The Scientific World Journal

Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 869769, 6 pages

doi:10.1100/2012/869769

Clinical Study

Clinical Impact of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Gastric Neuroendocrine Tumors: A Retrospective Study from Mainland of China

Wei-Feng Chen, Ping-Hong Zhou, Quan-Lin Li, Mei-Dong Xu, and Li-Qing Yao

Endoscopy Center and Endoscopy Research Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 FengLin Road, Shanghai, Xuhui 200032, China

Received 9 November 2012; Accepted 12 December 2012

Academic Editors: H. Grønbæk and E. T. Janson

Copyright © 2012 Wei-Feng Chen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

As a minimally invasive technique, endoscopic resection may benefit patients diagnosed with early stage gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). However, no studies have yet been published in which endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been applied for gastric NETs. For the first time a research group in China applied ESD to remove gastric NETs, and indicated that ESD should be considered for treatment of eligible gastric NETs because the technique shows a high histologically complete resection rate, provides accurate histopathological evaluation, has a low complication rate, and can be performed within a reasonable timeframe.

1. Introduction

Gastric NETs have been previously thought to be extremely rare lesions. However, over the last 50 years, the incidence of gastric neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) has been increasing in most countries because of better awareness and an increased widespread use of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy [1]. In the preendoscopic era, they comprised only 0.3% of all gastric tumors and 1.9% of all gastrointestinal NETs. More recent studies have shown that as many as 10–30% of all NETs may occur in the stomach [1]. Nowadays, more and more gastric NETs are usually diagnosed at an early stage (tumor size < 11–20 mm and limited to the mucosa/submucosa) [2] and thus can be managed with local excision including endoscopic treatment because of a low frequency of lymph node and distant metastasis. As a minimally invasive technique, endoscopic resection may benefit patients diagnosed with gastric NETs. It offers the promise of localized treatment of these tumors, with relatively few complications and low mortality.

Various endoscopic resection procedures such as endoscopic polypectomy, strip biopsy, aspiration resection, and band-snare resection have been described as potential treatment procedures for gastric NETs [3–5]. However, complete resection of NETs is difficult with conventional polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) because most gastrointestinal NETs are not confined to the mucosa but, rather, invade the submucosa [6], which results in frequent involvement of the resection margin. Polypectomy may not provide adequate resection margins, and additional surgical intervention may be needed.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a method of endoscopic resection and has the advantage of a high probability of en bloc and histologically complete resection even in submucosal tumors because the technique involves dissection of the submucosal tissue beneath the lesion [7]. To date, the fact that ESD can facilitate histologically complete resection of NETs has been verified on the use of ESD for treatment of rectal NETs [8–10]. However, limited systematic studies in which ESD has been applied for gastric NETs have been published. The purpose of this paper was to provide a better understanding of the endoscopic features of these tumors and to retrospectively evaluate the clinical impact of ESD for gastric NETs.

2. Patients and Methods

2.1. Patients

With the approval of the institutional review board, from January 2008 to January 2012, 25 patients with confirmed histological diagnosis of gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms were treated with ESD. None had regional lymph node enlargement and distant metastases to the liver or lung on computerized tomography (CT) scanning or endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) before ESD. Tumor characteristics, complete resection rate, complications, local recurrences, and distant metastases were evaluated in all patients. Informed patient’s consent was obtained prior to the procedures.

2.2. ESD Procedures

Preoperative EUS (high-frequency miniprobe, UM-2R, 12 MHz; UM-3R, 20 MHz, Olympus) was performed to evaluate the depth of tumor invasion and the involvement of regional lymph nodes. The existence of lymph node and distant metastasis was surveyed by contrast-enhanced CT, abdomen ultrasound, and chest X-ray.

To dissect the tumor, endoscopic submucosal dissection was attempted with a single-channel gastroscope (GIF-H260, Olympus) and an insulated-tip electrosurgical knife (KD-611L, Olympus) or hook knife (KD-620LR, Olympus). A transparent cap (D-201-11304, Olympus) was attached to the tip of the gastroscope to provide direct views of the submucosal layer. Other equipment included injection needle (NM-4L-1, Olympus), grasping forceps (FG-8U-1, Olympus), snare (SD-230U-20, Olympus), hot biopsy forceps (FD-410LR, Olympus), clips (HX-610-90, HX-600-135, Olympus), high-frequency generator (ICC-200, ERBE), and argon plasma coagulation unit (APC300, ERBE).

Patients were treated under general anesthesia. After making several marking dots with argon plasma coagulation around the lesion, a mixture solution (including 100 mL of normal saline, 1 mL of indigo carmine, and 1 mL of epinephrine) was injected into the submucosa. The mucosa was incised outside the marking dots. Direct dissection of the submucosal layer beneath the tumor was then performed under direct vision to achieve complete en bloc resection of the specimen. The tumor was dissected along the capsule, and saline solution was injected repeatedly during the dissection when necessary. The resultant artificial ulcer was managed routinely with argon plasma coagulation to prevent delayed bleeding, and hemoclips were used to close the deeply dissected areas as needed (Figure 1).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

Figure 1: The procedure of endoscopic submucosal dissection for a gastric neuroendocrine tumor. (a, b) A sessile polyp with a reddened surface of the gastric body. (c) Making. (d) Injection. (e, f) Dissection. (g) Resultant artificial ulcer. (h) Closure of the defect with metallic clips. (i) Completely resected specimen.

2.3. Clinicopathological Categorization and Pathological Evaluation

There is a clinicopathological categorization of the gastric NETs which distinguishes four types of neuroendocrine neoplasms of the stomach [2]: type I is those arising in chronic atrophic gastritis with hypergastrinemia; type II occurs in patients with hypergastrinemia due to the Zollinger-Ellison syndrome in association with multiple endocrine neoplasia type I; type III is gastric NET not associated with any specific pathogenetic background; poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas are nowadays classified as type IV neuroendocrine neoplasms of the stomach.

The WHO 2010 classification of tumours of the digestive system was used for histopathologic evaluation [11]. Mitotic count per 10 high-power field (HPF) or Ki-67 Index per 400–2000 cells was used for grading and staging. On the basis of proliferative activity, gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms are graded as G1, G2, or G3. Low to intermediate grade tumors (G1-G2) are defined as NETs (previously referred to as carcinoids) whereas high-grade carcinomas (G3) are termed neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs).

En bloc resection refers to a resection in one piece. A resection with a tumor-free margin in which both the lateral and basal margins were free of tumor cells was considered as a complete resection. A resection in which the tumor extended into the lateral or basal margin, or the margins were indeterminate because of artificial burn effects, was considered as an incomplete resection.

2.4. Followup

Patients underwent followup endoscopy and/or EUS at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after ESD and annually thereafter to view the healing of the wound and to check any tumor residual or recurrence. Close followup by abdomen ultrasound, contrast-enhanced CT, and chest radiography were carried out to evaluate distant metastasis every 6 months. A final checkup was performed via telephone questionnaires in August 2012. At that time, followup data for 100.0% of the patients were available for evaluation.

3. Results

Patient characteristics, lesion features, and clinical outcomes are summarized in Table 1. The study cohort consisted of 8 men and 17 women, aged from 35 to 82 years. 4 cases had 2 tumors, and 2 cases had 3 tumors. Of the 33 lesions, 1 of them located in the cardia, 5 in the gastric fundus, 26 in the gastric body, and 1 in the gastric antrum. All lesions were found incidentally during routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for other indications such as anemia, reflux symptoms, or nonspecific abdominal symptoms. None had symptoms of carcinoid syndrome. With respect to macroscopic appearance, 12 patients had submucosal tumors with a central depression or erosion on top, 10 patients had sessile polyps with a reddened surface, 2 patients had erosion-type tumors, and 1 patient had a tumor with superficial ulcer.

Table 1: Clinicopathological characteristics of 25 patients with gastric neuroendocrine tumors treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Case no.
Age, y
Gender
Location
Macroscopic appearance
Clinicopathological type
Size, mm
En bloc resection
Depth of invasion
WHO classification
Lateral margin
Vertical margin
Vessel invasion
Complication
Additional surgery
Followup, mo

1
36
F
Gastric body
Submucosal tumor
I
4, 4, 3
Yes
Mucosa
NET-G1
(−)
(−)
Absent
None
None
55

2
41
M
Gastric antrum
Submucosal tumor
III
10
Yes
Submucosa
NET-G1
(−)
(−)
Absent
None
None
52

3
71
M
Gastric body
Submucosal tumor
III
18
Yes
Submucosa
NET-G1
(−)
(−)
Absent
None
Reject
45

4
53
M
Gastric body
Submucosal tumor
I
5
Yes
Submucosa
NET-G1
(−)
(−)
Absent
None
None
44

5
55
F
Gastric body
Submucosal tumor
III
10
Yes
Submucosa
NET-G1
(−)
(−)
Absent
None
None
41

6
82
F
Gastric fundus
Submucosal tumor
III
30
Yes
Submucosa
NET-G2
(−)
(−)
Absent
None
Reject
40

7
35
F
Gastric fundus
Polyp
I
6
Yes
Submucosa
NET-G1
(−)
(−)
Absent
None
None
38

8
40
F
Gastric body
Polyp
I
6
Yes
Submucosa
NET-G1
(−)
(−)
Absent
None
None
35

9
47
F
Gastric body
Submucosal tumor
I
4
Yes
Submucosa
NET-G1
(−)
(−)
Absent
None
None
35

10
56
F
Gastric body
Polyp
I
3, 2
Yes
Mucosa
NET-G1
(−)
(−)
Absent
None
None
31

11
51
F
Gastric body
Submucosal tumor
III
8
Yes
Submucosa
NET-G1
(−)
(−)
Absent
None
None
29

12
55
M
Gastric body
Polyp
I
8, 3, 3
Yes
Submucosa
NET-G1
(−)
(−)
Absent
None
None
28

13
55
M
Gastric body
Polyp
I
4
Yes
Submucosa
NET-G1
(−)
(−)
Absent
None
None
28

14
57
M
Gastric body
Submucosal tumor
III
15
Yes
Submucosa
NET-G1
(−)
(−)
Absent
Delayed bleeding
Reject
26

15
35
F
Gastric body
Submucosal tumor
III
25
Yes
Submucosa
NET-G2
(−)
(−)
Absent
None
Yes
25

16
45
F
Gastric body
Polyp
I
6, 3
Yes
Submucosa
NET-G1
(−)
(−)
Absent
None
None
22

17
48
F
Gastric body
Polyp
I
5
Yes
Submucosa
NET-G1
(−)
(−)
Absent
None
None
21

18
55
M
Gastric body
Polyp
I
5
Yes
Submucosa
NET-G1
(−)
(−)
Absent
None
None
20

19
65
F
Cardia
Submucosal tumor
III
20
Yes
Submucosa
NET-G1
(−)
(−)
Absent
None
Reject
20

20
35
F
Gastric fundus
Erosion
I
5, 3
Yes
Submucosa
NET-G1
(−)
(−)
Absent
None
None
20

21
47
M
Gastric fundus
Polyp
I
4
Yes
Mucosa
NET-G1
(−)
(−)
Absent
None
None
20

22
57
F
Gastric body
Polyp
I
8
Yes
Mucosa
NET-G1
(−)
(−)
Absent
None
None
18

23
52
F
Gastric body
Superficial ulcer
III
15
Yes
Submucosa
NET-G2
(−)
(−)
Absent
None
Reject
12

24
40
F
Gastric body
Submucosal tumor
III
20, 5
Yes
Submucosa
NET-G1
(−)
(−)
Absent
None
Reject
11

25
70
F
Gastric body
Erosion
I
5
Yes
Mucosa
NET-G1
(−)
(−)
Absent
None
None
7

NET: neuroendocrine tumor. Reject: the patient rejected the additional surgery.

With respect to clinicopathological categorization, 22 lesions in 15 patients were type I gastric NETs arising in chronic atrophic gastritis with hypergastrinemia, while other 11 lesions in 10 patients were type III because of absence of atrophic gastritis in these cases. None showed metastatic disease to lymph nodes or distal organs on preoperative examinations. Before ESD procedures, histological diagnosis of gastric NETs had been confirmed via biopsies in 4 cases.

All the tumors were removed in an en bloc fashion (33/33, 100%). The average maximum diameter of the lesions was 8.2 mm (range 2–30 mm), and the procedure time was 22.5 minutes (range 10–45 minutes). Results of pathological studies determined that 30 lesions were NET-G1 and 3 lesions were NET-G2. Complete resection was achieved in all the tumors (33/33, 100%). All of them were confined to the submucosa in histopathologic assessment, and no lymphovascular invasion was observed in any of the tumors.

Delayed bleeding occurred in one case 3 days after ESD. Successful hemostasis was achieved by coagulating forceps and spraying with thrombin during emergency endoscopy. The procedure-related perforation was not seen in any tumor.

Because type III gastric NETs with diameter larger than 10 mm may have high risks of metastasis, additional surgical intervention should be considered in 7 cases. However, only 1 of them underwent additional surgery, and we could not reveal residual lesions or metastatic lymph nodes in the surgical specimens. Other 6 cases refused additional surgery, citing their age, physical condition, or other personal reasons. Therefore, they were under careful followup.

During a mean of 28.9 months (range 7–55 months) followup periods, local recurrence occurred in two patients after initial ESD (case no. 1 and no. 12). Both of them then underwent repeat ESD successfully. Metastasis to lymph nodes or distal organs was not observed in any patient. No patients died during the study period.

4. Discussion

Because most gastrointestinal NETs are not confined to the mucosa but, rather, invade the submucosa [6], we, thus, chose ESD for the treatment of gastric NETs in the current study. Most of the lesions extended into the submucosa (75.8%, 25/33), and complete resection was achieved for all the tumors in this study. High histologically complete resection rate of ESD may give several advantages for the treatment of gastric NETs [8–10]. First, histologically complete resection can provide a substantial amount of submucosal tissue and accurate determination of lymphovascular invasion, and histological grading is possible and can inform decisions regarding subsequent therapy. Second, incomplete resection of tumors results in the need for additional surgery, and complete resection allows us to reduce the incidence of unnecessary surgery. Third, repeat endoscopic resection of remnant tumor after an initial incomplete endoscopic resection may be difficult because of fibrosis that prevents lifting of the lesion by submucosal injection. Therefore, we recommend histologically complete resection of gastric NETs even when lesions are small, and the present study indicates that ESD may maximize the likelihood of such an outcome because of complete resection.

Gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms are divided into four groups by the clinicopathological classification: type I: NETs associated with type A chronic gastritis; type II: carcinoids with endocrine neoplasia; type III: sporadic carcinoids without hypergastrinemia; type IV: poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas [2]. Type I is the most frequent and comprises approximately 65% of all gastric NETs, while Type III is less frequent (21%) [1]. Types I and II gastric NETs frequently show less lymph node involvement compared with type III [2, 12]. Gastric NETs with submucosal invasion and muscularis propria invasion also show high incidences of metastasis [13]. Therefore, the indication for rescue surgery after endoscopic resection is usually based upon the size, type, depth of invasion, grade, and stage of the gastric NET disease [3]. In general, additional surgical intervention is recommended in the case of type I or type II gastric NETs with positive margins, size > 20 mm, G2-G3 histological grading, invasion into the muscularis propria, or vessel infiltration of tumor cells. Additional surgery was also recommended in the case of type III gastric NETs with size > 10 mm irrespective of other risk factors. Surgery was the only treatment of choice in case of a localized type IV gastric NET. According to this, additional surgical intervention should be considered in 7 cases in our study; however, 6 of them refused additional surgery, citing their age, physical condition, or other personal reasons. During a two-year term followup, local recurrence or distal metastasis did not occur in these 6 patients.

Bleeding and perforation are the two main complications of ESD. In this study, only one case had delayed bleeding 3 days after ESD. Successful hemostasis was achieved by coagulating forceps and spraying with thrombin during emergency endoscopy. No patient had immediate or delayed perforation. The relatively low ESD complication rate most likely reflects the small size of lesions. Furthermore, we always keep our minds upon the prevention and handling of bleeding during procedure. Once bleeding occurs during ESD, hemostasis may take a long time, and the endoscopic view may be affected; blind hemostasis may eventually lead to perforation. In our study, immediate minor bleeding was treated successfully by grasping the bleeding vessels with hot biopsy forceps and coagulating them during ESD. Direct coagulation with the hook knife could be done for small vessels in the submucosa, and metallic clips were often deployed for more brisk bleeding.

In conclusion, the present study indicates that because of complete resection, ESD may reasonably serve as radical treatment for gastric NETs when lesions are within the existing criteria. It also provides enough histological information for tumor grading and staging even when lesions are beyond the selection criteria, which informs decisions regarding subsequent surgery. In addition, endoscopic treatment might be also considered in particular in patients with a high risk of perioperative complications due to old age or advanced comorbidity, for example, or if there are other contraindications to major surgery, even though the lesions are little beyond the existing criteria.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests to report with respect to this paper.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Grants from the Medical Leading Project of Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Committee (no. 10411969600) and the Major Project of Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Committee (nos. 11411950502 and 11DZ2280400).

References

I. M. Modlin, M. Kidd, I. Latich, M. N. Zikusoka, and M. D. Shapiro, “Current status of gastrointestinal carcinoids,” Gastroenterology, vol. 128, no. 6, pp. 1717–1751, 2005.

H. Scherübl, G. Cadiot, R. T. Jensen, T. Rösch, U. Stölzel, and G. Klöppel, “Neuroendocrine tumors of the stomach (gastric carcinoids) are on the rise: Small tumors, small problems?” Endoscopy, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 664–671, 2010.

J. Ichikawa, S. Tanabe, W. Koizumi et al., “Endoscopic mucosal resection in the management of gastric carcinoid tumors,” Endoscopy, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 203–206, 2003.

A. D. Hopper, M. J. Bourke, L. F. Hourigan, K. Tran, A. Moss, and M. P. Swan, “En-bloc resection of multiple type 1 gastric carcinoid tumors by endoscopic multi-band mucosectomy,” Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 1516–1521, 2009.

E. Merola, A. Sbrozzi-Vanni, F. Panzuto, et al., “Type I gastric carcinoids: a prospective study on endoscopic management and recurrence rate,” Neuroendocrinology, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 207–2213, 2012.

H. Yoshikane, Y. Tsukamoto, Y. Niwa et al., “Carcinoid tumors of the gastrointestinal tract: evaluation with endoscopic ultrasonography,” Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 375–383, 1993.

Q. L. Li, L. Q. Yao, P. H. Zhou, et al., “Submucosal tumors of the esophagogastric junction originating from the muscularis propria layer: a large study of endoscopic submucosal dissection (with video),” Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, vol. 75, pp. 1153–11158, 2012.

P. H. Zhou, L. Q. Yao, X. Y. Qin et al., “Advantages of endoscopic submucosal dissection with needle-knife over endoscopic mucosal resection for small rectal carcinoid tumors: a retrospective study,” Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques, vol. 24, no. 10, pp. 2607–2612, 2010.

D. S. Lee, S. W. Jeon, S. Y. Park et al., “The feasibility of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal carcinoid tumors: comparison with endoscopic mucosal resection,” Endoscopy, vol. 42, no. 8, pp. 647–651, 2010.

H. W. Park, J. S. Byeon, Y. S. Park et al., “Endoscopic submucosal dissection for treatment of rectal carcinoid tumors,” Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 143–149, 2010.

F. T. Bosman, F. Carneiro, R. H. Hruban, et al., WHO Classification of Tumours of the Digestive System, IARC, Lyon, France, 2010.

G. Rindi, O. Luinetti, M. Cornaggia, C. Capella, and E. Solcia, “Three subtypes of gastric argyrophil carcinoid and the gastric neuroendocrine carcinoma: a clinicopathologic study,” Gastroenterology, vol. 104, no. 4, pp. 994–1006, 1993.

J. Soga, “Gastric carcinoids: a statistical evaluation of 1094 cases collected from the literature,” Surgery Today, vol. 27, no. 10, pp. 892–901, 1997.