From gastroenterologist to surgeon to gastroenterologist for management of large sessile colonic polyps: something new under the sun?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.