» Articles » PMID: 38233438

Lesion Size Affects the Risk of Technical Difficulty in Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Overview
Journal Sci Rep
Specialty Science
Date 2024 Jan 17
PMID 38233438
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Current evidence shows an inter-country inconsistency in the effect of lesion size on the technical difficulty of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to evaluate the specific correlation and quantify the ensuing risks. This retrospective study consisted of 405 ESD cases with gastric single lesion from April 2015 to April 2023. The correlation and risk prediction of lesion size with technical difficulty was explored to provide further clinical evidence. An additive generalized model and recursive algorithm were used to describe the non-linear association, and a linear two-piece regression was constructed to analyze the inflection point. Subgroup analysis and interaction were used to explore intergroup characteristics. Overall, difficult cases had larger lesion sizes, and the more significant the increase, the higher the risk of technical difficulty. In the full model, after adjusting for all covariates, each 1 mm, 3 mm, 5 mm, 7 mm, and one standard increase in lesion size increased the risk of technical difficulty by 8%, 26%, 42%, 72%, and 125%, respectively. There is a nonlinear positive correlation between lesion size and risk of technical difficulty, and the premeditated inflection point was 40 (mm) via two-piecewise linear regression and recursive algorithm. Subgroup analysis showed a stronger correlation between lesion size and difficult ESD in the upper site and submucosal fibrosis groups. Available evidence suggests that lesion size as a risk signal nonlinearly increases the technical difficulty of gastric ESD procedure, especially in cases of upper site and submucosal fibrosis, which deserves further investigation.

References
1.
Hirao M, Masuda K, Asanuma T, Naka H, Noda K, Matsuura K . Endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer and other tumors with local injection of hypertonic saline-epinephrine. Gastrointest Endosc. 1988; 34(3):264-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0016-5107(88)71327-9. View

2.
Ono H, Yao K, Fujishiro M, Oda I, Uedo N, Nimura S . Guidelines for endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer (second edition). Dig Endosc. 2020; 33(1):4-20. DOI: 10.1111/den.13883. View

3.
Liang W, Liang H, Ou L, Chen B, Chen A, Li C . Development and Validation of a Clinical Risk Score to Predict the Occurrence of Critical Illness in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19. JAMA Intern Med. 2020; 180(8):1081-1089. PMC: 7218676. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2033. View

4.
Banks M, Graham D, Jansen M, Gotoda T, Coda S, di Pietro M . British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of patients at risk of gastric adenocarcinoma. Gut. 2019; 68(9):1545-1575. PMC: 6709778. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2018-318126. View

5.
Lee J, Kedia P, Stavropoulos S, Carr-Locke D . AGA Clinical Practice Update on Endoscopic Management of Perforations in Gastrointestinal Tract: Expert Review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021; 19(11):2252-2261.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.06.045. View