Patients With Nonpolypoid (Flat and Depressed) Colorectal Neoplasms at Increased Risk for Advanced Neoplasias, Compared With Patients With Polypoid Neoplasms

Endoscopic Removal of Premalignant Lesions Reduces Long-Term Colorectal Cancer Risk: Results From the Japan Polyp Study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

To date, no regional evidence of long-term colorectal cancer (CRC) risk reduction after endoscopic premalignant lesion removal has been established. We aimed to analyze this over a long-term follow-up evaluation.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study of participants from the Japan Polyp Study conducted at 11 Japanese institutions. Participants underwent scheduled follow-up colonoscopies after a 2-round baseline colonoscopy process. The primary outcome was CRC incidence after randomization. The observed/expected ratio of CRC was calculated using data from the population-based Osaka Cancer Registry. Secondary outcomes were the incidence and characteristics of advanced neoplasia (AN).

RESULTS

A total of 1895 participants were analyzed. The mean number of follow-up colonoscopies and the median follow-up period were 2.8 years (range, 1-15 y) and 6.1 years (range, 0.8-11.9 y; 11,559.5 person-years), respectively. Overall, 4 patients (all males) developed CRCs during the study period. The observed/expected ratios for CRC in all participants, males, and females, were as follows: 0.14 (86% reduction), 0.18, and 0, respectively, and 77 ANs were detected in 71 patients (6.1 per 1000 person-years). Of the 77 ANs detected, 31 lesions (40.3%) were laterally spreading tumors, nongranular type. Nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasms (NP-CRNs), including flat (<10 mm), depressed, and laterally spreading, accounted for 59.7% of all detected ANs. Furthermore, 2 of the 4 CRCs corresponded to T1 NP-CRNs.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic removal of premalignant lesions, including NP-CRNs, effectively reduced CRC risk. More than half of metachronous ANs removed by surveillance colonoscopy were NP-CRNs. The Japan Polyp Study: University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry: University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry, C000000058; cohort study: UMIN000040731.

Role of Artificial Intelligence in Colonoscopy Detection of Advanced Neoplasias : A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

The role of computer-aided detection in identifying advanced colorectal neoplasia is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the contribution of computer-aided detection to colonoscopic detection of advanced colorectal neoplasias as well as adenomas, serrated polyps, and nonpolypoid and right-sided lesions.

DESIGN

Multicenter, parallel, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04673136).

SETTING

Spanish colorectal cancer screening program.

PARTICIPANTS

3213 persons with a positive fecal immunochemical test.

INTERVENTION

Enrollees were randomly assigned to colonoscopy with or without computer-aided detection.

MEASUREMENTS

Advanced colorectal neoplasia was defined as advanced adenoma and/or advanced serrated polyp.

RESULTS

The 2 comparison groups showed no significant difference in advanced colorectal neoplasia detection rate (34.8% with intervention vs. 34.6% for controls; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.01 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.10]) or the mean number of advanced colorectal neoplasias detected per colonoscopy (0.54 [SD, 0.95] with intervention vs. 0.52 [SD, 0.95] for controls; adjusted rate ratio, 1.04 [99.9% CI, 0.88 to 1.22]). Adenoma detection rate also did not differ (64.2% with intervention vs. 62.0% for controls; aRR, 1.06 [99.9% CI, 0.91 to 1.23]). Computer-aided detection increased the mean number of nonpolypoid lesions (0.56 [SD, 1.25] vs. 0.47 [SD, 1.18] for controls; adjusted rate ratio, 1.19 [99.9% CI, 1.01 to 1.41]), proximal adenomas (0.94 [SD, 1.62] vs. 0.81 [SD, 1.52] for controls; adjusted rate ratio, 1.17 [99.9% CI, 1.03 to 1.33]), and lesions of 5 mm or smaller (polyps in general and adenomas and serrated lesions in particular) detected per colonoscopy.

LIMITATIONS

The high adenoma detection rate in the control group may limit the generalizability of the findings to endoscopists with low detection rates.

CONCLUSION

Computer-aided detection did not improve colonoscopic identification of advanced colorectal neoplasias.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Medtronic.

Two histologic compartments in nonpolypoid conventional colon adenomas

Two intertwined compartments coexisting in nonpolypoid conventional (i.e. tubular or villous) adenomas are highlighted in this review: one built of dysplastic tissue on top and the other portraying crypts with irregular, corrupted shapes, albeit lined with normal epithelium, below. The latter compartment has remained unattended in the literature. Recently, however, the histologic characteristics of the nondysplastic compartment in nonpolypoid conventional adenomas were closely examined, and some of its biological attributes were unveiled. Studies with the proliferation marker ki67 showed that the crypts with irregular, corrupted shapes in the nondysplastic compartment displayed haphazardly distributed proliferating cell-domains. Given that the proliferating cells are generated by stem cells, the relocation of proliferating cell-domains in those crypts seems to be the result of a reorganization of the stem cells within the crypts. The abnormal distribution of proliferating cells, the finding of p53-upregulated cells, and of crypts in asymmetric fission suggest that the crypts in that compartment are histo-biologically altered, probably somatically mutated. This new information might contribute to unravel the riddle of crypto-histogenesis of nonpolypoid conventional adenomas of the colon. More research along these lines is necessary, before the biology of the crypts in the nondysplastic compartment can be fully translated into molecular terms.

Metachronous neoplasms in patients with laterally spreading tumours during surveillance

Background

Laterally spreading tumours represent a major challenge for endoscopic detection and resection.

Objective

To examine synchronous and metachronous neoplasms in patients with laterally spreading tumours.

Methods

We prospectively collected colonoscopy and histopathology data from patients who underwent colonoscopy in our centre at up to 6 years' follow‐up. Post‐resection surveillance outcomes between laterally spreading tumours, flat colorectal neoplasms 10 mm or greater, and large polypoid colorectal neoplasms, polypoid colorectal neoplasms 10 mm or greater, were compared.

Results

Between 2008 and 2012, 8120 patients underwent colonoscopy for symptoms (84.6%), screening (6.7%) or surveillance (8.7%). At baseline, 151 patients had adenomatous laterally spreading tumours and 566 patients had adenomatous large polypoid colorectal neoplasms. Laterally spreading tumour patients had more synchronous colorectal neoplasms than large polypoid colorectal neoplasm patients (mean 3.34 vs. 2.34, p < 0.001). Laterally spreading tumour patients significantly more often developed metachronous colorectal neoplasms (71.6% vs. 54.2%, p = 0.0498) and colorectal neoplasms with high grade dysplasia/submucosal invasion than large polypoid colorectal neoplasm patients (36.4% vs. 15.8%, p < 0.001). After correction for age and gender, laterally spreading tumour patients were more likely than large polypoid colorectal neoplasm patients to develop a colorectal neoplasm with high grade dysplasia or submucosal invasion (hazard ratio 2.9, 95% confidence interval 1.8–4.6). The risk of metachronous colorectal cancer was not significantly different in laterally spreading tumours compared to large polypoid colorectal neoplasm patients.

Conclusion

Patients with laterally spreading tumours developed more metachronous colorectal neoplasms with high grade dysplasia/submucosal invasion than large polypoid colorectal neoplasm patients. Based on these findings endoscopic treatment and surveillance recommendations for patients with laterally spreading tumours should be optimised.

Summarize the established knowledge on this subject

Laterally spreading tumours (LSTs) are a heterogeneous group of large, predominantly benign flat neoplasms that can be endoscopically treated, requiring additional time and expertise

LSTs consist of different endoscopic subtypes which are predictive of the risk of submucosal invasion (SMI)

Patients with LSTs harbour more synchronous neoplasms than patients with large polypoid colorectal neoplasms (LP‐CRNs)

What are the significant and/or new findings of this study?

Patients with LSTs more frequently have metachronous neoplasms than patients with LP‐CRNs, justifying strict surveillance

LSTs can be effectively managed by conventional endoscopic resections in most cases

Trends in EMR for nonmalignant colorectal polyps in the United States

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although most large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions can be safely and efficaciously removed using EMR, the use of colectomy for benign colorectal lesions appears to be increasing. The reason(s) is unclear. We aimed to determine the use and adverse events of EMR in the United States.

METHODS

We used Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart Database (2003-2016), a database from a large national insurance provider, to identify all colonoscopies performed with either EMR or simple polypectomy on adult patients from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2015. We measured time trends, regional variation, and adverse event rates. We assessed risk factors for adverse events using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

The rate of EMR use in the US increased from 1.62% of all colonoscopies in 2011 to 2.48% of colonoscopies in 2015 (P < .001). There were, however, significant regional differences in the use of EMRs, from 2.4% of colonoscopies in the western United States to 2.0% of colonoscopies in the southern United States. Between 2011 and 2015, we found stable rates of perforation, GI bleeding (GIB), infections, and cardiac adverse events and decreasing rates of admissions after EMR. In our multivariate model, EMR was an independent risk factor for adverse events, albeit the rates of adverse events were low (1.35% GIB, .22% perforation).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of EMR is rising in the United States, although there is significant regional variation. The rates of adverse events after EMR and polypectomies were low and stable, confirming the continued safety of EMR procedures. A better understanding of the regional barriers and facilitators may improve the use of EMR as the standard management for benign colorectal lesions throughout the United States.

Incidence and risk factors of advanced neoplasia after endoscopic mucosal resection of colonic laterally spreading lesions

PURPOSE

To investigate advanced neoplasia (AN) after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of colonic laterally spreading lesions (LSLs).

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients who underwent injection-assisted EMR of colonic LSLs ≥ 10 mm was performed. Primary outcome was overall rate of AN at initial surveillance colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were the rates of residual AN (rAN) at the EMR site and metachronous AN (mAN), and analysis of risk factors for AN, including effect of surveillance guidance.

RESULTS

Three hundred seventy-four patients underwent successful EMR for 388 LSLs. AN occurred in 66/374 (17.6%) patients on initial surveillance colonoscopy at median follow-up of 364.5 days. Two patients had both rAN and mAN, for a total of 68 instances of AN, including 30/374 (8.0%) cases of rAN and 38/374 (10.2%) cases of mAN. On multivariate analysis, use of piecemeal resection was associated with increased likelihood of residual AN (P = 0.003, OR 9.2, 95% CI 2.1-33.3). Twenty-nine out of thirty cases (96.7%) of rAN were successfully endoscopically managed at surveillance colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

AN occurred in 17.6% of all patients at initial surveillance colonoscopy at a median of 1 year after EMR. Roughly half of the instances of AN were metachronous lesions. Our data support a 1-year surveillance interval after EMR of LSLs ≥ 10 mm with careful inspection of the entire colon, not just the prior resection site.

Histological and molecular classification of gastrointestinal polyps

Endoscopic diagnosis and treatment for gastrointestinal polyps became widely available within the last decades. Exact terminology is important for further therapeutic steps, follow up or treatment. Gastroenterologists, Oncologists, Surgeons and Pathologists need to be aware of the most recent terminology to ensure proper risk assessment and subsequent treatment if necessary. This manuscript aims to list the variety of gastrointestinal polyps and the molecular background where appropriate.