Retrospective Study Open Access
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2025. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Mar 16, 2025; 17(3): 102694
Published online Mar 16, 2025. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v17.i3.102694
Long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric dysplasia and early neoplasia in a United Kingdom Caucasian population
Sammi X Y Lim, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom
Elizabeth Ratcliffe, Ryan Wiltshire, James G S Whiteway, Stephen McGrath, Neeraj Prasad, Arash Assadsangabi, James Britton, Yeng S Ang, Department of Endoscopy and Gastroenterology, Salford Royal Hospital, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust, Salford M6 8HD, United Kingdom
Javed Sultan, Department of Surgery, Salford Royal Hospital, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust, Salford M6 8HD, United Kingdom
ORCID number: Sammi X Y Lim (0009-0006-8685-6572); Elizabeth Ratcliffe (0000-0001-6521-2133); Ryan Wiltshire (0000-0002-6422-9774); James G S Whiteway (0009-0005-3449-9254); Stephen McGrath (0000-0001-8301-9644); Javed Sultan (0000-0001-5343-3641); Neeraj Prasad (0000-0003-3971-2040); Arash Assadsangabi (0000-0001-6455-4107); James Britton (0000-0002-8432-375X); Yeng S Ang (0000-0003-0496-6710).
Co-first authors: Sammi XY Lim and Elizabeth Ratcliffe.
Author contributions: Lim SXY and Ratcliffe E wrote the manuscript with input from all authors, they contributed equally to this article, they are the co-first authors of this manuscript; Ang YS supervised the project; Lim SXY, Wiltshire R, and Whiteway JGS collected and analyzed the data; Lim SXY, Ratcliffe E, Wiltshire R, Whiteway JGS, McGrath S, Sultan J, Prasad N, Assadsangabi A, Britton J, and Ang YS helped to shape the research, discussed the results and provided critical feedback and comments for the manuscript; all authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Institutional review board statement: The study was reviewed and approved by the Salford Royal Hospital Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust Institutional Review Board, confirm that the work done and presented in this manuscript is under “audit and service improvement” section of our directorate and as such no research ethical approval is required.
Informed consent statement: This letter is to confirm that the work done and presented in this manuscript is under “audit and service improvement” section of our directorate and as such no research ethical approval is required.
Conflict-of-interest statement: All the authors report no relevant conflicts of interest for this article.
Data sharing statement: No additional data are available.
Open Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Yeng S Ang, MD, Professor, Department of Endoscopy and Gastroenterology, Salford Royal Hospital, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust, Stott Lane, Salford M6 8HD, United Kingdom. yeng.ang@nca.nhs.uk
Received: October 28, 2024
Revised: December 23, 2024
Accepted: February 12, 2025
Published online: March 16, 2025
Processing time: 139 Days and 14.2 Hours

Abstract
BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is increasingly used to treat gastric dysplasia and early neoplasia in the West. Unlike Eastern countries, data for Caucasian patients in the United Kingdom is limited due to its limited implementation in a few tertiary centres.

AIM

To evaluate the outcomes of ESD on gastric dysplasia and neoplasia in Caucasian patients.

METHODS

Our ten-year retrospective study at a single tertiary centre included data spanning from May 2012 to July 2023. The efficacy of ESD on gastric dysplasia and early neoplasia was measured using parameters set out by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which include en-bloc and curative resection (CR) rates, local recurrence and survival rates.

RESULTS

ESD was attempted on 111 lesions in 93 patients. 95.0% of completed procedures achieved endoscopic clearance. 74.3% were en-bloc resections and the rest were hybrid ESD with piecemeal resections. In all, 34.7% achieved histological CR. Overall, disease recurrence was 10.9% at latest follow-up (63 months, median follow-up). Importantly 100% of lesions in the CR group showed no disease recurrence at subsequent and latest follow-up. In the Indeterminate and Non-CR group, 18.8% of lesions showed disease recurrence at subsequent endoscopic follow-ups. ESD changed the histological staging of 44.5% of lesions. Immediate complications were observed in 9.9% of all ESD procedures. The median survival time was 69 months post-ESD. The mean age at death is 82.2 years old.

CONCLUSION

The study affirms the long-term efficacy and safety of ESD for gastric dysplasia and early neoplasia in Caucasian patients.

Key Words: Endoscopic resection; Endoscopic submucosal dissection; Gastric dysplasia; Early gastric cancer; Caucasian patients

Core Tip: Through our ten-year retrospective analysis, there are clear improvements in the efficacy of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection measured by en-bloc resection, endoscopic clearance, curative resection and local recurrence rates. Endoscopic submucosal dissection is demonstrated to be a safe and effective tool in treating gastric dysplasia and early neoplasia in the Caucasian population with acceptable rates of immediate and late complications, and survival duration.



INTRODUCTION

Gastric cancer poses a major public health challenge, ranking fifth for incidence and fourth for cancer-related deaths worldwide[1-3]. In the West, prognosis is poor compared to Eastern countries like Korea or Japan, with five-year survival rate of 20% and ten-year around 17%[4-6]. Endoscopic resection, consisting endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), is effective at treating gastric dysplasia and early neoplasia[7,8]. Endoscopic resection offers advantages like shorter hospital stays, fewer complications and most importantly, stomach preservation[9].

ESD has higher en-bloc and histologically complete resection rates, lower local recurrence and longer survival than EMR[10-14]. However, ESD has increased risks of complications like bleeding, perforation, and stricture formation[15,16]. Hybrid ESD, an intermediate technique between EMR and ESD, is sometimes performed to improve curative resection (CR) rates compared to EMR, and technical difficulties associated with ESD[17]. Despite its proven efficacy, only a few tertiary centres practise upper gastrointestinal ESD in the United Kingdom due to its highly specialist and technically demanding nature. Data concerning the United Kingdom Caucasian population is limited. This is concerning because there are genetic and morphological differences between early gastric cancers (EGCs) from Western and Eastern populations[18-20]. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and long-term outcomes of ESD in treating gastric dysplasia and neoplasia in a Caucasian population at a United Kingdom tertiary referral centre over a ten-year period. This expands on our previously published 2-year and 5-year data[21,22]. This will add significant clinical value to patient care, particularly around long-term survival for patients in the non-CR group.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study of Caucasian patients undergoing gastric ESD between May 2012 and July 2023 at Salford Royal University Hospital (Northern Care Alliance) under the hospital’s usual audit and service improvement process. Hence, no ethics application is required after institutional review. Inclusion criteria: Only Caucasian patients with gastric dysplasia and early neoplasm on histology and tumour stage (T1N0M0 or below) on computed tomography (CT) were included. Exclusion criteria: Lesions in the gastro-oesophageal junction and patients staged T2N0M0 and above were excluded.

Pre-ESD

Mapping oesophagogastroduodenoscopy was carried out to determine if lesions were amenable to ESD, using the Kato classification which is how liftable the lesion[23]. Kato 1 indicates that the lesion lifts without any resistance, Kato 2 suggests some resistance to lifting, while Kato 3 means lesion is not liftable[23]. Only Kato 1 or 2 Lesions were included. Lesion features (size, location, ulceration) were recorded. The locations were coded as upper (cardia and fundus), mid (body) and lower (antrum, pylorus and incisura) stomach[22]. Biopsies were taken for histological analysis. Only lesions with definite cancer were staged using iodine-based contrast CT.

ESD procedure

All procedures involved at least two experienced endoscopists using Olympus Double Channel Double-Headed Scope or Olympus single channel therapeutic Endoscope. Argon plasma was used to mark out the circumference around the lesion, with minimum 5 mm margins. Afterwards, EMR solution (indigo carmine and 0.1% lidocaine) was injected outside the marked dots and a mucosal incision was done. To improve safety, the EMR solution is injected into the submucosal layer to lift the lesion. Hyaluronic acid was injected into the submucosa if lifting was inadequate. The submucosal layer was then dissected and image enhancing techniques were used if necessary. For hybrid ESD cases, after partial submucosal layer dissection, the lesion was snared wholly. This is done when we need to finish the procedure faster (i.e. due to deterioration in clinical conditions from anaesthetic complications).

Post-ESD

All specimens were retrieved, pinned onto a specimen board, fixed with formalin, and sprayed with hyoscine before histological analysis. Histological reports were used to assess if the lesions achieved CR, non-CR or were indeterminate for CR. Resection is considered curative if the resected lesion meets all the following criteria on histology: (1) Peripheral and deep margins are clear; (2) No lympho-vascular invasion; and (3) No submucosal involvement[21,22] Resection is non-CR (high-risk) if it fails to meet at least 1 of the criteria, and indeterminate if data is insufficient to conclude CR or non-CR.

All patients were given oral proton pump inhibitors twice daily for at least three months after the procedure and scheduled for endoscopic surveillance. Data was collected using endoscopic and histological reports from electronic patient records. This was subsequently recorded and analyzed using Microsoft Excel. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve was created using R software (version 4.4.0, R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

RESULTS

Between May 2012 and July 2023, ESD was attempted on 111 Lesions in 93 Caucasian patients. Patient demographics and features of lesions with ESD attempted are presented in Table 1. The lesions were mainly in the lower stomach (58.6%) and had a mean diameter of 30.4 mm (Table 1). The largest 100 mm lesion spanned across the superior antrum, extending into the distal body and angularis, occupying 70% circumference. ESD was attempted but not feasible due to its positioning and lesion size. About 20% of the lesion were partially resected using EMR for tissue acquisition and histology to guide future management. Pre-ESD histological analysis demonstrated that most lesions were either low-grade dysplasia (38.7%) or high-grade dysplasia (36.9%). 22.5% of lesions were intramucosal adenocarcinoma (Table 1).

Table 1 Patient demographics and features of gastric lesions with endoscopic submucosal dissection attempted, n (%).
Variable
Value
Patient demographicsn = 93
Age at time of ESD procedure (years), mean ± SD (range)75 ± 9.01 (41-91)
Male/female59/34
Caucasian93 (100)
Average number of ESD attempts per patient1.20
Features of lesions with ESD attemptedn = 111
Diameter of lesions (mm), mean ± SD (range)30.4 ± 14.7 (10-100)
Location of lesions
Lower65 (58.6)
Middle32 (28.8)
Upper14 (12.6)
Paris classification
1p1
1s9
1s + 1sp1
1sp18
1s + 2a1
1s + 2b1
1sp + 2c1
2a28
2a + 2b4
2a + 2c44
2b2
2b + 2c1
Pre-index histology
No dysplasia0 (0)
Indefinite for dysplasia2 (1.8)
Low grade dysplasia43 (38.7)
High grade dysplasia41 (36.9)
Intramucosal carcinoma25 (22.5)
Adenocarcinoma with submucosal invasion0 (0)
Outcomes of completed ESD

ESD was completed for 91.0% of all attempted lesions (Table 2). Out of the 101 successfully completed ESD procedures, 74.3% achieved en-bloc resections while the other 25.7% were hybrid ESD with piecemeal resections (Table 2). Reasons for adopting a piecemeal approach were mainly due to large lesion size, difficult positioning around the pylorus, excessive fibrosis and active bleeding. 95.0% of completed procedures achieved endoscopic clearance (Table 2). Reasons for the five cases of incomplete resections on endoscopy include: Extensive fibrosis of the base due to possible neoplasia infiltration, irregular polypoid surface requiring snare resections, active bleeding and prolonged procedure from extensive submucosal fat and large polyp size. 34.7% of completed procedures achieved histological CR (Table 2). Non-CR and indeterminate resections were 33.7% and 28.7% respectively (Table 2). Reasons for the 29 Indeterminate cases include end pieces affected by dysplasia hampering assessment, poor tissue preservation and piecemeal resections (Table 2). Many resections were considered indeterminate due to the piecemeal nature of hybrid ESD specimens and diathermy changes at the peripheries hampering assessment. A minority of indeterminate samples were due to inflammatory changes and poor sample preservation.

Table 2 Results of completed gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection procedures.
Results of completed ESD procedures
Value, n = 101
Average length of hospital stay (day/s), mean ± SD (range)1.60 ± 3.10 (0-30)
Number of 8-day readmission(s)1
ESD technique
ESD61
Hybrid ESD40
Resection
En-bloc75
Piecemeal26
Margins clear on endoscopy, n (%)96 (95.0)
Margins not clear on endoscopy, n (%)5 (4.95)
Curative resection35
Non-curative resection34
For gastric dysplasia
HM not clear, VM clear15
HM clear, VM not clear0
Both HM and VM not clear1
For early gastric neoplasia
Clear margins for cancer and dysplasia but submucosal invasion5
Clear margins for cancer, but HM and/or VM not clear for dysplasia2
Clear margins for cancer, but indeterminate for dysplasia3
HM and/or VM not clear for cancer7
Indeterminate margins for cancer and dysplasia1
Indeterminate29
End piece(s) affected by dysplasia, unable to confirm excision of dysplasia at HM15
Poor tissue preservation4
Piecemeal resections8
Piecemeal and end pieces affected by dysplasia2
Not assessable - index histology shows no dysplasia or indefinite for dysplasia3
Five-yearly comparisons of ESD outcomes

The number of completed ESD procedures in 2018-2023 was twice that of 2012-2017. (Table 3). Additionally, en-bloc resection rates rose from 57.6% to 82.4%, while piecemeal resection rates decreased from 42.4% to 17.6% (Figure 1A, Table 3). Endoscopic clearance increased from 87.9% in 2012-2017 to 98.5% in 2018-2023 (Figure 1B, Table 3). This was accompanied by nearly five-fold increase in histological CR (Table 3).

Figure 1
Figure 1 Endoscopic submucosal dissection procedures. A: Column chart showing five-year comparisons of en-bloc and piecemeal resection numbers for completed endoscopic submucosal dissection procedures; B: Column chart showing five-year comparisons of endoscopic clearance for completed endoscopic submucosal dissection procedures.
Table 3 Five-yearly comparisons of completed gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection outcomes, n (%).
Variable
2012-2017
2018-2023
Total number of lesions with completed ESD3368
Resection
En-bloc19 (57.6)56 (82.4)
Piecemeal14 (42.4)12 (17.6)
Margins clear on endoscopy29 (87.9)67 (98.5)
Margins not clear on endoscopy4 (12.1)1 (1.47)
CR group
Total number of lesions in CR group6 (18.2)29 (42.6)
Number of lesions not under follow-up03
Number of lesions with no residual disease or recurrence6 (100)26 (100)
Indeterminate group
Total number of lesions in Indeterminate group14 (42.4)15 (22.1)
Number of lesions not under follow-up24
Number of lesions with no residual disease or recurrence5 (41.7)6 (54.5)
Non-CR group
Total number of lesions in non-CR group11 (33.3)23 (33.8)
Number of pT1b lesions410
Number of lesions not under follow-up07
Number of lesions resected surgically15
Number of lesions with no residual disease or recurrence6 (54.5)8 (50.0)
Not assessable
Number of lesions with index histology showing no dysplasia or indefinite for dysplasia21
Immediate and late complications

Immediate complications related to the procedure (< 48 hours) were observed in 9.9% of procedures, with bleeding and perforation accounting for 3.6% and 6.3% of the cases respectively. Late complications (> 48 hours post procedure) were seen in two patients. One patient experienced delayed gastric perforation confirmed by CT three days later, possibly due to muscle injury from diathermy effect. There was no evidence of perforation upon review of endoscopic photos. A patient with aborted ESD due to intraprocedural perforation was transferred to a high-dependency unit and managed with nasogastric tube and antibiotics. A contrast CT later revealed an ongoing upper gastrointestinal bleed, and the patient was subsequently sent for laparotomy and polyp excision.

Pre-ESD and ESD histological changes

Histology of 101 lesions before and after ESD completion was analyzed (Figure 2A, Supplementary Table 1). ESD changed the histology of 44.5% of lesions – 28.7% of lesions were upstaged and 15.8% were downstaged (Figure 2B). 55.4% had no changes in histology (Figure 2B). Dysplasia was absent or indefinite in three lesions on index histology. Upon review, one of the external pre-ESD biopsies undertaken did not show any dysplasia or early neoplasia, which was concordant with the subsequent ESD histological sample. The other two lesions had genuine downstaging from high-grade dysplasia and intramucosal adenocarcinoma respectively; the reasons remain unclear.

Figure 2
Figure 2 Pre-endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic submucosal dissection histology of lesions. A: Bar Chart Illustrating the differences in Pre-endoscopic and index histology of 101 lesions; B: Pie chart illustrating the changes in histology of 101 lesions. ESD: Endoscopic submucosal dissection; LGD: Low-grade dysplasia; HGD: High-grade dysplasia; IMC: Intramucosal carcinoma.
Disease recurrence

Overall disease recurrence was 10.9% at latest follow-up (63 months, median follow-up) (Table 4). 100% of lesions in the CR group and 47.8% in the Indeterminate group had no disease recurrence on future follow-up (Table 4). 43.2% of lesions in the Indeterminate and Non-CR group showed disease recurrence at subsequent follow-ups (Table 4).

Table 4 Disease recurrence on subsequent follow-ups.
Recurrence of lesions after completed ESD procedures over 10 years
Value, n = 101
CR group
Total number of lesions in CR group35
Number of lesions under follow-up32
Number of lesions with no residual disease or recurrence at all follow-ups, n (%)32 (100)
Indeterminate group
Total number of lesions in indeterminate group29
Number of lesions under follow-up23
Number of lesions with no residual disease or recurrence, n (%)11 (47.8)
Residual disease5
Local recurrence2
Metachronous5
Synchronous0
Number of lesions showing no recurrence at latest follow-up, n (%)16 (69.6)
Number of lesions showing disease recurrence at latest follow-up (%)7 (30.4)
Non-CR group
Total number of lesions in non-CR group34
Number of lesions under follow-up21
Number of lesions with no residual disease or recurrence, n (%)14 (66.7)
Residual disease2
Local recurrence3
Metachronous1
Synchronous1
Number of lesions showing no recurrence at latest follow-up, n (%)17 (81.0)
Number of lesions showing disease recurrence at latest follow-up, n (%)4 (19.0)
Not Assessable - total number of lesions with index histology showing no dysplasia or indefinite for dysplasia3
Survival

The median and mean survival duration was 69 months and 48.9 months post-ESD attempt, with a 95% confidence interval between 60 and 111 months (Figure 3). The mean age at death was 82.8 years. No patient died within two months of ESD. Overall, 32 out of 93 patients who had ESD attempted died within our ten-year study – 14 people died from non-disease-related causes, 11 patients died from disease-related causes and 7 patients did not have a known cause of death. Of the 11 patients who had known disease-related causes, six had metastatic gastric cancer and one had primary synchronous gastric and oesophageal lesions.

Figure 3
Figure 3 Kaplan-Meier curve demonstrating survival rate of patients. Maximum survival time: 132 months.
Surgery

Overall, surgery was considered in 21 patients and completed in 9 patients (1 indeterminate, 5 non-CR, 3 aborted). The remaining 12 patients were listed for endoscopic surveillance or conservative management because of medical co-morbidities. The outcomes and complications from surgery in patients from the Indeterminate, Non-CR and Aborted ESD group are listed in Supplementary Table 1.

Aborted ESD cases

ESD was aborted in nine patients (ten lesions) for reasons such as excessive scarring and fibrosis, concern for perforation, difficult positioning and profuse bleeding (Supplementary Table 2). Six patients were not offered surgery due to medical unfitness. Two patients were managed conservatively and one patient underwent endoscopic surveillance only. 2 patients received argon therapy for residual low-grade dysplasia. Unfortunately, one patient died before endoscopic follow-up. Three patients underwent surgery and all had complete disease resolution at time of data collection.

DISCUSSION

Using parameters recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence[24], we evaluated the efficacy of ESD procedures on gastric lesions using en-bloc and CR, local recurrence and survival rates. The diagnostic efficacy of ESD was also demonstrated by comparing pre- and post-ESD histology. In this study, we demonstrated that 74.3% of completed ESD procedures achieved en-bloc resections, which is higher than our previously published five-year study[22]. However, this figure is lower than that of a recent meta-analysis comparing the outcomes between Eastern and Western countries and a recent ten-year multi-centre study in the West[25,26]. This could be attributed to lesion size, anatomical location, extensive fibrosis and bleeding. Moreover, 39.6% of lesions were resected using Hybrid ESD, which is associated with higher rates of piecemeal resections[26]. As a whole, 95% of completed resections achieved endoscopic clearance, which is also higher than our previously published rate of 86%[22].

Currently, ESD is considered for selected patients on a case-by-case basis through multi-disciplinary team discussions based on its absolute and expanded indications laid out in the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines 2022: ESD for superficial gastrointestinal lesions[27]. As our data was from ten years ago, we did not use the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2022 guidelines for categorizing lesions as CR or non-CR[27]. Histological CR was achieved in 34.7% of all lesions, which is higher than our previously published 19% histological CR rate[22]. Although 33.7% of resections were histologically non-CR, this high rate could be due to 14 lesions being pT1b lesions which are not resectable endoscopically.

Nonetheless, our ten-year analysis showed improvements in efficacy outcomes over the two time periods which could be due to accumulated experience and improvements in the technical skills of endoscopists over the years. This upward trend is likely to continue over time, with many studies highlighting improvements in endoscopic clearance and en-bloc rates over ten years[26]. The number of completed ESD procedures also more than doubled during this time due to the completion of more referrals from reduced procedural durations.

Overall disease recurrence was 10.9% at latest follow-up (63 months, median follow-up). There was no disease recurrence from the CR group, demonstrating the effectiveness of ESD when histological CR is achieved, mainly a result of en-bloc resections. As shown in the indeterminate group, even when there is uncertainty surrounding CR or possible involved margins, many patients are still cured with 69.6% showing no recurrence at latest follow-up. Immediate complications were seen in 9.9% of patients - bleeding (3.6%) and gastric perforation (6.3%). These figures are comparable to the reported range of 0%-15.6% and 1.2%-5.2% for bleeding and perforation ESD-related complications respectively[28]. All immediate and late complications were resolved.

ESD could also have diagnostic properties[29]. The histology of 44.5% lesions was changed. Important therapeutic interventions could have been missed or delayed if clinicians were unaware of some lesions upstaging to adenocarcinoma with submucosal invasion, also demonstrated in our previous study. Surgery was performed in 9 patients although it was considered in 21 patients due to personal choice and medical comorbidities.

In total, 32 out of 93 patients died within our ten-year study. The mean age at death is 82.8 years old which is well within the average life expectancy in the United Kingdom (79.0 years old for males and 82.9 years old for females)[30]. The median survival time was 69 months, almost 7 years, post-ESD attempt. These patients would have likely died from old age or other health co-morbidities. The average duration between the latest ESD and death was 48.9 months, which is a long duration given that the mean age of our patients was 75 years old. With limited treatment options, ESD is a safe procedure that can help to prolong their lifespan without debilitating effects on their quality of life. No patient died within two months of ESD so it is highly unlikely their death was a direct consequence of ESD. Moreover, CR is dependent on many histological factors, but none of which is necessarily predictive of the 10-year survival as our whole ESD cohort has comparable life expectancy to the general population.

As demonstrated in our study, ESD results in shorter hospital stays (1.60 days) and fewer complications, as compared to subtotal and total gastrectomies with reported hospital stays of 13.8 days to 15.4 days and higher morbidity[31,32]. The main limitation of our study was the limited patient pool from a single tertiary institution. More data should be collected from multiple tertiary institutions across the United Kingdom to gain a more holistic viewpoint in the country as the effectiveness of ESDs are known to be highly variable and multifactorial[33]. Despite this limitation, given the small number of ESD procedures carried out in the United Kingdom, our sample size is relatively large. To our knowledge, this is the first single-center study in the United Kingdom that looks at ten-year outcomes of ESD in the treatment of gastric dysplasia and neoplasia in the United Kingdom.

CONCLUSION

Overall, there are clear improvements in efficacy outcomes of gastric ESD over the past ten years with acceptable rates of immediate and late complications. Our long-term follow-up study adds to the growing database of Caucasian patients undergoing gastric ESD in the United Kingdom. Overall, ESD is demonstrated to be safe and effective, and plays a pivotal role in treating early gastric neoplasia and dysplasia.

Footnotes

Provenance and peer review: Unsolicited article; Externally peer reviewed.

Peer-review model: Single blind

Corresponding Author’s Membership in Professional Societies: British Society of Gastroenterology; British Association of Cancer Research; European Association of Cancer Research.

Specialty type: Gastroenterology and hepatology

Country of origin: United Kingdom

Peer-review report’s classification

Scientific Quality: Grade B, Grade B, Grade C, Grade C, Grade D

Novelty: Grade B, Grade B, Grade B, Grade B, Grade C

Creativity or Innovation: Grade B, Grade B, Grade C, Grade C, Grade C

Scientific Significance: Grade B, Grade B, Grade B, Grade C, Grade C

P-Reviewer: Mohamed SY; Pattanaik SK; Shahidi N S-Editor: Bai Y L-Editor: A P-Editor: Zhang L

References
1.  Arnold M, Abnet CC, Neale RE, Vignat J, Giovannucci EL, McGlynn KA, Bray F. Global Burden of 5 Major Types of Gastrointestinal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2020;159:335-349.e15.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 857]  [Cited by in RCA: 1084]  [Article Influence: 216.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
2.  Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209-249.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 50630]  [Cited by in RCA: 59089]  [Article Influence: 14772.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (170)]
3.  Rawla P, Barsouk A. Epidemiology of gastric cancer: global trends, risk factors and prevention. Prz Gastroenterol. 2019;14:26-38.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 297]  [Cited by in RCA: 682]  [Article Influence: 97.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (1)]
4.  Office for National Statistics  Cancer survival in England: adult, stage at diagnosis and childhood - patients followed up to 2018. Aug 12, 2019. [cited 11 May 2024]. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/cancersurvivalinengland/stageatdiagnosisandchildhoodpatientsfollowedupto2018.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
5.  Cancer Research UK  Stomach Cancer Mortality Statistics. [cited 2024 May 11]. Available from: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/stomach-cancer/mortality.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
6.  GBD 2017 Stomach Cancer Collaborators. The global, regional, and national burden of stomach cancer in 195 countries, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease study 2017. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;5:42-54.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 380]  [Cited by in RCA: 399]  [Article Influence: 79.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
7.  Chiarello MM, Fico V, Pepe G, Tropeano G, Adams NJ, Altieri G, Brisinda G. Early gastric cancer: A challenge in Western countries. World J Gastroenterol. 2022;28:693-703.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in CrossRef: 8]  [Cited by in RCA: 20]  [Article Influence: 6.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
8.  Suzuki H, Oda I, Abe S, Sekiguchi M, Mori G, Nonaka S, Yoshinaga S, Saito Y. High rate of 5-year survival among patients with early gastric cancer undergoing curative endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastric Cancer. 2016;19:198-205.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 135]  [Cited by in RCA: 177]  [Article Influence: 19.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
9.  Nishida T, Kato M, Yoshio T, Akasaka T, Yoshioka T, Michida T, Yamamoto M, Hayashi S, Hayashi Y, Tsujii M, Takehara T. Endoscopic submucosal dissection in early gastric cancer in elderly patients and comorbid conditions. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;7:524-531.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in CrossRef: 5]  [Cited by in RCA: 8]  [Article Influence: 0.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
10.  Oka S, Tanaka S, Kaneko I, Mouri R, Hirata M, Kawamura T, Yoshihara M, Chayama K. Advantage of endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with EMR for early gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:877-883.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 487]  [Cited by in RCA: 521]  [Article Influence: 27.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
11.  Waddingham W, Nieuwenburg SAV, Carlson S, Rodriguez-Justo M, Spaander M, Kuipers EJ, Jansen M, Graham DG, Banks M. Recent advances in the detection and management of early gastric cancer and its precursors. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2021;12:322-331.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 18]  [Cited by in RCA: 37]  [Article Influence: 7.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
12.  Tanaka N, Katai H, Taniguchi H, Saka M, Morita S, Fukagawa T, Gotoda T. Trends in characteristics of surgically treated early gastric cancer patients after the introduction of gastric cancer treatment guidelines in Japan. Gastric Cancer. 2010;13:74-77.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 10]  [Cited by in RCA: 11]  [Article Influence: 0.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
13.  Wang Z, Ma L, Zhang XM, Zhou ZX. Long-term outcomes after D2 gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: survival analysis of a single-center experience in China. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2014;15:7219-7222.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 9]  [Cited by in RCA: 10]  [Article Influence: 1.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
14.  Kakushima N, Fujishiro M. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastrointestinal neoplasms. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14:2962-2967.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in CrossRef: 114]  [Cited by in RCA: 123]  [Article Influence: 7.2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
15.  Kolb JM, Hammad H. The Use of the Overstitch to Close Endoscopic Resection Defects. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2020;30:163-171.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 9]  [Cited by in RCA: 9]  [Article Influence: 1.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
16.  Saito I, Tsuji Y, Sakaguchi Y, Niimi K, Ono S, Kodashima S, Yamamichi N, Fujishiro M, Koike K. Complications related to gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection and their managements. Clin Endosc. 2014;47:398-403.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 50]  [Cited by in RCA: 74]  [Article Influence: 6.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
17.  Esaki M, Ihara E, Hashimoto N, Abe S, Aratono C, Shiga N, Sumida Y, Fujii H, Haraguchi K, Takahashi S, Iwasa T, Nakano K, Wada M, Somada S, Nishioka K, Minoda Y, Ogino H, Ogawa Y. Efficacy of hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection with SOUTEN in gastric lesions: An ex vivo porcine model basic study. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2021;13:563-573.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in CrossRef: 2]  [Cited by in RCA: 2]  [Article Influence: 0.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
18.  Lo L, Valentine H, Harrison J, Hayes S, Welch I, Pritchard S, West C, Ang Y. Tissue factor expression in the metaplasia-adenoma-carcinoma sequence of gastric cancer in a European population. Br J Cancer. 2012;107:1125-1130.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 11]  [Cited by in RCA: 11]  [Article Influence: 0.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
19.  Liu Y, Kaneko S, Sobue T. Trends in reported incidences of gastric cancer by tumour location, from 1975 to 1989 in Japan. Int J Epidemiol. 2004;33:808-815.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 22]  [Cited by in RCA: 25]  [Article Influence: 1.2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
20.  Alberts SR, Cervantes A, van de Velde CJ. Gastric cancer: epidemiology, pathology and treatment. Ann Oncol. 2003;14 Suppl 2:ii31-ii36.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 232]  [Cited by in RCA: 270]  [Article Influence: 12.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
21.  Sooltangos A, Davenport M, McGrath S, Vickers J, Senapati S, Akhtar K, George R, Ang Y. Gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection as a treatment for early neoplasia and for accurate staging of early cancers in a United Kingdom Caucasian population. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;9:561-570.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in CrossRef: 6]  [Cited by in RCA: 7]  [Article Influence: 0.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
22.  Kim Y, Kuan JY, Ratcliffe E, Baskind S, Prasad N, Assadsangabi A, Ang Y. Long-term follow-up of endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric dysplasia and early neoplasia in a United Kingdom Caucasian population - a tertiary centre experience. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2020;55:18-26.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 3]  [Cited by in RCA: 3]  [Article Influence: 0.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
23.  Kato H, Haga S, Endo S, Hashimoto M, Katsube T, Oi I, Aiba M, Kajiwara T. Lifting of lesions during endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of early colorectal cancer: implications for the assessment of resectability. Endoscopy. 2001;33:568-573.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 79]  [Cited by in RCA: 65]  [Article Influence: 2.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
24.  National Institute for Health and Care Excellence  Endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric lesions: Interventional procedures guidance. IPG360. Oct 27, 2010. [cited 2024 May 11]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/IPG360.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
25.  Daoud DC, Suter N, Durand M, Bouin M, Faulques B, von Renteln D. Comparing outcomes for endoscopic submucosal dissection between Eastern and Western countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2018;24:2518-2536.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in CrossRef: 40]  [Cited by in RCA: 55]  [Article Influence: 7.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (1)]
26.  Bhandari P, Abdelrahim M, Alkandari AA, Galtieri PA, Spadaccini M, Groth S, Pilonis ND, Subhramaniam S, Kandiah K, Hossain E, Arndtz S, Bassett P, Siggens K, Htet H, Maselli R, Kaminski MF, Seewald S, Repici A. Predictors of long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection of early gastric neoplasia in the West: a multicenter study. Endoscopy. 2023;55:898-906.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
27.  Pimentel-Nunes P, Libânio D, Bastiaansen BAJ, Bhandari P, Bisschops R, Bourke MJ, Esposito G, Lemmers A, Maselli R, Messmann H, Pech O, Pioche M, Vieth M, Weusten BLAM, van Hooft JE, Deprez PH, Dinis-Ribeiro M. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal lesions: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022. Endoscopy. 2022;54:591-622.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 36]  [Cited by in RCA: 288]  [Article Influence: 96.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
28.  Oda I, Suzuki H, Nonaka S, Yoshinaga S. Complications of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection. Dig Endosc. 2013;25 tabke:71-78.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 131]  [Cited by in RCA: 149]  [Article Influence: 12.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
29.  Fujimoto A, Goto O, Nishizawa T, Ochiai Y, Horii J, Maehata T, Akimoto T, Kinoshita S, Sagara S, Sasaki M, Uraoka T, Yahagi N. Gastric ESD may be useful as accurate staging and decision of future therapeutic strategy. Endosc Int Open. 2017;5:E90-E95.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 13]  [Cited by in RCA: 15]  [Article Influence: 1.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
30.  Office for National Statistics  National Life Tables – Life Expectancy in the UK: 2018 to 2020. Sep 23, 2021. [cited 2024 May 11]. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2018to2020.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
31.  Papenfuss WA, Kukar M, Oxenberg J, Attwood K, Nurkin S, Malhotra U, Wilkinson NW. Morbidity and mortality associated with gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:3008-3014.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 143]  [Cited by in RCA: 173]  [Article Influence: 15.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
32.  Bozzetti F, Marubini E, Bonfanti G, Miceli R, Piano C, Crose N, Gennari L. Total versus subtotal gastrectomy: surgical morbidity and mortality rates in a multicenter Italian randomized trial. The Italian Gastrointestinal Tumor Study Group. Ann Surg. 1997;226:613-620.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 139]  [Cited by in RCA: 125]  [Article Influence: 4.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
33.  Fernández-Esparrach G, Marín-Gabriel JC, de Tejada AH, Albéniz E, Nogales O, Del Pozo-García AJ, Rosón PJ, Goicotxea U, Uchima H, Terán A, Alberto A, Joaquín RS, Liseth RS, José S; en representación del grupo de DSE de la SEED. Implementation of endoscopic submucosal dissection in a country with a low incidence of gastric cancer: Results from a prospective national registry. United European Gastroenterol J. 2021;9:718-726.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 3]  [Cited by in RCA: 9]  [Article Influence: 2.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]