Background/Aims: The anastomotic site after distal gastrectomy is the area most affected by duodenogastric reflux. Different reconstruction methods may affect the lesion characteristics and treatment outcomes of remnant gastric cancers at the anastomotic site. We retrospectively investigated the clinicopathologic and endoscopic submucosal dissection outcomes of remnant gastric cancers at the anastomotic site. Methods: We recruited 34 consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection for remnant gastric cancer at the anastomotic site after distal gastrectomy. Clinicopathology and treatment outcomes were compared between the Billroth II and non-Billroth II groups. Results: The tumor size in the Billroth II group was significantly larger than that in the non-Billroth II group (22 vs. 19 mm; p=0.048). More severe gastritis was detected endoscopically in the Billroth II group (2 vs. 1.33; p=0.0075). Moreover, operation time was longer (238 vs. 121 min; p=0.004) and the frequency of bleeding episodes was higher (7.5 vs. 3.1; p=0.014) in the Billroth II group. Conclusions Compared to remnant gastric cancers in non-Billroth II patients, those in the Billroth II group had larger lesions with a background of severe remnant gastritis. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for remnant gastric cancers in Billroth II patients involved longer operative times and more frequent bleeding episodes than that in patients without Billroth II.

Background/Aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for diverticulum-associated colorectal lesions is generally contraindicated because of the high risk of perforation. Several studies on patients with such lesions treated with ESD have been reported recently. However, the feasibility and safety of ESD for lesions in proximity to a colonic diverticulum (D-ESD) have not been fully clarified. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of D-ESD. Methods: D-ESD was defined as ESD for lesions within approximately 3 mm of a diverticulum. Twenty-six consecutive patients who underwent D-ESD were included. Two strategic approaches were used depending on whether submucosal dissection of the diverticulum-related part was required (strategy B) or not (strategy A). Treatment outcomes and adverse events associated with each strategy were analyzed. Results: The en bloc resection rate was 96.2%. The rates of R0 and curative resection in strategies A and B were 80.8%, 73.1%, 84.6%, and 70.6%, respectively. Two cases of intraoperative perforation and one case of delayed perforation occurred. The delayed perforation case required emergency surgery, but the other cases were managed conservatively. Conclusions D-ESD may be a feasible treatment option. However, it should be performed in a high-volume center by expert hands because it requires highly skilled endoscopic techniques.