Published online Aug 16, 2021. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v13.i8.275
Peer-review started: April 27, 2021
First decision: June 13, 2021
Revised: June 14, 2021
Accepted: July 9, 2021
Article in press: July 9, 2021
Published online: August 16, 2021
Processing time: 106 Days and 6.4 Hours
In the last years, endoscopic techniques gained a crucial role in the treatment of colorectal flat lesions. At the same time, the importance of a reliable assessment of such lesions to predict the malignancy and the depth of invasion of the colonic wall emerged. The current unsolved dilemma about the endoscopic excision techniques concerns the necessity of a reliable submucosal invasive cancer assessment system that can stratify the risk of the post-procedural need for surgery. Accordingly, this narrative literature review aims to compare the available diagnostic strategies in predicting malignancy and to give a guide about the best techniques to employ. We performed a literature search using electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library). We collected all articles about endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) registering the outcomes. Moreover, we analyzed all meta-analyses comparing EMR vs ESD outcomes for colorectal sessile or non-polypoid lesions of any size, preoperatively estimated as non-invasive. Seven meta-analysis studies, mainly Eastern, were included in the analysis comparing 124 studies and overall 22954 patients who underwent EMR and ESD procedures. Of these, eighty-two were retrospective, twenty-four perspective, nine case-control, and six cohorts, while three were randomized clinical trials. A total of 18118 EMR and 10379 ESD were completed for a whole of 28497 colorectal sessile or non-polypoid lesions > 5-10 mm in size. In conclusion, it is crucial to enhance the preoperative diagnostic workup, especially in deciding the most suitable endoscopic method for radical resection of flat colorectal lesions at risk of underlying malignancy. Additionally, the ESD necessitates further improvement because of the excessively time-consuming as well as the intraprocedural technical hindrances and related complications. We found a higher rate of en bloc resections and R0 for ESD than EMR for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions. Nevertheless, despite the lower local recurrence rates, ESD had greater perforation rates and needed lengthier procedural times. The prevailing risk for additional surgery in ESD rather than EMR for complications or oncologic reasons is still uncertain.
Core Tip: The current unsolved dilemma concerns the necessity of a reliable submucosal invasive cancer assessment system, able to stratify the risk of the post-procedural need for surgery after endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal non-pedunculated lesions. It should be capable of selecting the at-risk subgroups of patients in whom endoscopic submucosal dissection could be the most suitable method. Accordingly, this narrative review aims to describe the best diagnostic strategies for predicting malignancy according to current endoscopic technology, to choose wisely among endoscopic mucosal resection, and endoscopic submucosal dissection pro