Outcomes of repeat colonoscopy in patients with polyps referred for surgery without biopsy-proven cancer

Delays in definitive endoscopic resection of previously manipulated colorectal polyps as a risk factor for inferior resection outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Manipulation of colorectal polyps by biopsy, incomplete resection, or tattoo placement under the lesion has been shown to cause submucosal fibrosis and associated inferior outcomes. The effect of delays between index manipulation and definitive resection on the incidence of fibrosis is unknown.

METHODS

Patients undergoing EMR of previously manipulated colorectal polyps ≥10 mm from 2016 to 2021 at a tertiary referral center were included. Time from index manipulation to definitive resection and the presence of fibrosis were noted. The effects of fibrosis on EMR outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Among 221 previously manipulated lesions (180 biopsy, 23 incomplete/failed resection, 1 tattoo under lesion, 17 multiple types of manipulation), 51 (23%) demonstrated fibrosis. Fibrotic lesions were found to have been resected significantly later than nonfibrotic lesions (76 vs 61 days; P = .014). In a multivariate analysis controlling for other predictors of fibrosis, each 2-week delay was associated with a 14% increase in the odds of fibrosis. Fibrotic lesions had inferior outcomes with a lower en-bloc resection rate (8% vs 24%; P = .014) and longer procedure time (71 vs 52 minutes; P < .001). Adverse event and recurrence rates were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Delays in definitive resection of previously manipulated polyps are associated with an increased incidence of fibrosis with time and associated inferior outcomes. Manipulation should be discouraged, and if it occurs, prompt referral and scheduling for definitive resection should be prioritized.

How to avoid overtreatment of benign colorectal lesions: Rationale for an evidence-based management

Implementing population-based screening programs for colorectal cancer has led to an increase in the detection of large but benign histological lesions. Currently, endoscopic mucosal resection can be considered the standard technique for the removal of benign lesions of the colon due to its excellent safety profile and good clinical results. However, several studies from different geographic areas agree that many benign colon lesions are still referred for surgery. Moreover, the referral rate to surgery is not decreasing over the years, despite the theoretical improvement of endoscopic resection techniques. This article will review the leading causes for benign colorectal lesions to be referred for surgery and the influence of the endoscopist experience on the referral rate. It will also describe how to categorize a polyp as complex for resection and consider an endoscopist as an expert in endoscopic resection. And finally, we will propose a framework for the accurate and evidence-based treatment of complex benign colorectal lesions.

Impact of surgical versus endoscopic management of complex nonmalignant polyps in a colorectal cancer screening program

BACKGROUND

When complex nonmalignant polyps are detected in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs, patients may be referred directly to surgery or may first undergo additional endoscopy for attempted endoscopic removal by an expert. We compared the impact of both strategies on screening effectiveness and costs.

METHODS

We used MISCAN-Colon to simulate the Dutch screening program, and projected CRC deaths prevented, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and costs for two scenarios: 1) surgery for all complex nonmalignant polyps; 2) attempted removal by an expert endoscopist first. We made the following assumptions: 3.9 % of screen-detected large nonmalignant polyps were complex; associated surgery mortality was 0.7 %; the rate of successful removal by an expert was 87 %, with 0.11 % mortality.

RESULTS

The screening program was estimated to prevent 11.2 CRC cases (-16.7 %) and 10.1 CRC deaths (-27.1 %), resulting in 32.9 QALYs gained (+ 17.2 %) per 1000 simulated individuals over their lifetimes compared with no screening. The program would also result in 2.1 surgeries for complex nonmalignant polyps with 0.015 associated deaths per 1000 individuals. If, instead, these patients were referred to an expert endoscopist first, only 0.2 patients required surgery, reducing associated deaths by 0.013 at the expense of 0.003 extra colonoscopy deaths. Compared with direct referral to surgery, referral to an expert endoscopist gained 0.2 QALYs and saved €12 500 per 1000 individuals in the target population.

CONCLUSION

Referring patients with complex polyps to an expert endoscopist first reduced some surgery-related deaths while substantially improving cost-effectiveness of the screening program.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for removal of large colorectal neoplasias in an outpatient setting: a single-center series of 660 procedures in Sweden

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technique developed in Japan for the removal of large lesions in the GI tract. Because of the complexity of the technique, implementation in Western health care has been slow. An ESD procedure is usually followed by hospital admission. Our aim was to investigate if ESD of colorectal lesions can be performed in an outpatient setting.

METHODS

Six hundred sixty colorectal ESD procedures between 2014 and 2020 were evaluated retrospectively. All patients referred to the unit with an early colorectal neoplasm >20 mm without signs of deep invasion were considered eligible for an ESD procedure.

RESULTS

Of 660 lesions, 323 (48.9%) were localized in the proximal colon, 102 (15.5%) in the distal colon, and 235 (35.6%) in the rectum. Median lesion size was 38 mm (interquartile range, 30-50) and median procedure duration 70 minutes (interquartile range, 45-115). En-bloc resection was achieved in 620 cases (93.9%). R0 resection was achieved in 492 en-bloc resections (79.4%), whereas the number of Rx and R1 resections was 124 (20.0%) and 4 (.6%), respectively. Low-grade dysplasia was found in 473 cases (71.7%), high-grade dysplasia in 144 (21.8%), and adenocarcinoma in 34 (5.1%). Six hundred twelve procedures (92.7%) were scheduled as outpatient, and 33 of these underwent unplanned admission. Forty-eight cases (7.3%) were planned as inpatient procedures. The rate of full wall perforation was 38 (5.8%), in which 35 (92.1%) were managed endoscopically and 3 patients (7.9%) required emergency surgery. Forty-six patients (7.0%) sought medical attention within 30 days because of bleeding (21 [3.2%]), abdominal tenderness (16 [2.4%]), and other reasons (9 [1.4%]). Twenty-four of these patients were admitted for observation for a median of 2 days (range, 1-7). Ten of these patients were treated with antibiotics, and 6 patients required blood transfusion. None required additional surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD of colorectal lesions can be safely performed in an outpatient setting in a well-selected patient.

Setting up a regional expert panel for complex colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Advanced endoscopic resection techniques for complex colorectal polyps have evolved significantly over the past decade, leading to a management shift from surgical to endoscopic resection as the preferred treatment. However, in practice, interhospital consultation and appropriate referral management remain challenging, leading to unnecessary surgical resections. To support regional care for patients with complex colorectal polyps, facilitate peer consultations, and lower thresholds for referrals, an expert panel consultation platform was initiated in the northwestern region of the Netherlands.

METHODS

We initiated a regional expert panel in the northwestern region of the Netherlands for patients with complex colorectal polyps and studied the implementation, adaption, and clinical impact. All panel consultations between June 2019 and May 2021 were retrospectively analyzed, and user satisfaction among panel members was evaluated.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients with complex colorectal polyps from 11 of 15 participating centers (73.3%) were discussed in our panel. The most common reason for panel consultation was suspicion of invasive cancer in 36.4% (n = 32). After panel consultation, 43.2% of the consulting endoscopists (n = 38) changed their initial treatment strategy, and in 63.6% (n = 56) patients were referred to another endoscopy center. Of 26 cases submitted with a primary proposal for surgical treatment, surgery was avoided in 7 (26.9%). User satisfaction was rated high in most participating centers (91.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that implementation of and consultation with a regional expert panel can be a valuable tool for endoscopists to guide and optimize treatment of complex colorectal polyps and facilitate interhospital referrals in a regional network.

Declining Colectomy Rates for Nonmalignant Colorectal Polyps in a Large, Ethnically Diverse, Community-Based Population

INTRODUCTION

Despite studies showing improved safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic resection for nonmalignant colorectal polyps, colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps have been increasing in the United States and Europe. Given this alarming trend, we aimed to investigate whether colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps are increasing or declining in a large, integrated, community-based healthcare system with access to advanced endoscopic resection procedures.

METHODS

We identified all individuals aged 50-85 years who underwent a colonoscopy between 2008 and 2018 and were diagnosed with a nonmalignant colorectal polyp(s) at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California integrated healthcare system. Among these individuals, we identified those who underwent a colectomy for nonmalignant colorectal polyps within 12 months after the colonoscopy. We calculated annual colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps and stratified rates by age, sex, and race and ethnicity. Changes in rates over time were tested by the Cochran-Armitage test for a linear trend.

RESULTS

Among 229,730 patients who were diagnosed with nonmalignant colorectal polyps between 2008 and 2018, 1,611 patients underwent a colectomy. Colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps decreased significantly from 125 per 10,000 patients with nonmalignant polyps in 2008 to 12 per 10,000 patients with nonmalignant polyps in 2018 (P < 0.001 for trend). When stratified by age, sex, and race and ethnicity, colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps also significantly declined from 2008 to 2018.

DISCUSSION

In a large, ethnically diverse, community-based population in the United States, we found that colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps declined significantly over the past decade likely because of the establishment of advanced endoscopy centers, improved care coordination, and an organized colorectal cancer screening program.

Postoperative Hospital Outcomes of Elective Surgery for Nonmalignant Colorectal Polyps: Does the Burden Justify the Indication?

INTRODUCTION

Despite the increasing availability of advanced endoscopic resections and its favorable safety profile, surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps has continually increased. We sought to evaluate readmission rates and outcomes of elective surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps on a national level in the United States.

METHODS

The Nationwide Readmissions Database (2010-2014 [International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision] and 2016-2018 [International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision]) was used to identify all adult subjects (age ≥18 years) who underwent elective surgical resection of nonmalignant colorectal polyps. Multivariable analyses were performed for predictors of postoperative morbidity and 30-day readmission.

RESULTS

Elective surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps was performed in 108,468 subjects from 2010 to 2014 and in 54,956 subjects from 2016 to 2018, most of whom were laparoscopic. Postoperative morbidity and 30-day readmission rates were 20.5% and 8.5% from 2010 to 2014, and 13.0% and 7.6% from 2016 to 2018, respectively. Index admission mortality rates were 0.3-0.4%; mortality rates were higher in those with postoperative morbidity. Multivariable analyses revealed that male sex, ≥3 comorbidities, insurance status, and open surgery predicted an increased risk of both postoperative morbidity and 30-day readmission. In addition, postoperative morbidity (2010-2014 [odds ratio 1.58; 95% confidence interval 1.44-1.74] and 2016-2018 [odds ratio 1.55; 95% confidence interval 1.37-1.75]) predicted early readmission.

DISCUSSION

In this investigation of national practices, elective surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps remains common. There is considerable risk of adverse postoperative outcomes, which highlights the importance of increasing awareness of the range of endoscopic resections and referring subjects to expert endoscopy centers.

Indications and outcomes of endoscopic resection for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions: A narrative review

In the last years, endoscopic techniques gained a crucial role in the treatment of colorectal flat lesions. At the same time, the importance of a reliable assessment of such lesions to predict the malignancy and the depth of invasion of the colonic wall emerged. The current unsolved dilemma about the endoscopic excision techniques concerns the necessity of a reliable submucosal invasive cancer assessment system that can stratify the risk of the post-procedural need for surgery. Accordingly, this narrative literature review aims to compare the available diagnostic strategies in predicting malignancy and to give a guide about the best techniques to employ. We performed a literature search using electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library). We collected all articles about endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) registering the outcomes. Moreover, we analyzed all meta-analyses comparing EMR vs ESD outcomes for colorectal sessile or non-polypoid lesions of any size, preoperatively estimated as non-invasive. Seven meta-analysis studies, mainly Eastern, were included in the analysis comparing 124 studies and overall 22954 patients who underwent EMR and ESD procedures. Of these, eighty-two were retrospective, twenty-four perspective, nine case-control, and six cohorts, while three were randomized clinical trials. A total of 18118 EMR and 10379 ESD were completed for a whole of 28497 colorectal sessile or non-polypoid lesions > 5-10 mm in size. In conclusion, it is crucial to enhance the preoperative diagnostic workup, especially in deciding the most suitable endoscopic method for radical resection of flat colorectal lesions at risk of underlying malignancy. Additionally, the ESD necessitates further improvement because of the excessively time-consuming as well as the intraprocedural technical hindrances and related complications. We found a higher rate of en bloc resections and R0 for ESD than EMR for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions. Nevertheless, despite the lower local recurrence rates, ESD had greater perforation rates and needed lengthier procedural times. The prevailing risk for additional surgery in ESD rather than EMR for complications or oncologic reasons is still uncertain.

Overutilization of surgical resection for benign colorectal polyps: analysis from a tertiary care center

Background and study aims  Adequate removal of precancerous polyps is an independent factor in colorectal cancer prevention. Despite advances in polypectomy techniques, there is an increasing rate of surgery for benign polyps. We assessed whether surgical resection is properly utilized for benign colorectal polyps. Patients and methods  We identified 144 patients with surgical resection for benign colorectal polyps. Polyp location, size and the indication for and type of surgery were obtained. For the purposes of this analysis, we assumed that gastroenterologists should assess polyp size accurately, endoscopically resect polyps < 2 cm, and treat incompletely excised polyps on follow-up. Results  A total of 118 patients (82 %) were referred to surgery without attempted endoscopic removal. In 26 (22 %) of 118, the macroscopic polyp size was < 2 cm (23 in right, 3 in the left colon) and 18 (15 %; 14 in the right, four in the left colon) were found to have had size overestimation during endoscopy. Twenty-two (15 %) of 144 underwent surgical resection for incomplete endoscopic resection of adenomas (16 in the right, 6 in the left colon); 12 (54.5 %) had a residual polyp size of < 2 cm (10 in the right colon; 2 in the left colon). In-hospital mortality was 0.7 % and morbidity was 20.1 %. Conclusions  Of the patients, 41 % could have potentially avoided surgical intervention (37 polyps < 2 cm and/or size overestimations precluding endoscopic polypectomy and 22 incomplete resections). When including polyps with size ≥ 2 to < 4 cm, the percentage of patients with avoidable surgery reached 80 %. This confirms the need to develop standardized quality metrics for endoscopic polypectomies and for better overall training of endoscopists performing these procedures. Given the risks of surgery, referral to an experienced gastroenterologist should be considered as a first step.

Effect of implementing a regional referral network on surgical referral rate of benign polyps found during a colorectal cancer screening program: A population-based study

INTRODUCTION

Surgical management is too often performed as the first-line treatment for large, benign colorectal polyps. We report the management of benign lesions detected by organised colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

METHODS

Population-based study in 2012, 2016, and 2017, analyzing the evolution of surgical management of benign polyps of≥2cm diameter discovered in the context of organised CRC screening after the implementation of a regional referral network for the management of superficial colorectal lesions.

RESULTS

A total of 1571 patients underwent colonoscopy following a positive test during the study period, among which 981 colonoscopies yielded at least one lesion. The adenoma detection rate was lower in 2012 (Guaiac test) than in 2016 and 2017 (fecal immunochemical test) (40% vs. 60% vs. 57%, P<0.0001). The surgery rate for benign lesions decreased from 14.6% in 2012 to 7.7% in 2016 and 5% in 2017 (P=0.017). The risk factors for surgery for benign lesions were year 2012 (odds ratio [OR]=3.35, P=0.022), high-grade dysplasia (OR=2.49, P=0.04), in situ carcinoma (OR=5, P=0.003), size≥20mm (OR=17.39, P<0.0001), and private sector (OR=6.6, P=0.0002). The morbidity rate of surgery for benign polyp≥2cm was 20.4% at 1month and its cost was sixfold higher than that of endoscopy.

CONCLUSION

The establishment of a regional referral network for the management of large colorectal polyps reduces the rate of surgical management of such lesions.

Referrals for surgical removal of polyps since the introduction of a colorectal cancer screening programme

AIM

Implementation of the Dutch national bowel screening programme in 2014 led to an increased rate of detection of polyps. In general, polyps should be removed endoscopically. However, if the size and location of the polyp make endoscopic removal technically difficult, or if there is a suspicion for early (T1) cancer, surgery is the preferred method for removal. An increasing number of these patients are being treated with minimally invasive surgical procedures instead of segmental resection. The aim of this study was to assess the number of referrals for surgery and the type of surgery for polyps since the introduction of the Dutch national bowel screening programme.

METHOD

A retrospective cohort study was performed. Patients who underwent surgery for colorectal polyps between January 2012 and December 2017 were included. Patients with histologically proven carcinoma prior to surgery were excluded. Primary outcomes were the number and type of surgical procedures for polyps.

RESULTS

A total of 164 patients were included. An annual increase in procedures for colorectal polyps was observed, from 18 patients in 2012 to 36 patients in 2017. All the procedures before implementation of the screening programme were segmental resections, and 58.8% of the patients underwent organ-preserving surgery after implementation of the screening. The overall complication rate of organ-preserving surgery was 16.3%, compared with 44.3% for segmental resections (P = 0.001). Overall, invasive colorectal cancer was encountered in 23.8% of cases.

CONCLUSION

The number of referrals for surgical resection of colorectal polyps has doubled since the introduction of the Dutch national bowel screening programme with a substantial shift towards organ-preserving techniques.

Outcomes of Gastrointestinal Polyps Resected Using Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (UEMR) Compared to Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (CEMR)

Objective

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is reported to be superior to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CMER) for the complete resection of large polyps and may offer increased procedural efficiency.

Aims

To compare recurrence rates and adverse events between UEMR and CEMR and define risk factors related to recurrence. Also, to assess recurrence rates in piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) based on the number of pieces resected.

Methods

We identified all patients with large polyps treated using the UEMR technique at Carilion Clinic, Roanoke, VA, USA between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2017 with follow-up through October of 2018. We matched the UEMR patients with patients treated using the CEMR technique (1:2 matching, respectively). The Kaplan-Meier curve was used to estimate the cumulative risks of polyp recurrence. The Cox proportional hazard analysis was used to assess risk factors for developing polyp recurrence.

Results

Sixty-eight patients (mean age: 63.4 ± 12.5 years; 52.9% males) with polyps removed using the UEMR technique (Group 1) were matched with 122 patients (mean age: 64.4 ± 10.0 years; 51.6% males) who had polyps removed using CEMR (Group 2). Polyps resected in fewer pieces (≤ 3) had lower recurrence rates compared to the ones resected in >3 pieces. Right colon polyps removed using UEMR had a lower recurrence rate compared to right colon polyps resected using CEMR. Polyp size and a high degree of dysplasia were associated with a high risk of polyp recurrence after resection. Completing advanced endoscopy training was also associated with a lower risk of recurrence.

Conclusion

UEMR had a lower recurrence rate compared with CEMR for right colon polyps. Factors associated with recurrence included the degree of training, high-grade dysplasia, and polyp size.

Dissection-enabled scaffold-assisted resection (DeSCAR): a novel technique for resection of residual or non-lifting gastrointestinal neoplasia of the colon, expanded experience and follow-up

Background and study aims  Colonic lesions may not be amenable to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) due to previous manipulation, submucosal invasion, or lesion flatness. In 2018, we described Dissection-enabled Scaffold Assisted Resection (DeSCAR) to be safe for the endoscopic resection of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions 1 In this study, we expand our original cohort to describe our expanded experience with patients undergoing DeSCAR and assess the efficacy, safety, and feasibility of DeSCAR for endoscopic resection of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions. Patients and methods  We retrospectively reviewed 57 patients from 2015-2019 who underwent DeSCAR for colonic lesions with incomplete lifting and/or previous manipulation. Cases were reviewed for location, prior manipulation, rates of successful resection, adverse events, and endoscopic follow up to assess for residual lesions. Results  Fifty-seven lesions underwent DeSCAR. Of the patients, 51 % were female, and average patient age was 69 years. Lesions were located in the cecum (n = 16), right colon (n = 27), left colon (n = 10), and rectum (n = 4). Average lesion size was 27.7 mm. Previous manipulation occurred in 54 cases (72 % biopsy, 44 % resection attempt, 18 % intralesional tattoo). The technical success rate for resection of non-lifting lesions was 98 %. There were two delayed bleeding episodes (one required endoscopic intervention) and one small perforation (managed by endoscopic hemoclip closure). Endoscopic follow up was available in 31 patients (54 %) with no residual adenoma in 28 patients (90 % of those surveilled). Conclusions  Our expanded experience with DeSCAR demonstrates high safety, feasibility, and effectiveness for the endoscopic management of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions.

Can Advanced Endoscopic Imaging Help Us Avoid Surgery for Endoscopically Resectable Colorectal Neoplasms? A Proof-of-Concept Study

BACKGROUND

European guidelines recommend advanced endoscopic imaging (AEI) to guide therapeutic decisions; however, data are limited concerning its clinical effects on the management of colorectal polyps. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of standard chromoendoscopic imaging (SCI) and AEI on decision-making regarding therapeutic techniques.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected endoscopic and pathological data on colorectal neoplasms ≥ 10 mm removed at a Japanese tertiary cancer center between January 2010 and December 2016. We assumed a virtual approach to manage the decisions for endoscopic resection or surgery for each lesion using the following test modalities: (1) endoscopic size measurement (ESM), (2) SCI, and (3) AEI. Virtual surgical management was indicated using the following criteria: (1) ESM: lesion ≥ 40 mm, (2) SCI: depression, excavation, or ulceration, (3) AEI: Japan NBI Expert Team type 3 (magnifying NBI), V_I high-grade, or V_N (magnifying chromoendoscopy). We compared the incidence of hypothetical redundant surgery, defined as virtual surgical management for cases of dysplasia or superficial submucosal invasive cancers (SM-S).

RESULTS

A total of 3509 lesions from 2693 patients were analyzed, including 142 SM-S and 457 deep submucosal invasive cancer (SM-D). The incidence of hypothetical redundant surgery was 9.2% with ESM, 5.1% with SCI, and 2.9% with AEI. When compared with ESM, hypothetical redundant surgery was significantly reduced with SCI (relative risk 0.55; 95% confidence interval 0.44-0.69) and AEI (0.31; 0.23-0.41).

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic decision-making according to SCI or AEI can reduce surgery for endoscopically resectable colorectal neoplasms.

Endoscopic Step Up: A Colon-Sparing Alternative to Colectomy to Improve Outcomes and Reduce Costs for Patients With Advanced Neoplastic Polyps

BACKGROUND

The optimal strategy for colonic polyps not amenable to traditional endoscopic polypectomy is unknown. Endoscopic step up is a promising strategy for definitive treatment.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether endoscopic step up leads to improved outcomes and decreased costs compared with planned colectomy for endoscopically unresectable colon polyps.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective review of a prospective database.

SETTING

The study was conducted at a tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients referred for endoscopically unresectable colon polyps 15 to 50 mm in size were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients underwent planned colectomy or endoscopic step up at the surgeon's discretion. Endoscopic step up began with diagnostic colonoscopy in the operating room. If the polyp was amenable to endoscopic removal, endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection was performed with progression to combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery or laparoscopic colectomy, as indicated.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was 30-day adverse events. We also examined length of stay, hospital charges, insurer payments, and polyp recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 52 patients underwent planned colectomy (48 laparoscopic), and 38 underwent endoscopic step up (28 endoscopic mucosal resection, 2 endoscopic submucosal dissection, 6 combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery, and 2 colectomy). Compared with planned colectomy, endoscopic step-up patients had fewer complications (13% vs 33%; p = 0.03) and shorter length of stay (median, 0 vs 4 d; p < 0.001). There was 1 readmission in the endoscopic step-up group and 5 in the planned colectomy group. Endoscopic step-up patients had lower hospital costs ($4790 vs $13,004; p < 0.001) and insurer payments ($2431 vs $19,951; p < 0.001). One-year polyp recurrence-free survival was 84% (95% CI, 67%-93%) in endoscopic step-up patients. All of the recurrences were benign, <1 cm, and managed endoscopically.

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by its nonrandomized design and short follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

An endoscopic step-up approach to colon polyps is associated with less morbidity, decreased healthcare costs, and colon preservation in 95% of patients. Additional studies are needed to evaluate long-term quality of life and polyp recurrence in this group. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B188.

ENDOSCOPIC STEP UP

UNA ALTERNATIVA A COLECTOMíA PARA PRESERVACIóN DE COLON CON LOS PROPóSITOS DE MEJORAR RESULTADOS Y REDUCIR COSTOS EN PACIENTES CON PóLIPOS NEOPLáSICOS AVANZADOS: Se desconoce la estrategia óptima para los pólipos de colon no susceptibles a la polipectomia endoscópica tradicional. Endoscopic Step Up es una estrategia prometedora para el tratamiento definitivo.Determinar si Endoscopic Step Up produce mejores resultados y menores costos en comparación con la colectomía programada para pólipos de colon endoscópicamente no resecables.Revisión retrospectiva de una base de datos prospectiva.Centro de referencia de tercer nivel.Pacientes consecutivos remitidos para pólipos de colon endoscópicamente irresecables de tamaño 15-50 mm.Los pacientes se sometieron a colectomía programada o Endoscópico Step Up a discreción del cirujano. Endoscopic Step Up comenzó con una colonoscopia diagnóstica en el quirófano. Si el pólipo era susceptible de extirpación endoscópica, la resección endoscópica de la mucosa o la disección submucosa endoscópica se realizaba con progresión a cirugía endoscópica-laparoscópica combinada o colectomía laparoscópica, según a cosnideraciones clínicas en el transoperatorio.El resultado primario fue los eventos adversos a 30 días. Duración de la estadía hospitalaria, los cargos hospitalarios, los pagos de las aseguradoras y la recurrencia de pólipos también fueron examinados.Un total de 52 pacientes se sometieron a colectomía programada (48 laparoscópicas) y 38 se sometieron a Endoscopic Step Up (28 resección endoscópica de la mucosa, 2 disección submucosa endoscópica, 6 cirugía endoscópica-laparoscópica combinada y 2 colectomía). En comparación con la colectomía programada los pacientes endoscópicos Step Up tuvieron menos complicaciones (13% versus 33%, p = 0.03) y una estadía hospitalaria más corta (mediana 0 versus 4 días, p <0.001). Hubo 1 reingreso hospitalario en el grupo Endoscopic Step Up y 5 en el grupo de colectomía programada. Los pacientes endoscópicos Step Up tuvieron costos hospitalarios más bajos ($ 4,790 versus $ 13,004, p <0,001) y pagos de la aseguradora ($ 2,431 versus $ 19,951, p <0,001). La supervivencia libre de recurrencia de pólipos a un año fue del 84% (IC 95% 67-93) en pacientes endoscópicos Step Up. Todas las recurrencias fueron benignas, <1 cm, y manejadas endoscópicamente.Diseño no aleatorizado y seguimiento corto.El abordaje endoscópico Step Up para pólipos de colon se asocia con menos morbilidad, disminución de los costos de atención médica y preservación del colon en el 95% de los pacientes. Se ocupan más estudios para evaluar la calidad de vida a largo plazo y la recurrencia de pólipos en este grupo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B188. (Traducción-Dr Adrián Ortega Robles).

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.

Validation of the size morphology site access score in endoscopic mucosal resection of large polyps in a district general hospital

BACKGROUND

Polyp assessment is multimodal and is vital prior to endoscopic mucosal resection. The size, morphology, site and access (SMSA) score has been validated in specialist endoscopic institutions. this study investigated the ability of this score to predict incomplete endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps in a district general hospital.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection of large (≥ 20 mm) colorectal polyps at Worthing Hospital. Clinical, endoscopic and histological data were taken from prospective databases. The primary outcome of the study was to investigate the correlation of the SMSA score with incomplete endoscopic resection.

RESULTS

Between February 2015 and August 2018, 114 patients underwent colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection. Of these, 67 (59%) were male. The median (interquartile range) age of the study population was 72 years (65-78 years). Some 17 lesions (15%) were pedunculated, 76 (67%) were sessile and 21 were (18%) flat; 84 polyps (77%) were located in the left colon/rectum, with the remainder in the right colon; 51 lesions (45%) were 20-30 mm, 27 (24%) were 30-40 mm and 36 (31%) were greater than 40 mm in diameter. When reclassified into the SMSA score, 9 of the polyps (8%) were level 2, 64 (56%) were level 3 and 41 (36%) were level 4. Incomplete resection was clinically diagnosed in 9/114 (8%). The SMSA score was positively correlated with incomplete endoscopic resection, but not with additional procedure usage, complications or advanced histology.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients with large polyps can be managed outside of specialist units. This study has validated that the SMSA score was associated with incomplete endoscopic mucosal resection for large polyps in a district general hospital setting.

Morbidity and Mortality After Surgery for Nonmalignant Colorectal Polyps: A 10-Year Nationwide Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Rates of surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps are increasing in the United States despite evidence that most polyps can be managed endoscopically. We aimed to determine nationally representative estimates and to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality and morbidity after surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps.

METHODS

Data were analyzed from the National Inpatient Sample for 2005-2014. All discharges for adult patients undergoing surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps were identified. Rates of in-hospital mortality and postoperative wound, infectious, urinary, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, or cardiovascular adverse events were calculated. Multivariable logistic regression using survey-weighted data was used to evaluate covariables associated with postoperative mortality and morbidity.

RESULTS

An estimated 262,843 surgeries for nonmalignant colorectal polyps were analyzed. In-hospital mortality was 0.8% [95% confidence interval: 0.7%-0.9%] and morbidity was 25.3% [95% confidence interval: 24.2%-26.4%]. Postoperative mortality was associated with open surgical technique (vs laparoscopic), older age, black race (vs non-Hispanic white), Medicaid use, and burden of comorbidities. Female sex and private insurance were associated with lower risk. Patients developing a postoperative adverse event had a 106% increase in mean hospital length of stay (10.3 vs 5.0 days; P < 0.0001) and 91% increase in mean hospitalization cost ($77,015.24 vs $40,258.30; P < 0.0001).

DISCUSSION

Surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps is associated with almost 1% mortality and common morbidity. These findings should inform risk vs benefit discussions for clinicians and patients, and although confounding by patient selection cannot be excluded, the risks associated with surgery support consideration of endoscopic resection as a potentially less invasive therapeutic option.

Multicentre study of surgical referral and outcomes of patients with benign colorectal lesions

Background

A multicentre cohort study was performed to analyse the motivations for surgical referral of patients with benign colorectal lesions, and to evaluate the endoscopic and pathological characteristics of these lesions as well as short‐term surgical outcomes.

Methods

Patients who underwent surgery for a benign colorectal lesion in 15 Dutch hospitals between January 2014 and December 2017 were selected from the pathology registry. Lesions were defined as complex when at least one of the following features was present: size at least 40 mm, difficult location according to the endoscopist, previous failed attempt at resection, or non‐lifting sign.

Results

A total of 358 patients were included (322 colonic and 36 rectal lesions). The main reasons for surgical referral of lesions in the colon and rectum were large size (33·5 and 47 per cent respectively) and suspicion of invasive growth (31·1 and 58 per cent). Benign lesions could be categorized as complex in 80·6 per cent for colonic and 80 per cent for rectal locations. Surgery consisted of local excision in 5·9 and 64 per cent of colonic and rectal lesions respectively, and complicated postoperative course rates were noted in 11·2 and 3 per cent. In the majority of patients, no attempt was made to resect the lesion endoscopically (77·0 per cent of colonic and 83 per cent of rectal lesions).

Conclusion

The vast majority of the benign lesions referred for surgical resection could be classified as complex. Considering the substantial morbidity of surgery for benign colonic lesions, reassessment for endoscopic resection by another advanced endoscopy centre seems to be underused and should be encouraged.

Quality of endoscopy reporting at index colonoscopy significantly impacts outcome of subsequent EMR in patients with > 20 mm colon polyps

Background and study aims  Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is safe and cost-effective in management of patients with colon polyps. However, very little is known about the actions of the referring endoscopist following identification of these lesions at index colonoscopy, and the impact of those actions on the outcome of subsequent referral for EMR. The aim of this study was to identify practices at index colonoscopy that lead to failure of subsequent EMR. Patients and methods  Two hundred and eighty-nine consecutive patients with biopsy-proven non-malignant colon polyps (> 20 mm) referred for EMR were analyzed to identify practices that could be improved from the time of identifying the lesion at index colonoscopy until completion of therapy. Results  EMR was abandoned at colonoscopy at the EMR center in 71 of 289 patients (24.6 %). Reasons for abandoning EMR included diagnosis of invasive carcinoma (n = 9; 12.7 %), tethered lesions (n = 21; 29.6 %) from prior endoscopic interventions, and overly large (n = 22; 31 %) and inaccessible lesions (n = 17; 24 %) for complete and safe resection whose details were not recorded in the referring endoscopy report, or polyposis syndromes (n = 2; 2.8 %) that were not recognized. Conclusions  In our practice, one in four EMR attempts were abandoned as a result of inadequate diagnosis or management by the referring endoscopist, which could be improved by education on optical diagnosis of polyps, comprehensive documentation of the procedure and avoidance of interventions that preclude resection.

Variations in the management of significant polyps and early colorectal cancer: results from a multicentre observational study of 383 patients

AIM

The concept of significant polyps and early colorectal cancer (SPECC) encompasses complex polyps not amenable to routine snare polypectomy or where malignancy cannot be excluded. Surgical resection (SR) offers definitive treatment, but is overtreatment for the majority which are benign and amenable to less invasive endoscopic resection (ER). The aim of this study was to investigate variations in the management and outcomes of significant colorectal polyps.

METHOD

This was a retrospective observational study of significant colorectal polyps, defined as nonpedunculated lesions of ≥ 20 mm size, diagnosed across nine UK hospitals in 2014. Inclusion criteria were endoscopically or histologically benign polyps at biopsy.

RESULTS

A total of 383 patients were treated by primary ER (87.2%) or SR (12.8%). Overall, 108/383 (28%) polyps were detected in the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). Primary SR was associated with a significantly longer length of stay and major complications (P < 0.01). Of the ER polyps, 290/334 (86.8%) patients were treated without undergoing surgery. The commonest indication for secondary surgery was unexpected polyp cancer, and of these cases 60% had no residual cancer in the specimen. Incidence of unexpected cancer was 10.7% (n = 41) and was similar between ER and SR groups (P = 0.11). On multivariate analysis, a polyp size of > 30 mm and non-BCSP status were independent risk factors for primary SR [OR 2.51 (95% CI 1.08-5.82), P = 0.03].

CONCLUSION

ER is safe and feasible for treating significant colorectal polyps. Robust accreditation within the BCSP has led to improvements in management, with lower rates of SR compared with non-BCSP patients. Standardization, training in polyp assessment and treatment within a multidisciplinary team may help to select appropriate treatment strategies and improve outcomes.

Dissection-enabled scaffold-assisted resection (DeSCAR): a novel technique for resection of residual or non-lifting GI neoplasia of the colon (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

As a result of previous manipulation or submucosal invasion, GI lesions referred for EMR frequently have flat areas of visible tissue that cannot be snared. Current methods for treating residual tissue may lead to incomplete eradication or not allow complete tissue sampling for histologic evaluation. Our aim is to describe dissection-enabled scaffold-assisted resection (DeSCAR), a new technique combining circumferential ESD with EMR for removal of superficial non-lifting or residual "islands" with suspected submucosal involvement/fibrosis.

METHODS

From 2015 to 2017, lesions referred for EMR were retrospectively reviewed. Cases were identified where lifting and/or snaring of the lesion was incomplete and the DeSCAR technique was undertaken. Cases were reviewed for location, previous manipulation, rates of successful hybrid resection, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine lesions underwent DeSCAR because of non-lifting or residual "islands" of tissue. Fifty-two percent of the patients were male and 48% were female; average age was 66 years (standard deviation ±9.9 years). Lesions were located in the cecum (n = 10), right side of the colon (n = 12), left side of the colon (n = 4), and rectum (n = 3). Average size was 31 mm (standard deviation ±20.6 mm). Previous manipulation had occurred in 28 of 29 cases (83% biopsy, 34% resection attempt, 52% tattoo). The technical success rate for resection of non-lifting lesions was 100%. There was one episode of delayed bleeding but no other adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

DeSCAR is a feasible and safe alternative to argon plasma coagulation and avulsion for the endoscopic management of non-lifting or residual GI lesions, providing en bloc resection of tissue for histologic review. Further studies are needed to demonstrate long-term eradication and for comparison with other methods.

Volume of surgery for benign colorectal polyps in the last 11 years

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Traditionally large, complex colorectal polyps were managed by surgical resection (SR), and in recent years endoscopic resection (ER) has progressed significantly. However, to what extent ER has replaced SR remains largely unknown. We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study to assess the volume and volume changes of SR for benign colorectal polyps over the past decade.

METHODS

Patients who underwent SR for a benign colorectal polyp in the Netherlands between 2005 and 2015 were selected from the prospective nationwide Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA database). Clinical characteristics were obtained from the charts of patients who underwent SR in the province of Noord-Holland.

RESULTS

A total of 5937 patients were treated with SR for a colorectal polyp and the absolute (454-739 per year) and relative volumes (0.20%-0.37% per colonoscopy per year) of SR remained stable. In the province of Noord-Holland, 928 patients (15.6%) underwent SR. In these patients, submucosal lifting and ER were attempted in 19.9% (n = 175) and 15.0% (n = 134). After 2010, patients were more likely to undergo lifting (27.7% vs 11.4%, P < .001) and ER attempts (18.8% vs 10.9%, P = .001) before definitive SR. Twenty-two patients (2.4%) had been referred to another endoscopy clinic.

CONCLUSIONS

SR for large, complex colorectal polyps is still frequently performed and has remained stable. A small percentage of patients underwent ER attempts before SR, and referral for an additional ER attempt only occurred in a minority of cases. To increase ER attempts, implementation of a regional multidisciplinary referral network should be considered.

Extent of unnecessary surgery for benign rectal polyps in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Minimally invasive techniques are available to safely and efficaciously remove even the largest rectal polyps. This study aimed to investigate the magnitude of cases still referred for radical rectal surgery and the reasons for these referrals and to perform a re-evaluation of cases potentially suitable for endoscopic therapy.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data from the Dutch Pathology Registry (Pathologic Anatomic Nationwide Automated Archive) was performed using the records of patients who underwent major surgical treatment for a histologically proven benign rectal polyp between 2005 and 2014 in the Netherlands. In a representative subset of 7 hospitals, detailed analysis was performed. An expert panel of 3 endoscopists reassessed all patient data to judge whether endoscopic treatment would have been a reasonable alternative.

RESULTS

In the last decade 575 patients, and 56 patients in the subset of hospitals, were referred for major rectal surgery for a benign rectal polyp in the Netherlands. The number of radical resections declined over the years but stabilized in the last years. The main reasons for surgery were polyp size (34%), suspicion of malignancy (34%), and transanal endoscopic microsurgery failures (20%). In community hospitals, referrals for surgery were relatively more prevalent compared with academic hospitals (P < .01). Thirty-nine percent of patients had perioperative adverse events, and 1 patient (1.8%) died. Seventy-three percent of cases were assessed as "probably feasible" for endoscopic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the last 10 years the rate of radical rectal surgery for a benign polyp declined. However, a significant subgroup of patients was still referred for invasive surgery at the cost of high morbidity and mortality. Referral to an expert endoscopist may avoid unnecessary surgery in most cases.

Morbidity and mortality after surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Despite evidence that most nonmalignant colorectal polyps can be managed endoscopically, a substantial proportion of patients with a nonmalignant colorectal polyp are still sent to surgery. Risks associated with this surgery are not well characterized. We describe 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality and explore risk factors for adverse events in patients undergoing surgical resection for nonmalignant colorectal polyps.

METHODS

We analyzed data collected prospectively as part of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Our analysis included 12,732 patients who underwent elective surgery for a nonmalignant colorectal polyp from 2011 through 2014. We report adverse events within 30 days of the index surgery. Modified Poisson regression was used to estimate risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality was .7%. The risk of a major postoperative adverse event was 14%. Within 30 days of resection, 7.8% of patients were readmitted and 3.6% of patients had a second major surgery. The index surgery resulted in a colostomy in 1.8% and ileostomy in .4% of patients. Patients who had surgical resection of a nonmalignant polyp in the rectum or anal canal compared with the colon had a risk ratio of 1.58 (95% confidence interval, 1.09-2.28) for surgical site infection and 6.51 (95% confidence interval, 4.97-8.52) for ostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery for a nonmalignant colorectal polyp is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. A better understanding of the risks and benefits associated with surgical management of nonmalignant colorectal polyps will better inform discussions regarding the relative merits of management strategies.

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection is associated with fewer recurrences and earlier curative resections compared to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND

Studies comparing the efficacy and safety of conventional saline-assisted piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to underwater EMR (UEMR) without submucosal lifting of colorectal polyps are lacking. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of EMR to UEMR of large colorectal polyps.

METHODS

Two hundred eighty-nine colorectal polyps were removed by a single endoscopist from 7/2007 to 2/2015 using EMR or UEMR. 135 polyps (EMR: 62, UEMR: 73) that measured ≥15 mm and had not undergone prior attempted polypectomy were evaluated for rates of complete macroscopic resection and adverse events. 101 of these polyps (EMR: 46, UEMR: 55) had at least 1 follow-up colonoscopy and were studied for rates of recurrence and the number of procedures required to achieve curative resection.

RESULTS

The rate of complete macroscopic resection was higher following UEMR compared to EMR (98.6 vs. 87.1%, p = 0.012). UEMR had a lower recurrence rate at the first follow-up colonoscopy compared to EMR (7.3 vs. 28.3%, OR 5.0 for post-EMR recurrence, 95% CI: [1.5, 16.5], p = 0.008). UEMR required fewer procedures to reach curative resection than EMR (mean of 1.0 vs. 1.3, p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in rates of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

UEMR appears superior to EMR for the removal of large colorectal polyps in terms of rates of complete macroscopic resection and recurrent (or residual) abnormal tissue. Compared to conventional EMR, UEMR may offer increased procedural effectiveness without compromising safety in the removal of large colorectal polyps without prior attempted resection.

Optimizing Resection of Large Colorectal Polyps

OPINION STATEMENT

Polypectomy reduces the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC). The widespread adoption of CRC screening, more rigorous colonoscopy techniques, and advancements in endoscopic imaging have led to a greater awareness of complex polyps. Whereas surgery was once considered necessary for many large sessile or laterally spreading lesions (LSLs) in the colorectum, the majority can now be removed endoscopically. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an established technique for treatment of colorectal LSLs. When performed by experts, EMR is highly effective and safe and can be completed in an outpatient or day-stay setting. Advancements in EMR effectiveness encompass a better understanding of the factors leading to post-EMR recurrence, protocols to recognize and treat it, and interventions that prevent recurrent or residual adenoma. New techniques for treating intra-procedural bleeding and a novel classification system to identify and inform proactive management of deep mural injury enhance the safety profile of EMR. However, each of these incremental advancements necessitates a meticulous and systematic approach that only committed and properly trained endoscopists can master. While alternative interventions such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) offer potential advantages over EMR, the added procedural complexity, risks, and costs limit the relevance of ESD to a minority of lesions in the colorectum. This article reviews the expanding body of evidence supporting EMR as the first-line treatment of colorectal LSLs ≥20 mm.

The potential impact of local excision for T1 colonic cancer in elderly and comorbid populations: a decision analysis

BACKGROUND

Population-based bowel cancer screening has resulted in increasing numbers of patients with T1 colonic cancer. The need for colectomy in this group is questioned due to the low risk of lymphatic spread and increased treatment morbidity, particularly for elderly, comorbid patients. This study examined the quality-of-life benefits and risks of endoscopic resection compared with results after colectomy, for low-risk and high-risk T1 colonic cancer.

METHODS

Decision analysis using a Markov simulation model was performed; patients were managed with either endoscopic resection (advanced therapeutic endoscopy) or colectomy. Lesions were considered high risk according to accepted national guidelines. Probabilities and utilities (perception of quality of life) were derived from published data. Hypothetical cohorts of 65- and 80-year-old, fit and unfit patients with low-risk or high-risk T1 colonic cancer were studied. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE) in life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

In low-risk T1 colonic neoplasia, endoscopic resection increases QALE by 0.09 QALYS for fit 65-year-olds and by 0.67 for unfit 80-year-olds. For high-risk T1 cancers, the QALE benefit for surgical resection is 0.24 QALYs for fit 65-year-olds and the endoscopic QALE benefit is 0.47 for unfit 80-year-olds. The model findings only favored surgery with high local recurrence rates and when quality of life under surveillance was perceived poorly.

CONCLUSIONS

Under broad assumptions, endoscopic resection is a reasonable treatment option for both low-risk and high-risk T1 colonic cancer, particularly in elderly, comorbid patients. Exploration of methods to facilitate endoscopic resection of T1 colonic neoplasia appears warranted.

Expert opinions and scientific evidence for colonoscopy key performance indicators

Colonoscopy is a widely performed procedure with procedural volumes increasing annually throughout the world. Many procedures are now performed as part of colorectal cancer screening programmes. Colonoscopy should be of high quality and measures of this quality should be evidence based. New UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards have been developed by a working group with consensus agreement on each standard reached. This paper reviews the scientific basis for each of the quality measures published in the UK standards.

Avulsion is superior to argon plasma coagulation for treatment of visible residual neoplasia during EMR of colorectal polyps (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EMR is used widely for treatment of nonpedunculated colorectal adenomas ≥ 2 cm. Recurrence at the resection site occurs in 10% to 30% of cases.

METHODS

Records of consecutive patients referred for endoscopic resection over a 4-year period were reviewed retrospectively. In the first part of the study period, our routine practice was to use argon plasma coagulation (APC) to treat all visible residual neoplasia after exhaustive attempts at snare resection during EMR. In the second part of the study period, we changed our practice to use avulsion to treat all visible residual neoplasia after exhaustive attempts at snare resection during EMR. We analyzed the effect of this change in practice on recurrence rates after EMR.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-three resected lesions were analyzed. Fifty-nine (26%) were treated with en-bloc EMR, 55 (25%) by piecemeal EMR with complete snare removal of all visible neoplasia, 63 (28%) by piecemeal EMR with APC of visible residual neoplasia, and 46 (21%) by piecemeal EMR with avulsion of visible residual neoplasia. There was no significant difference in adverse event rates among the 4 groups. The recurrence rates on follow-up colonoscopy were 4.2%, 3.0%, 59.3%, and 10.3%, respectively. The recurrence rate for patients treated with avulsion was significantly lower than for those treated with APC (odds ratio, .079; P < .001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that use of avulsion instead of APC was a significant predictor of no recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

After exhaustive attempts at snare resection during EMR, avulsion is superior to APC for treatment of residual visible neoplasia. Compared with APC, avulsion significantly decreases the recurrence rate without significantly increasing the risk of the procedure.

Adverse events after surgery for nonmalignant colon polyps are common and associated with increased length of stay and costs

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic resection (ER) is a safe and effective treatment for nonmalignant complex colorectal polyps (complex polyps). Surgical resection (SR) remains prevalent despite limited outcomes data. We aimed to evaluate SR outcomes for complex polyps and compare SR outcomes to those of ER.

METHODS

We performed a single-center, retrospective, cohort study of all patients undergoing SR (2003-2013) and ER (2011-2013) for complex polyps. We excluded patients with invasive carcinoma from the SR cohort. Primary outcomes were 12-month adverse event (AE) rate, length of stay (LOS), and costs. SR outcomes over a 3-year period (2011-2013) were compared with the overlapping ER cohort.

RESULTS

Over the 11-year period, 359 patients (mean [± SD] age 64 ± 11 years) underwent SR (58% laparoscopic) for complex polyps. In total, 17% experienced an AE, and 3% required additional surgery; 12-month mortality was 1%. Including readmissions, median LOS was 5 days (IQR 4-7 days), and costs were $14,528. When an AE occurred, costs ($25,557 vs $14,029; P < .0001) and LOS (11 vs 5 days; P < .0001) significantly increased. From 2011 to 2013, 198 patients were referred for ER, and 73 underwent primary SR (70% laparoscopic). There was a lower AE rate for ER versus primary SR (10% vs 18%; P = .09). ER costs (including rescue SR, when required) were lower than those of primary SR ($2152 vs $15,264; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

AEs occur in approximately one-sixth of patients after SR for complex polyps. ER-accounting for rescue SR caused by malignancy, AEs, or incomplete resection-is associated with markedly lower costs than SR. These data should be used when counseling patients about treatment options for complex polyps.

Endoscopic resection is cost-effective compared with laparoscopic resection in the management of complex colon polyps: an economic analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic resection (ER) is an efficacious treatment for complex colon polyps (CCPs). Many patients are referred for surgical resection because of concerns over procedural safety, incomplete polyp resection, and adenoma recurrence after ER. Efficacy data for both resection strategies are widely available, but a paucity of data exist on the cost-effectiveness of each modality. The aim of this study was to perform an economic analysis comparing ER and laparoscopic resection (LR) strategies in patients with CCP.

METHODS

A decision analysis tree was constructed using decision analysis software. The 2 strategies (ER vs LR) were evaluated in a hypothetical cohort of patients with CCPs. A hybrid Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was used. Patients entered the model after colonoscopic diagnosis at age 50. Under Strategy I, patients underwent ER followed by surveillance colonoscopy at 3 to 6 months and 12 months. Patients with failed ER and residual adenoma at 12 months were referred for LR. Under Strategy II, patients underwent LR as primary treatment. Patients with invasive cancer were excluded. Estimates regarding ER performance characteristics were obtained from a systematic review of published literature. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2012-2013) and the 2012 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project databases were used to determine the costs and loss of utility. We assumed that all procedures were performed with anesthesia support, and patients with adverse events in both strategies required inpatient hospitalization. Baseline estimates and costs were varied by using a sensitivity analysis through the ranges.

RESULTS

LR was found to be more costly and yielded fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with ER. The cost of ER of a CCP was $5570 per patient and yielded 9.640 QALYs. LR of a CCP cost $18,717 per patient and yielded fewer QALYs (9.577). For LR to be more cost-effective, the thresholds of 1-way sensitivity analyses were (1) technical success of ER for complete resection in <75.8% of cases, (2) adverse event rates for ER > 12%, and (3) LR cost of <$14,000.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that ER is a cost-effective strategy for removal of CCPs. The effectiveness is driven by high technical success and low adverse event rates associated with ER, in addition to the increased cost of LR.

Hybrid Laparoendoscopic Approaches to Endoscopically Unresectable Colon Polyps

Secondary prevention of colorectal cancer relies on effective screening through colonoscopy and polypectomy. Resection of some polyps can present technical challenges particularly when polyps are large, flat, or behind colonic folds. Laparoscopy as an adjunct to endoscopy can aid in removing difficult colonic polyps without subjecting patients to radical segmental colectomy. Hybrid laparoendoscopic techniques are increasingly reported in literature as alternatives to segmental colectomy for the treatment of polyps that have a high likelihood of being benign. Laparoscopic-assisted colonoscopic polypectomy is the most frequently utilized technique; it harnesses the power of laparoscopy to aid endoscopic polypectomy by flattening folds, mobilizing flexures, and providing retraction. Colonoscopy-assisted laparoscopic wedge and transluminal resection are often reported in older studies and use the visualization provided by intraoperative colonoscopy to guide colonic resection that is limited to the area of the polyp. Laparoscopic-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a relatively recent technique that provides laparoscopic monitoring of EFTR of polyp as well as endoscopic closure of the ensuing defect. Minimally invasive segmental colectomy based on oncologic principles should be utilized when none of the previous techniques are suitable or when malignancy is strongly suspected. The combined use of laparoscopy and endoscopy can expand the endoscopist's armamentarium when dealing with the most challenging polyps, while serving the patients' best interest by limiting the extent of colon resection.

British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctologists of Great Britain and Ireland guidelines for the management of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps

These guidelines provide an evidence-based framework for the management of patients with large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs), in addition to identifying key performance indicators (KPIs) that permit the audit of quality outcomes. These are areas not previously covered by British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Guidelines.A National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant BSG guideline development process was used throughout and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to structure the guideline development process. A systematic review of literature was conducted for English language articles up to May 2014 concerning the assessment and management of LNPCPs. Quality of evaluated studies was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) Methodology Checklist System. Proposed recommendation statements were evaluated by each member of the Guideline Development Group (GDG) on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) with >80% agreement required for consensus to be reached. Where consensus was not reached a modified Delphi process was used to re-evaluate and modify proposed statements until consensus was reached or the statement discarded. A round table meeting was subsequently held to finalise recommendations and to evaluate the strength of evidence discussed. The GRADE tool was used to assess the strength of evidence and strength of recommendation for finalised statements.KPIs, a training framework and potential research questions for the management of LNPCPs were also developed. It is hoped that these guidelines will improve the assessment and management of LNPCPs.

Endoscopic resection of tumors in the lower digestive tract

As endoscopic technology has developed and matured, the endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal tract polyps has become a widely used treatment. Colorectal polyps are the most common type of polyp, which are best managed by early resection before the polyp undergoes malignant transformation. Methods for treating colorectal tumors are numerous, including argon plasma coagulation, endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and laparoscopic-endoscopic cooperative surgery. In this review, we will highlight several currently used clinical endoscopic resection methods and how they are selected based on the characteristics of the targeted tumor. Specifically, we will focus on laparoscopic-endoscopic cooperative surgery.

Knife-assisted snare resection (KAR) of large and refractory colonic polyps at a Western centre: Feasibility, safety and efficacy study to guide future practice

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is widely practiced in western countries. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is very effective for treating complex polyps but colonic ESD in the western setting remains challenging. We have developed a novel technique of knife-assisted snare resection (KAR) for the resection of these complex lesions. Here we aim to describe the technique, evaluate its outcomes, identify outcome predictors and define its learning curve.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients who had large and refractory polyps resected by KAR at our institution from 2007 to 2013. Polyp characteristics and procedure details were recorded. Endoscopic follow-up was performed to identify recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 170 patients with polyps 20-170 mm in size were treated by KAR and followed up for a mean of 31.5 months (range 12-84 months). 29% of the polyps were >50 mm, 22% had fibrosis from previous unsuccessful interventions and 25% were in the right colon. The perforation rate (1.2%) and bleeding rate (4.7%) were acceptable and managed conservatively in most patients. Recurrence rate after the first attempt was 13.1%. Recurrence was significantly increased by polyp size >50 mm (p = 0.008; OR 5.03, 95% CI 1.54-16.48), presence of fibrosis (p = 0.002; OR 6.59, 95% CI 1.97-22.07) and piecemeal resection (p < 0.001; OR 0.31, CI 0.078-1.12). Cure rates were 87% after the first attempt, improving to 95.6% with further attempts. En bloc resection rate showed a linear increase and reached almost 80% as the endoscopist's cumulative experience approached 100 cases.

CONCLUSION

This is the largest reported Western series on KAR in the colon. We have demonstrated the feasibility, efficacy and safety of this technique in the treatment of complex polyps, with or without fibrosis and at all sites. KAR has shown better outcomes than either EMR or ESD. We have also managed to identify significant outcome predictors and define the learning curve.

For “difficult” benign colorectal lesions referred to surgical resection a second opinion by an experienced endoscopist is mandatory: A single centre experience

AIM: To assess how many patients with benign “difficult” colorectal lesions (DCRLs) referred to surgical resection, may be treated with endoscopic resection (ER) rather than surgical resection.

METHODS: The prospectively collected colonoscopy database of our Endoscopic Unit was reviewed to identify all consecutive patients who, between July 2011 and August 2013, underwent an endoscopic re-evaluation before surgical resection due to the presence of DCRLs with a histological confirmation of benignancy on forceps biopsy. ER was attempted when the lesion did not have definite features of deeply invasive cancer. The “nonlifting sign” excluded ER only in naive lesions without a prior attempted resection. Lesions were classified, using the Kyoto-Paris classification for mucosal neoplasia. For sessile and non-polypoid lesions the “inject and cut” resection technique was used. Pedunculated and semi-pedunculated lesions were transected at the stalk just below the polyps head and before or after resection, metal clips or a loop were applied on the stalk to prevent bleeding. The lesions were histologically classified according to the Vienna criteria and for the pedunculated lesions the Haggitt classification was used.

RESULTS: Eighty-two patients (42 females, mean age 62 years) with 82 lesions (mean size 37 mm) were included in the study. Sixty-nine (84%) lesions were endoscopically resected, while 13 underwent surgical resection since ER was deemed unsuitable. On histology, cancer was found in 21/69 lesions (14 intra-mucosal, 7 sub-mucosal) and was associated with the size (P < 0.001) and with type 0-IIa +Is (P = 0.011) and 0-IIa + IIc (P < 0.001) lesions. All patients with sub-mucosal cancer, underwent surgical resection. Complications occurred in 11/69 patients (7 bleedings, 2 transmural burn syndromes, 2 perforations), all managed endoscopically or conservatively, and were associated with presence of invasive cancer (P = 0.021). During follow-up recurrence/residual tissue was found in 14/51 sessile or non-polypoid lesions (13 treated endoscopically, 1 underwent surgical resection) and was associated with type 0-IIa + Is lesions (P = 0.001), piecemeal resections (P = 0.01) and with lesion size (P = 0.004). Overall, 74% of patients avoided surgery. Surgical resection was significantly associated with type 0-IIa + Is (P = 0.01) and 0-IIa + IIc (P = 0.001) lesions, with sub-mucosal invasion on histology (P < 0.001), with presence of the “nonlifting sign” (P < 0.001), and related to the dimension of the lesions (P = 0.001). In the logistic regression analysis, the only independent predictor for surgical resection was the dimension of the lesions (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION: Before submitting patients to surgical resection for a benign DCRL, a second opinion by an experienced endoscopist is mandatory to avoid unnecessary surgery.

Endoscopic and surgical treatment of malignant colorectal polyps: a population-based comparative study

BACKGROUND

Long-term population-based data comparing endoscopic therapy (ET) and surgery for management of malignant colorectal polyps (MCPs) are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To compare colorectal cancer (CRC)-specific survival with ET and surgery.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Population-based study.

PATIENTS

Patients with stage 0 and stage 1 MCPs were identified from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (1998-2009). Demographic characteristics, tumor size, location, treatment modality, and survival were compared. Propensity-score matching and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate the association between treatment and CRC-specific survival.

INTERVENTIONS

ET and surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Mid-term (2.5 years) and long-term (5 years) CRC-free survival rates and independent predictors of CRC-specific mortality.

RESULTS

Of 10,403 patients with MCPs, 2688 (26%) underwent ET and 7715 (74%) underwent surgery. Patients undergoing ET were more likely to be older white men with stage 0 disease. Surgical patients had more right-sided lesions, larger MCPs, and stage 1 disease. There was no difference in the 2.5-year and 5-year CRC-free survival rates between the 2 groups in stage 0 disease. Surgical resection led to higher 2.5-year (97.8% vs 93.2%; P < .001) and 5-year (96.6% vs 89.8%; P < .001) CRC-free survival in stage 1 disease. These results were confirmed by propensity-score matching. ET was a significant predictor for CRC-specific mortality in stage 1 disease (hazard ratio 2.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.75-3.29; P < .001).

LIMITATIONS

Comorbidity index not available, selection bias.

CONCLUSIONS

ET and surgery had comparable mid- and long-term CRC-free survival rates in stage 0 disease. Surgical resection is the recommended treatment modality for MCPs with submucosal invasion.

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for recurrences after previous piecemeal resection of colorectal polyps (with video)

BACKGROUND

Conventional endoscopic treatment of a recurrent adenoma after piecemeal EMR (PEMR) of a colorectal laterally spreading tumor (LST) is technically difficult with low en bloc resection rates because of the inability to snare fibrotic residual.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility of salvage underwater EMR (UEMR) for the treatment of recurrent adenoma after PEMR of a colorectal LST.

DESIGN

Retrospective, cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Single, tertiary-care referral center.

PATIENTS

Patients who have recurrent adenoma after PEMR of colorectal LST (≥2 cm).

INTERVENTIONS

UEMR versus EMR.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT

En bloc resection rate, endoscopic complete removal rate, recurrence rate on follow-up colonoscopy, adjunctive ablation rate with argon plasma coagulation (APC) during salvage procedure, and independent predictive factors for successful en bloc resection and endoscopic complete removal.

RESULTS

Eighty salvage procedures (36 UEMRs vs 44 EMRs) were analyzed. En bloc resection rate (47.2% vs 15.9%, P = .002) and endoscopic complete removal rate (88.9% vs 31.8%, P < .001) were higher in the UEMR group than in the EMR group. APC ablation of visible residual during salvage procedure was lower in UEMR group than EMR group (11.1% vs 65.9%, P < .001). Recurrence rate on follow-up colonoscopy was significantly lower in the UEMR group than the EMR group (10% vs 39.4%, P = .02). UEMR was an independent predictor of successful en bloc resection and endoscopic complete removal.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective, single-center study.

CONCLUSIONS

UEMR can be a useful and feasible technique as a salvage procedure for recurrent colorectal adenoma after PEMR.

Actual endoscopic versus predicted surgical mortality for treatment of advanced mucosal neoplasia of the colon

BACKGROUND

EMR of advanced mucosal neoplasia (AMN) (ie, sessile or laterally spreading lesions of ≥20 mm) of the colon has become an increasingly popular alternative to surgical resection. However, data regarding safety and mortality of EMR in comparison to surgery are limited.

OBJECTIVE

To compare actual endoscopic with predicted surgical mortality.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational, multicenter cohort study.

SETTING

Academic, high-volume, tertiary-care referral center.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients referred for EMR.

INTERVENTION EMR MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

To predict hypothetical surgical mortality, the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland score, composed of physiological and surgical components, was calculated for each patient. Predicted surgical mortality was then compared with actual outcomes of EMR. The results were validated by an unselected subcohort by using the Colorectal Physiologic and Operative Severity Score for Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity.

RESULTS

Among 1050 patients with AMN treated by EMR, including patients with a predicted mortality rate of greater than 5% (13.8% of cohort), no deaths occurred within 30 days after the procedure. The predicted surgical mortality rate was 3.3% with the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland score (P < .0001). This suggests a significant advantage of EMR over surgery. The results were validated by using the Colorectal Physiologic and Operative Severity Score for Enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity in 390 patients predicting a surgical mortality rate of 3.2% (P = .0003).

LIMITATIONS

Nonrandomized study.

CONCLUSION

In this large multicenter study of EMR for colonic AMN, the predicted surgical mortality rate was significantly higher than the actual endoscopic mortality rate. Given that endoscopic therapy is less morbid and less expensive than surgery and can be performed as an outpatient treatment, it should be considered as the first line of treatment for most patients with these lesions.

Physician assessment and management of complex colon polyps: a multicenter video-based survey study

OBJECTIVES

The management of complex colorectal polyps varies in practice. Accurate descriptions of the endoscopic appearance by using a standardized classification system (Paris classification) and size for complex colon polyps may guide subsequent providers regarding curative endoscopic resection vs. need for surgery. The accuracy of this assessment is not well defined. Furthermore, the factors associated with decisions for endoscopic vs. surgical management are unclear. To characterize the accuracy of physician assessment of polyp morphology, size, and suspicion for malignancy among physician subspecialists performing colonoscopy and colon surgery. In addition, we aimed to assess the influence of these polyp characteristics as well as physician type and patient demographics on recommendations for endoscopic vs. surgical resection of complex colorectal polyps.

METHODS

An online video-based survey was sent to gastroenterologists (GIs) and gastrointestinal surgeons affiliated with six tertiary academic centers. The survey consisted of high-definition video clips (30-60 s) of six complex colorectal polyps (one malignant) and clinical histories. Respondents were blinded to histology. Respondents were queried regarding polyp characteristics, suspicion for malignancy, and recommendations for resection.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 154/317 (49%). Seventy-eight percent of respondents were attending physicians (91 GIs and 29 surgeons) and 22% were GI trainees. Sixteen percent of respondents self-identified as specialists in complex polypectomy. Accurate estimation of polyp size was poor (28.4%) with moderate interobserver agreement (k=0.52). Accuracy for Paris classification was 47.5%, also with moderate interobserver agreement (k=0.48). Specialists in complex polypectomy were most accurate, whereas surgeons were the least accurate in assigning Paris classification (66.0 vs. 28.7%, P<0.0001). Specialists in complex polypectomy were most likely to correctly identify the malignant lesion compared with other physicians (87.5 vs. 56.2%, P=0.008). Surgical removal of colon adenomas was recommended least frequently by specialists in complex polypectomy (3.1%) compared with nonspecialists in complex polypectomy (13.3%); surgeons were most likely to recommend surgical resection (17.2%, P=0.009). There were no differences in recommendations for endoscopic vs. surgical resection observed on the basis of years in practice, polyp morphology (polypoid vs. nonpolypoid), polyp location (right vs. left colon), or patient ASA class.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large survey of GIs and surgeons, physician specialty was strongly associated with accurate polyp characterization and a recommendation for endoscopic resection of complex polyps. Surgeons were most likely to recommend surgical resection of complex nonmalignant colorectal polyps compared with specialists in complex polypectomy who were the least likely. Therefore, collaboration with specialists in complex polypectomy may be helpful in determining the appropriate management of complex colon polyps. Further teaching is needed among all specialists to improve accurate communication and ensure optimal management of these lesions.

Colonic endoscopic mucosal resection of large polyps: Is it safe in the very elderly?

BACKGROUND

Outcomes on colon endoscopic mucosal resection in the very elderly patient population are unknown.

AIMS

Aims of this study were to evaluate the outcomes and safety of colon endoscopic mucosal resection in this target population.

METHODS

Observational, retrospective study of patients ≥ 80 years of age that underwent colon endoscopic mucosal resection ≥ 2 cm. Demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, procedural data, and surgical treatment data were collected.

RESULTS

One-hundred-and-thirty-one colon endoscopic mucosal resections were performed on 99 patients ≥ 80 years of age with a mean age of 84. The majority of American Society of Anesthesiologists class was II. Mean lesion size was 3.3 cm (range, 2-12.5 cm), more procedures were performed in the right colon and adenoma/tubulovillous adenoma was the most common pathology. En bloc resection was performed on 26.7% of polyps (N=35). Eight procedure-related adverse events (8/131, 6.1%) occurred. No anaesthesia related adverse events or deaths occurred. Six patients required a colonic operation, and overall, 94% of the patient cohort evaded a colon operation.

CONCLUSIONS

Colon endoscopic mucosal resection in very elderly patients can be performed at experienced endoscopy centres with a low rate of complications and offers these patients a non-surgical option of management of colorectal lesions.