Clin Endosc > Volume 46(5); 2013 > Article
Ahn and Jung: Long-Term Outcome of Extended Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Gastric Cancer with Differentiated Histology

Abstract

Endoscopic mucosal resection was introduced in the 1990s, and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in 2003. Currently, ESD is becoming the main procedure for the resection of early gastric cancer (EGC) and is leading to the development of extended indications for endoscopic resection. Many reports showed that the endoscopic and oncologic outcome of endoscopic treatment in the extended indication group was acceptable in terms of curability and safety. Especially, ESD showed better results to remove extended indication EGCs with relatively high resection rate and low local recurrence rate. However, more long-term follow-up data are needed for clinical application of the extended criteria of ESD due to the risk of lymph node metastasis. We should also keep in mind that accurate diagnosis, characterization of the lesion, and proper appreciation of technical aspects are most essential in therapeutic endoscopy.

INTRODUCTION

Gastric cancer is the most common malignancy in Korea. In recent years, mortalities associated with gastric cancer have decreased markedly in some Asian countries due to healthcare policies that introduced screening tests for early detection of gastric cancer. Since curative treatment is possible when tumors are resectable, screening modalities that detect gastric cancers when they are still resectable can increase long-term survival rates. Although surgical resection is the standard method of treatment, patients diagnosed with early gastric cancer (EGC) can be resected endoscopically and early diagnosis, allowing endoscopic resection, is therefore important.
Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is widely accepted as a standard treatment of EGC, with nominal risk of lymph node (LN) metastasis, because it is minimally invasive, safe, and convenient.1,2 According to current guidelines, absolute indications for endoscopic resection include differentiated EGCs less than 20 mm in diameter and small (≤10 mm), depressed EGCs without ulceration or scarring;3,4 moreover, these lesions must be confined to the mucosa, with no lymphatic or vascular involvement. These criteria, however, have been considered too strict, leading to unnecessary surgery,5 and en bloc resection of specimens larger than 20 mm is difficult by EMR.
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has shown advantages over conventional EMR for the removal of larger or ulcerated EGC lesions in an en bloc manner6-8 as well as for preventing residual disease and local recurrence.1,5,8 These findings have led to the development of extended indications for endoscopic resection,1,5,9,10 indicated for differentiated cancer with no lymphatic or vascular involvement, including: 1) mucosal cancers without ulcerative findings, regardless of tumor size; 2) mucosal cancers with ulcerative findings ≤30 mm; and 3) minute (≤500 µm from the muscularis mucosae) submucosal invasive cancers ≤30 mm. The number of patients receiving ESD for EGC has continuously increased because of expansion of criteria.11 Until now, several studies showed the positive results about the ESD in extended indication with similar recurrence rate and disease free survival rate with absolute indication.10,12-14
However, some reports showed LN metastasis in EGC of extended indication, especially in submucosal invasive EGC,13,15,16 so we could not perform the endoscopic resection by force according to the indication. On the other hand, some patients who have gastric cancer which is not included absolute and extended indication need endoscopic resection due to clinical situations. Therefore, we should select the proper treatment methods according to the state of cancer and condition of patients, based on the precise results which have been reported by clinical practices. In this article, we tried to determine the long-term follow-up results of endoscopic resection in differentiated EGC for the better management of patients.

OUTCOME OF EXTENDED INDICATION IN EGC

Some studies showed that ESD is acceptable using the extended indication with acceptable recurrence rate and disease-free survival which were not different from absolute indication.10,12-14 In the report by Isomoto et al.,17 ESD in extended indication of EGC showed 94.7% of complete resection and 97.1% of 5-year survival rate, and these results were similar to those of surgical resection with LN dissection. Choi et al.18 also reported that EMR was comparable to surgery in terms of the risk of death (18.8% vs. 14.8%) and recurrence (1.2% vs. 1.1%) with lower medical costs and shorter duration of hospital stay. Sanomura et al.19 reported that complete resection was achieved for 93.2% of the submucosal cancer (sm1, ≤500 µm) that met the extended criteria and there was no LN metastasis.
Disease-specific survival did not differ significantly between patients who were simply followed up after ESD and those who were treated by additional surgical resection.19 In 1,370 cases of endoscopic resection of EGC in absolute and extended indication, the complete resection rate was higher (95.9% vs. 88.4%) and the complication rate was lower (6.8% vs. 9.8%) in the absolute than in the extended indication group; however, there was no between group difference in local recurrence rate (0.9% vs. 1.1%) at a median follow-up of 32 months.13 In this report, the 5-year overall survival rate was 95.8%; 95.3% in the absolute indication group, 96.8% in the extended indication group. The overall 3-year disease-specific local recurrence-free rate was 98.8%; 99.0% in the absolute indication group and 98.5% in the extended indication groups. In another recent study which compared absolute and extended indication, recurrent rates were 7.7% in the absolute indication group and 9.3% in the extended indication group. Disease-free survival was not significantly different between the two indication groups.12
A prospective comparative study was reported in Japan10 concerning the clinical outcomes of absolute and expanded indication of EMR and ESD. A total of 589 EGC lesions were divided to either the guideline group or the extended group. En bloc, complete and curative resections were achieved in 98.6%, 93.0%, and 95.1%; and 88.5%, 97.1%, and 91.1% of the guideline and expanded criteria lesions, respectively, and the differences between the two groups were significant. However, the overall survival was equally adequate in both groups, and the disease-specific survival rates were 100% in both groups.

LIMITATIONS OF EXTENDED INDICATION

In endoscopic treatment, the most important thing is to exclude the possibility of LN metastasis, which usually depends on the endoscopic findings such as the feature which can predict the invasion depth, size of tumor, and the existence of ulceration on the tumor.
A previous study reported that there was no LN metastases in patients with minute submucosal cancers ≤30 mm in size without lymphovascular invasion9 and, based on this finding, it was suggested that the criteria for ESD for EGC could be extended.1,5,10,11 However, recent studies have reported positive LN metastasis in pathologic reviews of surgical specimens in less than 3 cm sized EGCs.13,15,16 Kang et al.15 reported that LN metastasis was noted in 15.0% of submucosal cancer (sm1, ≤500 µm) without lymphovascular invasion and measuring ≤3 cm in size, and An et al.16 revealed 1.7% of LN metastasis in submucosal cancer (sm1, ≤500 µm) EGCs which were less than 2 cm. In another study, among 119 cases of submucosal cancer (sm1, ≤500 µm), 2.5 cm sized one metastatic LN was found on surgically resected specimen.13 Therefore, in submucosal cancer (sm1, ≤500 µm) in extended indication, we should decide carefully to perform endoscopic treatment due to the possibility of LN metastasis.
In a recent study, none of well differentiated mucosa-confined cancers smaller than 3 cm in diameter had associated LN metastasis, regardless of the presence of ulceration, and the probability of LN involvement significantly increases in EGC containing an ulcer (3.4%) compared to EGC without an ulcer (0.5%).9 However, establishing ulceration on EGC by definition (ulcers measuring 5 mm or larger in diameter and are on exposed submucosa) is another problem, especially in real endoscopic examination, because of the change of ulceration by life cycle of a malignant ulcer and the interobserver variation in defining an ulcer in EGC. To overcome these factors, education to reduce the interobserver variation by sharing the endoscopic findings of ulceration which are diagnosed in pathologic data is needed.

RESULTS OF NONCURATIVE, ENDOSCOPICALLY RESECTED, DIFFERENTIATED EGC

Following endoscopic treatment, meticulous pathological evaluation of the resected specimen is used to stratify patient management. Patients with lesions that meet the guidelines or extended criteria are closely followed, whereas those who have undergone noncurative resection are considered for additional treatment such as surgery or a follow-up endoscopic procedure.20 The surgical outcomes of EGC are known to be excellent;21 however, partial or total gastrectomy is also associated with short- and long-term morbidity and mortality.22,23 In clinical practice, some patients who undergo noncurative endoscopic resection are contraindicated for additional treatment due to individual factors, such as comorbid disease, old age, or patient refusal. A recent report showed that the death rate of patients who undergo noncurative endoscopic resection was 25.2%, the median survival time was 42 months (interquartile range, 30 to 66), and the overall 3- and 5-year survival rates were 82.9% and 77.1%. In addition, the 3- and 5-year survival rates of the patients with lymphovascular invasion were 61.9% and 42.4%, respectively, and the rates of patients without lymphovascular invasion were 86.1% and 81.8%, respectively.24

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic removal has become the method of choice for indicated patients with EGCs. Moreover, the ESD method is superior to EMR because of the higher en bloc and complete resection rates, despite having longer procedure time and higher complication rate.6,25-29 The advance of instruments and techniques allows to extend the indication for endoscopic resection as well as to avoid unnecessary surgery.10,30 The above reports showed that the endoscopic and oncologic outcomes of endoscopic treatment in the extended indication group was acceptable in terms of curability and safety. Especially, ESD showed better results to remove extended indication EGCs with relatively high resection rate and low local recurrence rate. However, more long-term follow-up data are needed for clinical application of the extended criteria of ESD due to the risk of LN metastasis. We should also keep in mind that accurate diagnosis, characterization of the lesion, and proper appreciation of technical aspects are most essential in therapeutic endoscopy.

NOTES

The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

References

1. Soetikno R, Kaltenbach T, Yeh R, Gotoda T. Endoscopic mucosal resection for early cancers of the upper gastrointestinal tract. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:4490–4498. 16002839.
crossref pmid
2. Rembacken BJ, Gotoda T, Fujii T, Axon AT. Endoscopic mucosal resection. Endoscopy 2001;33:709–718. 11490390.
crossref pmid pdf
3. Shimada Y. JGCA (The Japan Gastric Cancer Association). Gastric cancer treatment guidelines. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2004;34:58. 15061149.
crossref pmid pdf
4. Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese Classification of Gastric Carcinoma: 2nd English edition. Gastric Cancer 1998;1:10–24. 11957040.
crossref pmid pdf
5. Gotoda T. Endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 2007;10:1–11. 17334711.
crossref pmid
6. Oka S, Tanaka S, Kaneko I, et al. Advantage of endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with EMR for early gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;64:877–883. 17140890.
crossref pmid
7. Takeuchi Y, Uedo N, Iishi H, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection with insulated-tip knife for large mucosal early gastric cancer: a feasibility study (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2007;66:186–193. 17591498.
crossref pmid
8. Takenaka R, Kawahara Y, Okada H, et al. Risk factors associated with local recurrence of early gastric cancers after endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 2008;68:887–894. 18565523.
crossref pmid
9. Gotoda T, Yanagisawa A, Sasako M, 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;3:219–225. 11984739.
crossref pmid
10. Yamaguchi N, Isomoto H, Fukuda E, et al. Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer by indication criteria. Digestion 2009;80:173–181. 19776581.
crossref pmid
11. Jung HY. Endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer: current status in Korea. Dig Endosc 2012;24(Suppl 1):159–165. 22533774.
crossref
12. Park CH, Shin S, Park JC, et al. Long-term outcome of early gastric cancer after endoscopic submucosal dissection: expanded indication is comparable to absolute indication. Dig Liver Dis 2013;45:651–656. 23422031.
crossref pmid
13. Ahn JY, Jung HY, Choi KD, et al. Endoscopic and oncologic outcomes after endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer: 1370 cases of absolute and extended indications. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74:485–493. 21741645.
crossref pmid
14. Lee H, Yun WK, Min BH, et al. A feasibility study on the expanded indication for endoscopic submucosal dissection of early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc 2011;25:1985–1993. 21136092.
crossref pmid
15. Kang HJ, Kim DH, Jeon TY, et al. Lymph node metastasis from intestinal-type early gastric cancer: experience in a single institution and reassessment of the extended criteria for endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:508–515. 20554277.
crossref pmid
16. An JY, Baik YH, Choi MG, Noh JH, Sohn TS, Kim S. Predictive factors for lymph node metastasis in early gastric cancer with submucosal invasion: analysis of a single institutional experience. Ann Surg 2007;246:749–753. 17968165.
crossref pmid
17. Isomoto H, Shikuwa S, Yamaguchi N, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a large-scale feasibility study. Gut 2009;58:331–336. 19001058.
crossref pmid
18. Choi KS, Jung HY, Choi KD, et al. EMR versus gastrectomy for intramucosal gastric cancer: comparison of long-term outcomes. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:942–948. 21392757.
crossref pmid
19. Sanomura Y, Oka S, Tanaka S, et al. Clinical validity of endoscopic submucosal dissection for submucosal invasive gastric cancer: a single-center study. Gastric Cancer 2012;15:97–105. 21785925.
crossref pmid
20. Oda I, Gotoda T, Sasako M, et al. Treatment strategy after non-curative endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer. Br J Surg 2008;95:1495–1500. 18942058.
crossref pmid
21. Katai H, Sasako M, Sano T, Fukagawa T. Gastric cancer surgery in the elderly without operative mortality. Surg Oncol 2004;13:235–238. 15615661.
crossref pmid
22. Davies J, Johnston D, Sue-Ling H, et al. Total or subtotal gastrectomy for gastric carcinoma? A study of quality of life. World J Surg 1998;22:1048–1055. 9747165.
crossref pmid
23. Jentschura D, Winkler M, Strohmeier N, Rumstadt B, Hagmüller E. Quality-of-life after curative surgery for gastric cancer: a comparison between total gastrectomy and subtotal gastric resection. Hepatogastroenterology 1997;44:1137–1142. 9261613.
pmid
24. Ahn JY, Jung HY, Choi JY, et al. Natural course of noncurative endoscopic resection of differentiated early gastric cancer. Endoscopy 2012;44:1114–1120. 23188661.
crossref pmid pdf
25. Jung HY, Choi KD, Song HJ, Lee GH, Kim JH. Risk management in endoscopic submucosal dissection using needle knife in Korea. Dig Endosc 2007;19(Suppl 1):S5–S8.
crossref
26. Nakamoto S, Sakai Y, Kasanuki J, et al. Indications for the use of endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer in Japan: a comparative study with endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endoscopy 2009;41:746–750. 19681023.
crossref pmid pdf
27. Min BH, Lee JH, Kim JJ, et al. Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for treating early gastric cancer: comparison with endoscopic mucosal resection after circumferential precutting (EMR-P). Dig Liver Dis 2009;41:201–209. 18571998.
crossref pmid
28. Watanabe K, Ogata S, Kawazoe S, et al. Clinical outcomes of EMR for gastric tumors: historical pilot evaluation between endoscopic submucosal dissection and conventional mucosal resection. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;63:776–782. 16650537.
crossref pmid
29. Oda I, Saito D, Tada M, et al. A multicenter retrospective study of endoscopic resection for early gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer 2006;9:262–270. 17235627.
crossref pmid
30. 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;41:118–122. 19214889.
crossref pmid
TOOLS
PDF Links  PDF Links
PubReader  PubReader
ePub Link  ePub Link
XML Download  XML Download
Full text via DOI  Full text via DOI
Download Citation  Download Citation
  Print
Share:      
METRICS
14
Crossref
19
Scopus
5,382
View
80
Download
Related articles
Prevention of stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal cancer: intralesional steroid infusion using a spray tube  2022 July;55(4)
Outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal neoplasms in patients with liver cirrhosis  2022 May;55(3)
Is General Anesthesia Needed in Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Lesions Located in the Mid to Upper Stomach?  2022 January;55(1)
Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Superficial Gastric Neoplasms: A Latin American Cohort Study  2022 March;55(2)
Long-Term Outcomes of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Undifferentiated-Type Early Gastric Cancer  2021 March;54(2)
Editorial Office
Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
#817, 156 Yanghwa-ro (LG Palace, Donggyo-dong), Mapo-gu, Seoul, 04050, Korea
TEL: +82-2-335-1552   FAX: +82-2-335-2690    E-mail: CE@gie.or.kr
Copyright © Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.                 Developed in M2PI
Close layer