Endoscopic full-thickness resection of colorectal lesions appears safe and effective

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) of complex colorectal lesions appears safe and effective, based on prospective data from 20 Dutch hospitals.

Macroscopic complete en bloc resection was achieved in 83.9% of procedures with an adverse event rate of 9.3%, reported lead author Liselotte W. Zwager, a PhD candidate at the University of Amsterdam, and colleagues.

“With the advantage of enabling a transmural resection, eFTR offers an alternative to radical surgery in lesions considered incurable with current resection techniques such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD),” the investigators wrote in Endoscopy.

But more data are needed for widespread adoption, they noted. “Several studies have reported encouraging results on the short-term safety and efficacy of eFTR for numerous indications. However, firm conclusions on clinical results will require analysis of large prospective series of patients in everyday clinical practice.”

The present study provided data from 362 patients who underwent 367 procedures at 5 academic and 15 nonacademic centers in the Netherlands.

Patients were eligible for eFTR if polyps were nonlifting or in difficult-to-reach locations, or if T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) was suspected. In addition, eFTR was performed for subepithelial tumors, and as secondary completion treatment after incomplete endoscopic resection of T1 CRC with a positive or nonassessable resection margin. Lesions greater than 30 mm were excluded because of device diameter constraints.

The primary outcome was macroscopic complete en bloc resection. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, full-thickness resection rate, and clinical success, the latter of which was defined by tumor-free resection margins (R0).

Out of 367 procedures, eFTR was most frequently conducted because of incomplete resection of T1 CRC (41%), followed by nonlifting or difficult-to-reach polyps (36%), suspected T1 CRC (19%), and least often, subepithelial tumors (4%).

Complete en bloc resection was achieved in 83.9% of procedures. Excluding 21 procedures in which eFTR was not performed because of inaccessibility of the lesion (n = 7) or immobility of tissue prohibiting retraction of the lesion into the cap (n = 14), R0 was achieved in 82.4% of cases. Among the same group, full-thickness resection rate was comparable, at 83.2%.

Adverse events occurred in 34 patients (9.3%), among whom 10 (2.7%) underwent emergency surgery for perforations or appendicitis.

“In conclusion,” the investigators wrote, “eFTR is an exciting, innovative resection technique that is clinically feasible and safe for complex colorectal lesions, with the potential to obviate the need for surgical resection. Further efficacy studies on eFTR as a primary and secondary treatment option for T1 CRC are needed, focusing on both the short- and long-term oncologic results.”

Peter V. Draganov, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, called the R0 resection rate “respectable,” and suggested that the study “reconfirms on a larger scale that eFTR with the full-thickness resection device is successful in the majority of cases.”

“The full-thickness resection device expands our armamentarium to remove difficult polyps and early CRC,” he said.

Still, Dr. Draganov, who has previously advised careful patient selection for eFTR, noted certain drawbacks of the technique. “The presented data highlight some of the limitations of the full-thickness resection device, including the relatively small size of the lesion [median diameter, 23 mm] that can be resected, and challenges related to accessing and capturing the lesion due to the limited visibility and maneuverability of the device.”

Ultimately, Dr. Draganov supported the investigators’ call for more data. “Before eFTR becomes a primary modality for management of T1 CRC, we do need follow-up data on long-term cancer-related outcomes,” he said.

The study was supported by Ovesco Endoscopy. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Cook, Ethicon, Olympus, and others.

SOURCE: Zwager LW et al. Endoscopy. 2020 Jun 4. doi: 10.1055/a-1176-1107.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) of complex colorectal lesions appears safe and effective, based on prospective data from 20 Dutch hospitals.

Macroscopic complete en bloc resection was achieved in 83.9% of procedures with an adverse event rate of 9.3%, reported lead author Liselotte W. Zwager, a PhD candidate at the University of Amsterdam, and colleagues.

“With the advantage of enabling a transmural resection, eFTR offers an alternative to radical surgery in lesions considered incurable with current resection techniques such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD),” the investigators wrote in Endoscopy.

But more data are needed for widespread adoption, they noted. “Several studies have reported encouraging results on the short-term safety and efficacy of eFTR for numerous indications. However, firm conclusions on clinical results will require analysis of large prospective series of patients in everyday clinical practice.”

The present study provided data from 362 patients who underwent 367 procedures at 5 academic and 15 nonacademic centers in the Netherlands.

Patients were eligible for eFTR if polyps were nonlifting or in difficult-to-reach locations, or if T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) was suspected. In addition, eFTR was performed for subepithelial tumors, and as secondary completion treatment after incomplete endoscopic resection of T1 CRC with a positive or nonassessable resection margin. Lesions greater than 30 mm were excluded because of device diameter constraints.

The primary outcome was macroscopic complete en bloc resection. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, full-thickness resection rate, and clinical success, the latter of which was defined by tumor-free resection margins (R0).

Out of 367 procedures, eFTR was most frequently conducted because of incomplete resection of T1 CRC (41%), followed by nonlifting or difficult-to-reach polyps (36%), suspected T1 CRC (19%), and least often, subepithelial tumors (4%).

Complete en bloc resection was achieved in 83.9% of procedures. Excluding 21 procedures in which eFTR was not performed because of inaccessibility of the lesion (n = 7) or immobility of tissue prohibiting retraction of the lesion into the cap (n = 14), R0 was achieved in 82.4% of cases. Among the same group, full-thickness resection rate was comparable, at 83.2%.

Adverse events occurred in 34 patients (9.3%), among whom 10 (2.7%) underwent emergency surgery for perforations or appendicitis.

“In conclusion,” the investigators wrote, “eFTR is an exciting, innovative resection technique that is clinically feasible and safe for complex colorectal lesions, with the potential to obviate the need for surgical resection. Further efficacy studies on eFTR as a primary and secondary treatment option for T1 CRC are needed, focusing on both the short- and long-term oncologic results.”

Peter V. Draganov, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, called the R0 resection rate “respectable,” and suggested that the study “reconfirms on a larger scale that eFTR with the full-thickness resection device is successful in the majority of cases.”

“The full-thickness resection device expands our armamentarium to remove difficult polyps and early CRC,” he said.

Still, Dr. Draganov, who has previously advised careful patient selection for eFTR, noted certain drawbacks of the technique. “The presented data highlight some of the limitations of the full-thickness resection device, including the relatively small size of the lesion [median diameter, 23 mm] that can be resected, and challenges related to accessing and capturing the lesion due to the limited visibility and maneuverability of the device.”

Ultimately, Dr. Draganov supported the investigators’ call for more data. “Before eFTR becomes a primary modality for management of T1 CRC, we do need follow-up data on long-term cancer-related outcomes,” he said.

The study was supported by Ovesco Endoscopy. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Cook, Ethicon, Olympus, and others.

SOURCE: Zwager LW et al. Endoscopy. 2020 Jun 4. doi: 10.1055/a-1176-1107.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) of complex colorectal lesions appears safe and effective, based on prospective data from 20 Dutch hospitals.

Macroscopic complete en bloc resection was achieved in 83.9% of procedures with an adverse event rate of 9.3%, reported lead author Liselotte W. Zwager, a PhD candidate at the University of Amsterdam, and colleagues.

“With the advantage of enabling a transmural resection, eFTR offers an alternative to radical surgery in lesions considered incurable with current resection techniques such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD),” the investigators wrote in Endoscopy.

But more data are needed for widespread adoption, they noted. “Several studies have reported encouraging results on the short-term safety and efficacy of eFTR for numerous indications. However, firm conclusions on clinical results will require analysis of large prospective series of patients in everyday clinical practice.”

The present study provided data from 362 patients who underwent 367 procedures at 5 academic and 15 nonacademic centers in the Netherlands.

Patients were eligible for eFTR if polyps were nonlifting or in difficult-to-reach locations, or if T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) was suspected. In addition, eFTR was performed for subepithelial tumors, and as secondary completion treatment after incomplete endoscopic resection of T1 CRC with a positive or nonassessable resection margin. Lesions greater than 30 mm were excluded because of device diameter constraints.

The primary outcome was macroscopic complete en bloc resection. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, full-thickness resection rate, and clinical success, the latter of which was defined by tumor-free resection margins (R0).

Out of 367 procedures, eFTR was most frequently conducted because of incomplete resection of T1 CRC (41%), followed by nonlifting or difficult-to-reach polyps (36%), suspected T1 CRC (19%), and least often, subepithelial tumors (4%).

Complete en bloc resection was achieved in 83.9% of procedures. Excluding 21 procedures in which eFTR was not performed because of inaccessibility of the lesion (n = 7) or immobility of tissue prohibiting retraction of the lesion into the cap (n = 14), R0 was achieved in 82.4% of cases. Among the same group, full-thickness resection rate was comparable, at 83.2%.

Adverse events occurred in 34 patients (9.3%), among whom 10 (2.7%) underwent emergency surgery for perforations or appendicitis.

“In conclusion,” the investigators wrote, “eFTR is an exciting, innovative resection technique that is clinically feasible and safe for complex colorectal lesions, with the potential to obviate the need for surgical resection. Further efficacy studies on eFTR as a primary and secondary treatment option for T1 CRC are needed, focusing on both the short- and long-term oncologic results.”

Peter V. Draganov, MD, of the University of Florida, Gainesville, called the R0 resection rate “respectable,” and suggested that the study “reconfirms on a larger scale that eFTR with the full-thickness resection device is successful in the majority of cases.”

“The full-thickness resection device expands our armamentarium to remove difficult polyps and early CRC,” he said.

Still, Dr. Draganov, who has previously advised careful patient selection for eFTR, noted certain drawbacks of the technique. “The presented data highlight some of the limitations of the full-thickness resection device, including the relatively small size of the lesion [median diameter, 23 mm] that can be resected, and challenges related to accessing and capturing the lesion due to the limited visibility and maneuverability of the device.”

Ultimately, Dr. Draganov supported the investigators’ call for more data. “Before eFTR becomes a primary modality for management of T1 CRC, we do need follow-up data on long-term cancer-related outcomes,” he said.

The study was supported by Ovesco Endoscopy. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Cook, Ethicon, Olympus, and others.

SOURCE: Zwager LW et al. Endoscopy. 2020 Jun 4. doi: 10.1055/a-1176-1107.