Endoscopic submucosal dissection of scar-embedded rectal polyps: a prospective study (Esd in scar-embedded rectal polyps)

Treatment of adenoma recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection

OBJECTIVE

Residual or recurrent adenoma (RRA) after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) of ≥20 mm is a major limitation. Data on outcomes of the endoscopic treatment of recurrence are scarce, and no evidence-based standard exists. We investigated the efficacy of endoscopic retreatment over time in a large prospective cohort.

DESIGN

Over 139 months, detailed morphological and histological data on consecutive RRA detected after EMR for single LNPCPs at one tertiary endoscopy centre were prospectively recorded during structured surveillance colonoscopy. Endoscopic retreatment was performed on cases with evidence of RRA and was performed predominantly using hot snare resection, cold avulsion forceps with adjuvant snare tip soft coagulation or a combination of the two.

RESULTS

213 (14.6%) patients had RRA (168 (78.9%) at first surveillance and 45 (21.1%) thereafter). RRA was commonly 2.5-5.0 mm (48.0%) and unifocal (78.7%). Of 202 (94.8%) cases which had macroscopic evidence of RRA, 194 (96.0%) underwent successful endoscopic therapy and 161 (83.4%) had a subsequent follow-up colonoscopy. Of the latter, endoscopic therapy of recurrence was successful in 149 (92.5%) of 161 in the per-protocol analysis, and 149 (73.8%) of 202 in the intention-to-treat analysis, with a mean of 1.15 (SD 0.36) retreatment sessions. No adverse events were directly attributable to endoscopic therapy. Further RRA after endoscopic therapy was endoscopically treatable in most cases. Overall, only 9 (4.2%, 95% CI 2.2% to 7.8%) of 213 patients with RRA required surgery.Thus 159 (98.8%, 95% CI 95.1% to 99.8%) of 161 cases with initially successful endoscopic treatment of RRA and follow-up remained surgery-free for a median of 13 months (IQR 25.0) of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

RRA after EMR of LNPCPs can be effectively treated using simple endoscopic techniques with long-term adenoma remission of >90%; only 16% required retreatment. Therefore, more technically complex, morbid and resource-intensive endoscopic or surgical techniques are required only in selected cases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

NCT01368289 and NCT02000141.

Recent advances and current challenges in endoscopic resection with the full-thickness resection device

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) has emerged as a viable technique in the management of mucosal and subepithelial lesions of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) not amenable to conventional therapeutic approaches. While various devices and techniques have been described for EFTR, a single, combined full-thickness resection and closure device (full-thickness resection device, FTRD system, Ovesco Endoscopy AG, Tuebingen, Germany) has become commercially available in recent years. Initially, the FTRD system was limited to use in the colorectum only. Recently, a modified version of the FTRD has been released for EFTR in the upper GIT as well. This review provides a broad summary of the FTRD, highlighting recent advances and current challenges.

Curriculum for training in endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the standard of care for the complete removal of large (≥ 10 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs). Increased detection of LNPCPs owing to screening colonoscopy, plus high observed rates of incomplete resection and need for surgery call for a standardized approach to training in EMR. 1 : Trainees in EMR should have achieved basic competence in diagnostic colonoscopy, < 10-mm polypectomy, pedunculated polypectomy, and common methods of gastrointestinal endoscopic hemostasis. The role of formal training courses is emphasized. Training may then commence in vivo under the direct supervision of a trainer. 2 : Endoscopy units training endoscopists in EMR should have specific processes in place to support and facilitate training. 3: A trained EMR practitioner should have mastered theoretical knowledge including how to assess an LNPCP for risk of submucosal invasion, how to interpret the potential difficulty of a particular EMR procedure, how to decide whether to remove a particular LNPCP en bloc or piecemeal, whether the risks of electrosurgical energy can be avoided for a particular LNPCP, the different devices required for EMR, management of adverse events, and interpretation of reports provided by histopathologists. 4: Trained EMR practitioners should be familiar with the patient consent process for EMR. 5: The development of endoscopic non-technical skills (ENTS) and team interaction are important for trainees in EMR. 6: Differences in recommended technique exist between EMR performed with and without electrosurgical energy. Common to both is a standardized technique based upon dynamic injection, controlled and precise snare placement, safety checks prior to the application of tissue transection (cold snare) or electrosurgical energy (hot snare), and interpretation of the post-EMR resection defect. 7: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to manage adverse events associated with EMR including intraprocedural bleeding and perforation, and post-procedural bleeding. Delayed perforation should be avoided by correct interpretation of the post-EMR defect and treatment of deep mural injury. 8: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to communicate EMR procedural findings to patients and provide them with a plan in case of adverse events after discharge and a follow-up plan. 9: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to detect and interrogate a post-endoscopic resection scar for residual or recurrent adenoma and apply treatment if necessary. 10: Prior to independent practice, a minimum of 30 EMR procedures should be performed, culminating in a trainer-guided assessment of competency using a validated assessment tool, taking account of procedural difficulty (e. g. using the SMSA polyp score). 11: Trained practitioners should log their key performance indicators (KPIs) of polypectomy during independent practice. A guide for target KPIs is provided in this document.

Devices and techniques for endoscopic treatment of residual and fibrotic colorectal polyps (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Residual neoplasia after macroscopically complete EMR of large colon polyps has been reported in 10% to 32% of resections. Often, residual polyps at the site of prior polypectomy are fibrotic and nonlifting, making additional resection challenging.

METHODS

This document reviews devices and methods for the endoscopic treatment of fibrotic and/or residual polyps. In addition, techniques reported to reduce the incidence of residual neoplasia after endoscopic resection are discussed.

RESULTS

Descriptions of technologies and available outcomes data are summarized for argon plasma coagulation ablation, snare-tip coagulation, avulsion techniques, grasp-and-snare technique, EndoRotor endoscopic resection system, endoscopic full-thickness resection device, and salvage endoscopic submucosal dissection.

CONCLUSIONS

Several technologies and techniques discussed in this document may aid in the prevention and/or resection of fibrotic and nonlifting polyps.

Outcomes of endoscopic resection of large colorectal lesions subjected to prior failed resection or substantial manipulation

PURPOSE

Injudicious attempts at resection and extensive sampling of large colorectal adenomas prior to referral for endoscopic resection (ER) are common. This has deleterious effects, but little is known about the outcomes following ER. We retrospectively analysed the outcomes of ER of large adenomas previously subjected to substantial manipulation.

METHOD

ER of large (≥ 2 cm) colorectal adenomas were grouped according to level of manipulation: prior attempted resection, heavy manipulation (≥ six biopsies or tattoo under lesion) or minimal manipulation (< six biopsies). Outcomes were compared between groups. Independent predictors of outcomes were identified using multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS

Five hundred forty-two lesions (mean size 53.7 mm) were included. Two hundred sixty-five (49%) had been subjected to prior attempted resection or heavy manipulation, 151 (28%) to minimal manipulation, and 126 (23%) were not previously manipulated. ESD techniques were used more frequently than EMR after substantial manipulation. There were no differences in initial success of ER (99%, 98%, 98%, p = 0.71). Prior attempted resection was independently associated with recurrence (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.5, p = 0.03) and negatively associated with en bloc resection (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.1-0.7, p = 0.004). Regardless of level of prior manipulation, there were no differences in sustained endoscopic cure with > 95% of patients overall free from recurrence and avoiding surgery at last follow-up.

CONCLUSION

There is a substantial burden of injudicious lesion manipulation before referral, which makes recurrence more likely and en bloc resection less likely. However, with appropriate expertise, sustained successful endoscopic treatment is achievable for the vast majority of patients treated in a specialist unit.

Why attempt en bloc resection of non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas? A systematic review of the prevalence of superficial submucosal invasive cancer after endoscopic submucosal dissection

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) aims to achieve en bloc resection of non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas which might be indicated in cases with superficial submucosal invasive cancers (SMIC), but the procedure is time consuming and complex. The prevalence of such cancers is not known but may determine the clinical necessity for ESD as opposed to the commonly used piecemeal mucosal resection (endoscopic mucosal resection) of colorectal adenomas. The main aim was to assess the prevalence of SMIC SM1 (ie, invasion ≤1000 µm or less than one-third of the submucosa) on colorectal lesions removed by ESD.

DESIGN

A literature review was conducted using electronic databases (up to March 2017) for colorectal ESD series reporting the histology of the dissected lesions.

RESULTS

51 studies with data on 11 260 colorectal dissected lesions were included. Most resected lesions (82.2%; 95% CI 78.8% to 85.3%) were adenomas (low- and high-grade dysplasia, 26.8% and 55.4%, respectively). Overall, 15.7% were submucosal cancers, but only slightly more than half (8.0%; 95% CI 6.1% to 10.3%) had an infiltration depth of ≤1000 µm, providing a number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid one surgery of 12.5. Estimating an oncologically curative (R0; G1/2; L0/V0) resection rate of 75.3% (95% CI 52.2% to 89.4%) for malignant lesions, the prevalence of curative resection lowered to 6% (95% CI 4.2% to 7.2%) with an NNT of 16.7.

CONCLUSION

The low prevalence of SMIC SM1 in lesions selected for ESD as well as the even lower rate of curative resection limits the clinical applicability of endoscopic en bloc resection. This calls for caution over an indiscriminate use of this technique in the resection of colorectal neoplasia.

Ten quality indicators for endoscopic submucosal dissection: what should be monitored and reported to improve quality

In the last decade, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become more popular in Asia and, more recently, also in Europe and North America, however the issue of quality control has never been raised. Therefore, there is an urgent need to identify possible quality indicators to monitor as part of internal audit process. This is particularly compelling, since the diffusion of ESD outside Asian, super-expert, high-volume, tertiary referral centers. In the current review, we raised the issue of quality control for ESD and proposed a list of ten possible quality indicators that should be monitored by each endoscopist and reported in every study reporting results on ESD procedures. We feel that these quality indicators should be used in clinical practice by endoscopists to benchmark the data with the internationally recommended standards.

Clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an endoscopic resection technique for lesions suspicious of superficial malignancy. It is performed using an ESD knife on its own (standard technique) or by the sequential use of a knife and a snare (hybrid technique). The experience with these techniques is different in Asian and non-Asian countries. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of available evidence on colorectal ESD.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched up to August 2016 for studies evaluating R0, en bloc resection, and adverse event rates of both techniques for the treatment of colorectal lesions. Proportions were pooled by a random effects model.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven studies (71 performed in Asia) evaluated the standard technique and 12 studies (7 in Asia) the hybrid technique. The R0 resection rate of the standard technique was 82.9%, and it was significantly lower in non-Asian versus Asian countries: 71.3% versus 85.6%. The en bloc resection rate was 91% and was significantly lower in non-Asian versus Asian countries (81.2% vs 93%, respectively). Surgery was needed in 1.1% of the ESD-related adverse events, with a significant difference between non-Asian and Asian countries (3.1% vs 0.8%). The R0 and en bloc resection rates with the hybrid technique were significantly lower than those achieved with the standard technique: 60.6% and 68.4%, respectively, with similar adverse event rates.

CONCLUSIONS

In non-Asian countries the standard ESD technique is still failing to achieve acceptable levels of performance. The hybrid technique showed low R0 resection rates and should not be considered as an adequate alternative to the standard technique.

Lessons from imperfect endoscopic submucosal dissection of rectal tumor

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a standard endoscopic treatment for gastrointestinal tumors, but resections done in a piecemeal fashion are difficult to diagnose pathologically as curative resections, and the local recurrence rate is relatively high. Recently, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal tumors, which provides a higher complete resection rate than conventional EMR, has rapidly come into widespread use in Japan. However, colorectal ESD is still technically difficult and has complications such as perforation, and the procedure time is longer than that of conventional EMR. We report herein a case in which a rectal tumor was resected with an inappropriate specimen due to imperfect ESD. This lesion had severe fibrosis in the submucosal layer because the lesion had been injected with a solution for EMR in another hospital, which resulted in non-lifting signs, and had been subjected to many biopsies. During the ESD in our hospital, the submucosal layer was not clearly identified, and a small injury was caused in the specimen. A precise diagnosis based on histopathological findings could not be made because of the inappropriate specimen. Thus, expertise in both the diagnostic and the therapeutic aspects is required before treating large colorectal tumors.