. 1 HGIN, high-grade adenoma/ dysplasia 4. 2 HGIN, non-invasive carcinoma (CIS) 4. 3 Suspicious for invasive Ca. 4. 4 Intramucosal Ca 5 Submucosal or deeper invasion by carcinoma
* All cases except one treated without surgery Saito Y, Uraoka T, Matsuda T et al. Gastrointest Endosc, 2010 Results of 500 Colorectal ESDs Macroscopic Type Is, IIa+IIc, IIc, SMT LST-G LST-NG Recurrent lesions 52 220 200 28 Location C: 35, Rt: 195, Lt: 130, R: 140 Size of Lesion (mean) 40 20mm (20-150mm) Procedure Time 90 73 (15-390) min. En-bloc Resection 88% Curative Resection 86% Complications Perforation Delayed Bleeding 13* (2.6%) 5 (1%) Histopathology Adenoma: 127, M-SM1: 315, SM2-: 55
National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo How often should we choose ESD? The Prevalence of Suitable Lesions for ESD
* LSTs: LST-G and LST-NG ** Definite indication: LST-NG lesion ≥20 mm § Relative indication: LST-G Mixed type [Is+IIa (LST-G)] ≥40 mm Matsuda T, Saito Y, Conio M, et al. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 2010 National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, 1998-2006 The Prevalence of Suitable Lesions for ESD All Neoplastic Lesions ( n = 11,488) Early Colorectal Cancers ( n = 1,691) LSTs * 5.9% ( n = 674) 22.6% ( n = 382) Indication for ESD 2.3% ( n = 267) 12.1% ( n = 205) Definite indication ** for ESD 1.0% ( n = 115) 5.0% ( n = 85) Relative indication § for ESD 1.3% ( n = 152) 7.1% ( n = 120)
Endoscopic Depth Diagnosis is Important! All lesions are SM deep invasive cancer!