Clinical outcomes and risk factors for perforation in gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: A prospective pilot study

AIM: To evaluate clinical outcomes and risk factors for endoscopic perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in a prospective study. METHODS: We investigated the clinical outcomes and risk factors for the development of perforation in 98 consecutive gastric neoplasms undergoing ESD regarding. Demographic and clinical parameters including patient-, tumor-, and treatment-related factors, clinical parameters, and duration of hospital stay were analyzed for risk factors for perforation. In subgroup analysis, we also compared the clinical outcomes between perforation and "silent" free air without endoscopically visible perforation detected only by computed tomography.RESULTS: Perforation was identified in 8.2% of patients. All patients were managed conservatively by the administration of antibiotics. The mean procedure time was significantly longer in patients with endoscopic perforation than in those without. According to the receiver-operating characteristic analysis, the resulting cutoff value of the procedure time for perforation was 115 min (87.5% sensitivity, 56.7% specificity). Prolonged procedure time (≥ 115 min) was associated with an increased risk of perforation (odds ratio 9.15; 95%CI: 1.08-77.54; P = 0.04). Following ESD, body temperature and C-reactive protein level were significantly higher in patients with perforation than in those without (P = 0.02), whereas there was no difference between these patient groups on the starting day of oral intake or of hospitalization. In subgroup analysis, the post-ESD clinical course was not different between endoscopic perforation and silent free air. CONCLUSION: Only prolonged procedure time (≥ 115 min) was significantly associated with perforation. The clinical outcomes of perforation are favorable and are comparable to those of patients with or without silent free air.

What types of early gastric cancer are indicated for endoscopic ultrasonography staging of invasion depth?

AIM To clarify the diagnostic efficacy and limitations of endoscopic ultrasonography(EUS) and the characteristics of early gastric cancers(EGCs) that are indications for EUS-based assessment of cancer invasion depth.METHODS We retrospectively investigated the cases of 153 EGC patients who underwent conventional endoscopy(CE) and EUS(20 MHz) before treatment.RESULTS We found that 13.7% were "inconclusive" cases with low-quality EUS images, including all nine of the cases with protruded(0-I)-type EGCs. There was no significant difference in the diagnostic accuracybetween CE and EUS. Two significant independent risk factors for misdiagnosis by EUS were identified-ulcer scarring [UL(+); odds ratio(OR) = 4.49, P = 0.003] and non-indication criteria for endoscopic resection(ER)(OR = 3.02, P = 0.03). In the subgroup analysis, 23.1% of the differentiated-type cancers exhibiting SM massive invasion(SM2) invasion(submucosal invasion ≥ 500 μm) by CE were correctly diagnosed by EUS, and 23.1% of the undifferentiated-type EGCs meeting the expanded-indication criteria for ER were correctly diagnosed by EUS.CONCLUSION There is no need to perform EUS for UL(+) EGCs or 0-I-type EGCs, but EUS may enhance the pretreatment staging of differentiated-type EGCs with SM2 invasion without UL or undifferentiated-type EGCs revealed by CE as meeting the expanded-indication criteria for ER.