Hybrid versus Conventional Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Multi-Center Randomized Controlled Trial (SHORT-ESD).

BACKGROUND: Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (H-ESD) which utilizes ESD knife along with snare-based resection, has been developed to overcome the technical complexity of conventional ESD (C-ESD). This study aimed to compare the therapeutic outcomes of H-ESD vs. C-ESD for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions ≥20 mm in size. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare H-ESD and C-ESD (Short-ESD trial). Patients with colorectal lesions between 20-50 mm in size were randomly assigned (1:1) to H-ESD or C-ESD. Primary outcome was procedure time/speed. Secondary outcomes were en-bloc and complete (R0) resection rates and adverse event rates. RESULTS: A total of 89 patients (median age 63 years; 49.3% women) with median polyp size 30 mm underwent H-ESD (n=40) and C-ESD (n=49). The mean procedure time of H-ESD was significantly shorter than that of C-ESD (41.1±16.3 vs. 54.3±28.2 minutes; p=0.007). The en-bloc and R0 resection rates trended lower in the H-ESD vs C-ESD groups (77.5% vs. 87.8%; p=0.26 and 72.5% vs. 79.6%; p=0.46) without reaching statistical significance. Adverse event rate was similar between H-ESD and C-ESD (10% vs 8.2%; p=1.00). CONCLUSION: Both H-ESD and C-ESD were safe and effective for resection of large colorectal lesions. H-ESD was associated with a shorter procedure time. H-ESD may represent a viable alternative to C-ESD, with the main advantage being easy applicability of a snare-based technique for colorectal lesions. Future studies are needed to further define the most suitable lesions for H-ESD, as to optimize efficiency and safety without compromising resection outcomes. ClinicaTrials.gov NCT NCT05347446.

International consensus on the management of large (≥20 mm) colorectal laterally spreading tumors: World Endoscopy Organization Delphi study.

OBJECTIVES: There have been significant advances in the management of large (≥20 mm) laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) or nonpedunculated colorectal polyps; however, there is a lack of clear consensus on the management of these lesions with significant geographic variability especially between Eastern and Western paradigms. We aimed to provide an international consensus to better guide management and attempt to homogenize practices. METHODS: Two experts in interventional endoscopy spearheaded an evidence-based Delphi study on behalf of the World Endoscopy Organization Colorectal Cancer Screening Committee. A steering committee comprising six members devised 51 statements, and 43 experts from 18 countries on six continents participated in a three-round voting process. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations tool was used to assess evidence quality and recommendation strength. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement (strongly agree or agree) on a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Forty-two statements reached consensus after three rounds of voting. Recommendations included: three statements on training and competency; 10 statements on preresection evaluation, including optical diagnosis, classification, and staging of LSTs; 14 statements on endoscopic resection indications and technique, including statements on en bloc and piecemeal resection decision-making; seven statements on postresection evaluation; and eight statements on postresection care. CONCLUSIONS: An international expert consensus based on the current available evidence has been developed to guide the evaluation, resection, and follow-up of LSTs. This may provide guiding principles for the global management of these lesions and standardize current practices.

Development of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy standards for training in advanced endoscopy within dedicated advanced endoscopy fellowship programs.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Training in interventional endoscopy is offered by nonaccredited advanced endoscopy fellowship programs (AEFPs). The number of these programs has increased dramatically with a concurrent increase in the breadth and complexity of interventional endoscopy procedures. Accreditation is governed by competency-based education, yet what constitutes a "high-quality" nonaccredited AEFP has not been defined. Using an evidence-based consensus process, we aimed to establish standards for AEFPs. METHODS: The RAND UCLA appropriateness method, a well-described modified Delphi process to develop quality indicators, was used. A task force established by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy drafted potential quality indicators (structure, process, and outcome) in 6 categories: activity preceding training; structure of AEFPs; training in ERCP, EUS, and EMR; and luminal stent placement. Three rounds of iterative feedback from 20 experts were conducted. Round 0 involved discussion of project details. In round 1, experts independently ranked proposed quality indicators on a 9-point interval scale ranging from highly inappropriate (1) to highly appropriate (9). Next, proposed quality indicators were discussed and reworded in a group meeting followed by round 2, in which experts independently reranked proposed quality indicators and provided benchmarks (when applicable). The median score for each quality indicator was calculated. Mean absolute deviation from the median was calculated, and appropriateness of potential quality indicators was assessed using the BIOMED concerted action on appropriateness definition, P value method, and interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry definition. A quality indicator was deemed appropriate if the median score was ≥7 and met criteria for appropriateness using all 3 defined statistical methods. RESULTS: Of 89 proposed quality indicators, 37 statements met criteria as appropriate for a quality indicator (activity preceding training, 2; structure of AEFPs, 10; training in ERCP, 7; training in EUS, 8; training in EMR, 7; luminal stent placement, 3). Minimum thresholds were defined for 19 relevant quality indicators for number of trainers, procedures during fellowship, and procedures before assessment of competence. Among the final appropriate quality indicators were that all trainees should undergo qualitative and quantitative competence assessments using validated tools at least quarterly with documented feedback throughout the training period and that trainees should track outcomes and relevant quality metrics for specific procedures. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus process using validated methodology established standards for an AEFP in an effort to ensure adequate training in the most commonly taught interventional endoscopic procedures (ERCP, EUS, EMR, and luminal stent placement) during fellowship. An important component of an AEFP is the use of competency-based assessments that are compliant with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's Next Accreditation System, with the goal of ensuring that trainees achieve specific milestones in their progression to achieving cognitive and technical competency.

The Use of a Self-Assembling Peptide Gel for Stricture Prevention in the Esophagus after Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A U.S. Multicenter Prospective Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Post-operative stricture is serious common adverse event following extensive endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the esophagus. The self-assembling peptide (SA) gel has been shown to promote tissue healing and re-epithelialization. We aimed to evaluate the effect of the SAP gel for esophageal stricture prevention after ESD. METHODS: Multicenter prospective study of patients who underwent esophageal ESD followed by SAP gel application between March 2022 to December 2023. Patients were included if ESD mucosal defect involved ≥ 50% of the circumference of the esophagus. High-risk cases were defined as mucosal defects ≥75% of the circumference. Stricture was defined as the inability to pass an endoscope ≥8.9 mm in diameter or a narrow-caliber lumen in a patient with symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 43 patients (median age 71 years; 81.4% men) underwent ESD (median resected specimen size 50 mm) during the study period. SAP gel (median 3 mL) was successfully applied in all cases (median time 4 minutes). In aggregate, stricture occurred in 20.9% (9/43) of the cases. Stricture developed in 30.8% of the high-risk cases: 80% (4/5) after circumferential ESD and 19% (4/21) in those with defects ≥75% but <100% of the circumference. All cases of stricture resolved with endoscopic treatment. Three cases (6.9%) of postoperative bleeding occurred and were adequately managed endoscopically. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that SAP gel application was easy, quick, and associated with a relatively low stricture rate comparable to other prophylactic methods. Additional comparative studies are needed to corroborate these preliminary findings.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal dysplasia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In this meta-analysis, we studied the safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal dysplasia in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: Multiple databases were searched, and studies were retrieved based on pre-specified criteria until October 2022. The outcomes assessed were resection rates, procedural complications, local recurrence, metachronous tumors, and the need for surgery after ESD in IBD. Standard meta-analysis methods were followed using the random-effects model, and I2% was used to assess heterogeneity. RESULTS: Twelve studies comprising 291 dysplastic lesions in 274 patients were included with a median follow-up of 25 months. The pooled en-bloc resection, R0 resection, and curative resection rates were 92.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.9%-95.4%; I2=0%), 81.5% (95% CI, 72.5%-88%; I2=43%), and 48.9% (95% CI, 32.1%-65.9%; I2=87%), respectively. The local recurrence rate was 3.9% (95% CI, 2%-7.5%; I2=0%). The pooled rates of bleeding and perforation were 7.7% (95% CI, 4.5%-13%; I2=10%) and 5.3% (95% CI, 3.1%-8.9%; I2=0%), respectively. The rates of metachronous recurrence and additional surgery following ESD were 10% (95% CI, 5.2%-18.2%; I2=55%) and 13% (95% CI, 8.5%-19.3%; I2=54%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ESD is safe and effective for the resection of dysplastic lesions in IBD with an excellent pooled rate of en-bloc and R0 resection.

Peroral endoscopic myotomy for spastic esophageal dysmotility among opioid users: a multicenter propensity score matching study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Opioid-induced esophageal dysfunction (OIED) often presents as spastic esophageal disorders (SEDs) and esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO). The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare clinical outcomes of peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for SEDs and EGJOO among opioid users and nonusers. METHODS: This propensity score (PS) matching study included consecutive opioid users and nonusers who underwent POEM for SEDs and EGJOO between January 2018 and September 2022. The following covariates were used for the PS calculation: age, sex, duration of symptoms, Eckardt score, type of motility disorder, and length of myotomy during POEM. Clinical response was defined as a post-POEM Eckardt score ≤3. RESULTS: A total of 277 consecutive patients underwent POEM during the study period. PS matching resulted in the selection of 64 pairs of patients strictly matched 1:1 (n = 128) with no statistically significant differences in demographic, baseline, or procedural characteristics or in the parameters considered for the PS between the 2 groups. Clinical response to POEM was significantly lower among opioid users (51 of 64 [79.7%]) versus nonusers (60 of 64 [93.8%]) (P = .03) at a median follow-up of 18 months. Among opioid users, higher opioid dose (>60 morphine milligram equivalents per day) was associated with a higher likelihood of failure to respond to POEM (odds ratio, 4.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-3.98; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical response to POEM for SEDs and EGJOO is significantly lower among opioid users versus nonusers. There was a dose-relationship between opioids and response to POEM, with higher daily opioid usage associated with a higher likelihood of treatment failure.

Development and initial validation of a video-based peroral endoscopic myotomy assessment tool.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Video analysis has emerged as a potential strategy for performance assessment and improvement. We aimed to develop a video-based skill assessment tool for peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM). METHODS: POEM was deconstructed into basic procedural components through video analysis by an expert panel. A modified Delphi approach and 2 validation exercises were conducted to refine the POEM assessment tool (POEMAT). Twelve assessors used the final POEMAT version to grade 10 videos. Fully crossed generalizability (G) studies investigated the contributions of assessors, endoscopists' performance, and technical elements to reliability. G coefficients below .5 were considered unreliable, between .5 and .7 as modestly reliable, and above .7 as indicative of satisfactory reliability. RESULTS: After task deconstruction, discussions, and the modified Delphi process, the final POEMAT comprised 9 technical elements. G analysis showed low variance for endoscopist performance (.8%-24.9%) and high interrater variability (range, 63.2%-90.1%). The G score was moderately reliable (≥.60) for "submucosal tunneling" and "myotomy" and satisfactorily reliable (≥.70) for "active hemostasis" and "mucosal closure." CONCLUSIONS: We developed and established initial content and response process validity evidence for the POEMAT. Future steps include appraisal of the tool using a wider range of POEM videos to establish and improve the discriminative validity of this tool.

International Consensus Recommendations for Safe Use of LAMS for On- and Off-Label Indications Using a Modified Delphi Process.

INTRODUCTION: The study aimed to develop international consensus recommendations on the safe use of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) for on- and off-label indications. METHODS: Based on the available literature, statements were formulated and grouped into the following categories: general safety measures, peripancreatic fluid collections, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-biliary drainage, EUS-gallbladder drainage, EUS-gastroenterostomy, and gastric access temporary for endoscopy. The evidence level of each statement was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.International LAMS experts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi process. When no 80% consensus was reached, the statement was modified based on expert feedback. Statements were rejected if no consensus was reached after the third Delphi round. RESULTS: Fifty-six (93.3%) of 60 formulated statements were accepted, of which 35 (58.3%) in the first round. Consensus was reached on the optimal learning path, preprocedural imaging, the need for airway protection and essential safety measures during the procedure, such as the use of Doppler, and measurement of the distance between the gastrointestinal lumen and the target structure. Specific consensus recommendations were generated for the different LAMS indications, covering, among others, careful patient selection, the preferred size of the LAMS, the need for antibiotics, the preferred anatomic location of the LAMS, the need for coaxial pigtail placement, and the appropriate management of LAMS-related adverse events. DISCUSSION: Through a modified international Delphi process, we developed general and indication-specific experience- and evidence-based recommendations on the safe use of LAMS.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection with versus without traction for pathologically staged T1B esophageal cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Positive vertical margins (VMs) are common after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of T1b esophageal cancer (EC) and are associated with an increased risk of recurrence. Traction during ESD provides better exposure of the submucosa and may allow deeper dissection, potentially reducing the risk of positive VMs. We conducted a retrospective multicenter study to compare the proportion of resections with positive VMs in ESD performed with versus without traction in pathologically staged T1b EC. METHODS: Patients who underwent ESD revealing T1b EC (squamous or adenocarcinoma) at 10 academic tertiary referral centers in the United States (n = 9) and Brazil (n = 1) were included. Demographic and clinical data were abstracted. ESD using either traction techniques (tunneling, pocket) or traction devices (clip line, traction wire) were classified as ESD with traction (Tr-ESD) and those without were classified as conventional ESD without traction. The primary outcome was a negative VM. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess associations with negative VMs. RESULTS: A total of 166 patients with pathologically staged T1b EC underwent Tr-ESD (n = 63; 38%) or conventional ESD without traction (n = 103; 62%). Baseline factors were comparable between both groups. On multivariable analysis, Tr-ESD was found to be independently associated with negative VMs (odds ratio, 2.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-4.91; P = .037) and R0 resection (odds ratio, 2.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-6.23; P = .008). CONCLUSION: Tr-ESD seems to be associated with higher odds of negative VMs than ESD without traction for pathologically staged T1b EC, and future well-conducted prospective studies are warranted to establish the findings of the current study.

Incidence and risk factors for recurrence of ampullary adenomas after endoscopic papillectomy: Comparative analysis of familial adenomatous polyposis and sporadic ampullary adenomas in an international multicenter cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) is a minimally invasive therapy for the management of ampullary adenomas (AA). We conducted this multicenter study to assess the incidence of and factors related to the recurrence of AA after EP in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) compared to sporadic AA. METHODS: We included patients who underwent EP for AA at 10 tertiary hospitals. Adenomatous tissue at the resection site at the time of surveillance endoscopies was considered recurrent disease. RESULTS: In all, 257 patients, 100 (38.9%) with FAP and 157 (61%) patients with sporadic AA, were included. Over a median of 31 (range, 11-61) months, recurrence occurred in 48/100 (48%) of patients with FAP and 58/157 (36.9%) with sporadic AA (P = 0.07). Two (2%) FAP patients and 10 (6.3%) patients with sporadic AA underwent surgery for recurrence. On multivariable regression analysis, the recurrence in FAP was higher than in sporadic patients after the first year of follow-up. AA size (hazard ratio [HR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.001, 1.056), periampullary extension (HR 2.5, 95% CI 1.5, 4.01), and biliary duct dilation (HR 2.04, 95% CI 1.2, 3.4) increased the risk, while en bloc resection (HR 0.6, 95% CI 0.41, 0.9) decreased the risk of recurrence. CONCLUSION: Recurrence rates are high after EP. Most recurrences in sporadic patients occur within the first year of follow-up, but after the first year of follow-up in patients with FAP. Recurrences are higher with larger adenomas, biliary duct dilation, and periampullary extensions, and may be mitigated by en bloc resection. These factors should be considered in decision-making with the patients.

Novel devices for third-space endoscopy procedures.

Third-space endoscopy (TSE) is a subspecialty in interventional endoscopy that exploits the submucosa as a working space for the management of various gastrointestinal diseases. Over recent years, TSE has emerged as a viable alternative to surgery for the treatment of various conditions. The rapid dissemination and adoption of TSE has been largely supported by the advent of novel devices aimed to improve the efficacy and safety of these procedures. In this article, we review some of the recent developments in TSE devices and provide our initial experience with these instruments in clinical practice.

Safety and efficacy of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.

Background and study aims Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) is limited by low en-bloc resection rates, especially for large (> 20 mm) lesions. Underwater EMR (U-EMR) has emerged as an alternative for colorectal polyps and is being shown to improve en-bloc resection rates. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the two techniques. Methods Multiple databases were searched through November 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes of U-EMR and C-EMR for colorectal polyps. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled proportions and relative risks (RRs) of R0 and en-bloc resection, polyp recurrence, resection time, and adverse events. Results Seven RCTs with 1458 patients (U-EMR: 739, C-EMR: 719) were included. The pooled rate of en-bloc resection was significantly higher with U-EMR vs C-EMR, 70.17% (confidence interval [CI] 46.68-86.34) vs 58.14% (CI 31.59-80.68), respectively, RR 1.21 (CI 1.01-1.44). R0 resection rates were higher with U-EMR vs C-EMR, 58.1% (CI 29.75-81.9) vs 44.6% (CI 17.4-75.4), RR 1.25 (CI 0.99-1.6). For large polyps (> 20 mm), en-bloc resection rates were comparable between the two techniques, RR 1.24 (CI 0.83-1.84). Resection times were comparable between U-EMR and C-EMR, standardized mean difference -1.21 min (CI -2.57 to -0.16). Overall pooled rates of perforation, and immediate and delayed bleeding were comparable between U-EMR and C-EMR. Pooled rate of polyp recurrence at surveillance colonoscopy was significantly lower with U-EMR than with C-EMR, RR 0.62 (CI 0.41-0.94). Conclusions Colorectal U-EMR results in higher en-bloc resection and lower recurrence rates when compared to C-EMR. Both techniques have comparable resection times and safety profiles.

Initial multicenter experience using a novel articulating through-the-scope traction device for endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Background and study aims A single-operator, articulating, through-the-scope (TTS) traction device was recently developed to facilitate endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Clinical data on the performance of this device are limited. We report an initial multicenter experience with ESD using this articulating TTS traction device. Patients and methods Retrospective analysis on all consecutive patients who underwent ESD using this traction device (T-ESD) at five centers between August 2021 and December 2022. Endpoints included: rates of en-bloc resection, R0 resection, curative resection, and adverse events. Results Thirty-six patients (median age 64.8 years; 47.2% women) underwent ESD (median lesion size 40 mm; interquartile range [IRQ]: 27.5-67.5) for lesions in the esophagus (n=2), stomach (n=8), sigmoid colon (n=6), and rectum (n=20). Submucosal fibrosis was encountered in one-third of the lesions (33.3%). Median ESD time was 104.6 minutes (IQR: 65-122). En-bloc, R0 and curative resection were achieved in 94.4%, 91.6%, and 97.2%, respectively. The single patient with non-curative resection of an invasive rectal adenocarcinoma underwent surgery. There were no cases of delayed bleeding or perforation. There was no recurrence on surveillance endoscopy (n=20) at a median of 6 months (IQR: 3.75-6). Conclusions This initial multicenter experience demonstrates high resection rates and excellent safety profile when performing ESD with this novel articulating TTS device. Dynamic real-time traction may lower the technical difficulty of ESD. Additional studies are needed to assess its cost-effectiveness and compare its usefulness with other traction devices and techniques during ESD.

Comparison of LED and LASER Colonoscopy About Linked Color Imaging and Blue Laser/Light Imaging of Colorectal Tumors in a Multinational Study.

INTRODUCTION: In light-emitting diode (LED) and LASER colonoscopy, linked color imaging (LCI) and blue light/laser imaging (BLI) are used for lesion detection and characterization worldwide. We analyzed the difference of LCI and BLI images of colorectal lesions between LED and LASER in a multinational study. METHODS: We prospectively observed lesions with white light imaging (WLI), LCI, and BLI using both LED and LASER colonoscopies from January 2020 to August 2021. Images were graded by 27 endoscopists from nine countries using the polyp visibility score: 4 (excellent), 3 (good), 2 (fair), and 1 (poor) and the comparison score (LED better/similar/LASER better) for WLI/LCI/BLI images of each lesion. RESULTS: Finally, 32 lesions (polyp size: 20.0 ± 15.2 mm) including 9 serrated lesions, 13 adenomas, and 10 T1 cancers were evaluated. The polyp visibility scores of LCI/WLI for international and Japan-expert endoscopists were 3.17 ± 0.73/3.17 ± 0.79 (p = 0.92) and 3.34 ± 0.78/2.84 ± 1.22 (p < 0.01) for LED and 3.30 ± 0.71/3.12 ± 0.77 (p < 0.01) and 3.31 ± 0.82/2.78 ± 1.23 (p < 0.01) for LASER. Regarding the comparison of lesion visibility about between LED and LASER colonoscopy in international endoscopists, a significant difference was achieved not for WLI, but for LCI. The rates of LED better/similar/LASER better for brightness under WLI were 54.5%/31.6%/13.9% (International) and 75.0%/21.9%/3.1% (Japan expert). Those under LCI were 39.2%/35.4%/25.3% (International) and 31.3%/53.1%/15.6% (Japan expert). There were no significant differences in the diagnostic accuracy and the comparison score of BLI images between LED and LASER. CONCLUSIONS: The differences of lesion visibility for WLI/LCI/BLI between LED and LASER in international endoscopists could be compared to those in Japanese endoscopists.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: methodology and review of evidence.

This document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides a full description of the methodology used in the review of the evidence used to inform the final guidance outlined in the accompanying Summary and Recommendations document regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. This guideline used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation over endosic approaches.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: summary and recommendations.

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. It is accompanied by the document subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well- or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, we suggest surgical evaluation over endoscopic approaches.