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

Large non-pedunculated colorectal polyp management: The elephant in the room

Minimally invasive innovations have transformed coloproctology. Specific to colorectal cancer (CRC), there has been a shift towards less invasive surgical techniques and use of endoscopic resection as an alternative for low risk T1 CRC. The role of endoscopic resection is however much more extensive: It is now considered the first line management strategy for most large (≥ 20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps, the majority of which are benign. This is due to the well-established efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic techniques compared to surgery. Multiple endoscopic modalities now exist with distinct risk-benefit profiles and their outcomes are further improved by site-specific technical modifications, auxiliary techniques, and adverse event mitigation strategies. Endoscopic capacity continues to evolve with emerging endoscopic techniques and expanding applications, particularly in the confines of a multi-disciplinary setting.

Controversies and Future Directions in Management of Acute Appendicitis: An Updated Comprehensive Review

Globally, acute appendicitis has an estimated lifetime risk of 7-8%. However, there are numerous controversies surrounding the management of acute appendicitis, and the best treatment approach depends on patient characteristics. Non-operative management (NOM), which involves the utilization of antibiotics and aggressive intravenous hydration, and surgical appendectomy are valid treatment options for healthy adults. NOM is also ideal for poor surgical candidates. Another important consideration is the timing of surgery, i.e., the role of interval appendectomy (IA) and the possibility of delaying surgery for a few hours on index admission. IA refers to surgical removal of the appendix 8-12 weeks after the initial diagnosis of appendicitis. It is ideal in patients with a contained appendiceal perforation on initial presentation, wherein an initial nonoperative approach is preferred. Furthermore, IA can help distinguish malignant and non-malignant causes of acute appendicitis, while reducing the risk of recurrence. On the contrary, a decision to delay appendectomy for a few hours on index admission should be made based on the patients' baseline health status and severity of appendicitis. Post-operatively, surgical drain placement may help reduce postoperative complications; however, it carries an increased risk of drain occlusion, fistula formation, and paralytic ileus. Furthermore, one of the most critical aspects of appendectomy is the closure of the appendiceal stump, which can be achieved with the help of endoclips, sutures, staples, and endoloops. In this review, we discuss different aspects of management of acute appendicitis, current controversies in management, and the potential role of endoscopic appendectomy as a future treatment option.

Efficacy and Safety of Thermal Ablation after Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Large colonic polyps during colonoscopy can be managed by Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). To decrease the polyp recurrence rate, thermal ablation methods like argon plasma coagulation (APC) and snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) have been introduced. We performed this network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of these modalities. (2) Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature review, through 5 January 2024, of databases including Embase, PubMed, SciELO, KCI, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science. Using a random effects model, we conducted a frequentist approach network meta-analysis. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Safety and efficacy endpoints including rates of recurrence, bleeding, perforation, and post polypectomy syndrome were compared. (3) Results: Our search yielded a total of 13 studies with 2686 patients. Compared to placebo, both APC (RR: 0.33 CI: 0.20-0.54, p < 0.01) and STSC (RR: 0.27, CI: 0.21-0.34, p < 0.01) showed decreased recurrence rates. On ranking, STSC showed the lowest recurrence rate, followed by APC and placebo. Regarding individual adverse events, there was no statistically significant difference between either of the thermal ablation methods and placebo. (4) Conclusions: We demonstrated the efficacy and safety of thermal ablation after EMR for decreasing recurrence of adenoma.

The role of hyaluronic acid in the design and functionalization of nanoparticles for the treatment of colorectal cancer

Despite advances in new approaches for colorectal cancer (CRC) therapy, intravenous chemotherapy remains one of the main treatment options; however, it has limitations associated with off-target toxicity, tumor cell resistance due to molecular complexity and CRC heterogeneity, which lead to tumor recurrence and metastasis. In oncology, nanoparticle-based strategies have been designed to avoid systemic toxicity and increase drug accumulation at tumor sites. Hyaluronic acid (HA) has obtained significant attention thanks to its ability to target nanoparticles (NPs) to CRC cells through binding to cluster-determinant-44 (CD44) and hyaluronan-mediated motility (RHAMM) receptors, along with its efficient biological properties of mucoadhesion. This review proposes to discuss the state of the art in HA-based nanoparticulate systems intended for localized treatment of CRC, highlighting the importance of the mucoadhesion and active targeting provided by this polymer. In addition, an overview of CRC will be provided, emphasizing the importance of CD44 and RHAMM receptors in this type of cancer and the current challenges related to this disease, and important concepts about the physicochemical and biological properties of HA will also be addressed. Finally, this review aims to contribute to the advancement of accuracy treatment of CRC by the design of new platforms based on by HA.

Decreasing rates of colectomy for benign neoplasms: A nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in endoscopic techniques for management of benign colonic neoplasms, a rise in rates of surgical treatment has been reported. We used a nationally representative cohort to characterize temporal trends, patient characteristics, and outcomes associated with colectomy for colonic neoplasms.

METHODS

All patients undergoing elective partial colectomy for benign or malignant colonic neoplasms were identified using the 2012-2019 National Inpatient Sample. Those presenting with inflammatory bowel disease, or experiencing intestinal perforation were excluded. Patients with benign neoplasms were classified as the Benign cohort (others: Malignant). Trends, characteristics, and outcomes were assessed between groups.

RESULTS

Of 569,280 colectomy procedures included for analysis, 153,435 (27.0%) were performed for benign lesions. The proportion of Benign operations decreased from 28.6% in 2012 to 23.7% in 2019 (P for trend<0.001). While overall national incidence of colectomy for benign neoplasms decreased from 2012 to 2019 (IRD -1.19, 95%CI -1.20- -1.19), Black patients demonstrated an incremental increase (IRD +0.04, 95%CI +0.02-0.06). On average, Benign was younger (66 [57-72] vs 68 years [58-77], P<0.001), and demonstrated a lower Elixhauser comorbidity index (2 [1-3] vs 3 [2-4], P<0.001), relative to Malignancy. Following adjustment, Benign demonstrated lower odds of in-hospital mortality (AOR 0.61, 95%CI 0.50-0.74; P<0.001), stoma creation (AOR 0.46, 95%CI 0.43-0.50; P<0.001), and infectious complications (AOR 0.68, 95%CI 0.63-0.73; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present national study identifies a decrease in colectomy for benign polyps from 2012-2019. Future investigations should identify patients who would most benefit from surgical resection and address persistent inequities in access to screening and treatment for colonic neoplasms.

Treatment for T1 colorectal cancers substratified by site and size: "horses for courses"

Background

Owing to advances in diagnostic technology, the diagnosis of T1 colorectal cancers (CRCs) continues to increase. However, the optimal management of T1 CRCs in the Western Hemisphere remains unclear due to limited population-based data directly comparing the efficacy of endoscopic therapy (ET) and surgical resection (SR). The purpose of this study was to report outcome data from a large Western cohort of patients who underwent ET or SR for early CRCs.

Methods

The SEER-18 database was used to identify patients with T1 CRCs diagnosed from 2004 to 2018 treated with ET or SR. Multivariable logistic regression models were employed to identify variables related to lymph node metastasis (LNM). Rates of ET and 1-year relative survival were calculated for each year. Effect of ET or SR on overall survival and cancer-specific survival was compared using Kaplan-Meier method stratified by tumor size and site.

Results

A total of 28,430 T1 CRCs patients were identified from 2004 to 2018 in US, with 22.7% undergoing ET and 77.3% undergoing SR. The incidence of T1 CRCs was 6.15 per 100,000 person-years, with male patients having a higher incidence. Left-sided colon was the most frequent location of tumors. The utilization of ET increased significantly from 2004 to 2018, with no significant change in 1-year relative survival rate. Predictors of LNM were age at diagnosis, sex, race, tumor size, histology, grade, and location. The 5-year relative survival rates were 91.4 and 95.4% for ET and SR, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that OS and CSS were similar between ET and SR in T1N0M0 left-sided colon cancers with tumors 2 cm or less and in rectal cancers with tumors 1 cm or less.

Conclusion

Our study showed that ET was feasible and safe for patients with left-sided T1N0M0 colon cancers and tumors of 2 cm or less, as well as T1N0M0 rectal cancers and tumors of 1 cm or less. Therefore, the over- and under-use of ET should be avoided by carefully selecting patients based on tumor size and site.

The Learning Curve for Advanced Endoscopy for Colorectal Lesions: A Surgeon's Experience at a High-Volume Center

BACKGROUND

Advanced endoscopy can be used for the complete removal of large colorectal polyps. To date, few surgeons perform advanced endoscopy, and it is unknown how many procedures are needed to reach proficiency.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the learning curve for colorectal advanced endoscopy.

DESIGN

Retrospective.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

We queried a prospectively maintained institutional database of advanced endoscopy performed by a high-volume colorectal surgeon between 2011 and 2018.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Advanced endoscopy characteristics were compared for 6 chronological intervals. Primary end points were the rates of complications and polyp recurrence. Secondary end point was the change in polyp removal rate (mm/h) over time.

RESULTS

A total of 207 patients underwent advanced endoscopy for a single colorectal polyp. The median polyp size was 30 (4-70) mm, 61.5% were located in the right colon, and 8.8% were malignant. The mean procedure time was 77 (range, 16-320) minutes. Immediate colon resection occurred in 25 patients because of suspicion of cancer or concern for perforation and was excluded from the learning curve analysis. The remaining 182 advanced endoscopy procedures were divided into intervals of 30 procedures. The median removal rate was highest in the last interval and in the endoscopy suite. A removal rate of 30 mm/h was achieved after performing 100 cases. The complication rate (bleeding or return to operating room) was 12.1% and was similar across intervals. The readmission rate was 11.5%, and 6.6% of 6-month follow-up colonoscopies showed polyp recurrence at the resection site.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective design and single surgeon.

CONCLUSION

The learning curve for achieving proficiency with advanced endoscopy in the colon and rectum required a minimum of 100 cases with a low complication rate, low polyp recurrence rate, high en bloc resection rate, and a polyp removal rate of 30 mm/h. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C162 .LA CURVA DE APRENDIZAJE DE LA ENDOSCOPIA AVANZADA PARA LESIONES COLORRECTALES: LA EXPERIENCIA DE UN CIRUJANO EN UN CENTRO DE ALTO VOLUMENANTECEDENTES:La endoscopia avanzada se puede utilizar para la extirpación completa de pólipos colorrectales grandes. Hasta la fecha, pocos cirujanos realizan endoscopia avanzada y se desconoce cuántos procedimientos se necesitan para alcanzar la competencia.OBJETIVO:Determinar la curva de aprendizaje de la endoscopia colorrectal avanzada.DISEÑO:Retrospectivo.AJUSTE:Centro de referencia terciario.PACIENTES:Consultamos una base de datos institucional mantenida prospectivamente de endoscopia avanzada realizada por un cirujano colorrectal de alto volumen entre 2011 y 2018.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se compararon las características de la endoscopia avanzada en seis intervalos cronológicos. Los puntos finales primarios fueron las tasas de complicaciones y recurrencia de pólipos. El criterio de valoración secundario fue el cambio en la tasa de eliminación de pólipos (mm/h) a lo largo del tiempo.RESULTADOS:Un total de 207 pacientes se sometieron a una endoscopia avanzada por un solo pólipo colorrectal. La mediana del tamaño de los pólipos fue de 30 (4-70) mm, el 61,5% se ubicaron en el colon derecho y el 8,8% fueron malignos. El tiempo medio del procedimiento fue de 77 (rango: 16-320) minutos. La resección inmediata del colon ocurrió en 25 pacientes debido a la sospecha de cáncer o preocupación por la perforación y fueron excluidos del análisis de la curva de aprendizaje. Los restantes 182 procedimientos de endoscopia avanzada se dividieron en intervalos de 30 procedimientos. La mediana de la tasa de extirpación fue más alta en el último intervalo y en la sala de endoscopia. Se logró una tasa de extirpación de 30 mm/hr después de realizar 100 casos. La tasa de complicaciones (sangrado o retorno al quirófano) fue del 12,1% y fue similar en todos los intervalos. La tasa de reingreso fue del 11,5% y el 6,6% de las colonoscopias de seguimiento a los 6 meses mostraron recurrencia de pólipos en el sitio de la resección.LIMITACIONES:Diseño retrospectivo, cirujano único.CONCLUSIÓN:La curva de aprendizaje para lograr el dominio de la endoscopia avanzada en el colon y el recto requiere un mínimo de 100 casos con una baja tasa de complicaciones, baja tasa de recurrencia de pólipos, alta tasa de resección en bloque y una tasa de eliminación de pólipos de 30 mm/h. Consulte el Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C162 . (Traducción-Dr. Yesenia.Rojas-Khalil ).

Abdominal Ultrasonography After Transrectal Filling With Contrast Agents in Colorectal Cancer With Severely Stenotic Lesions

OBJECTIVE

Abdominal ultrasonography after transrectal filling with contrast agent (AU-TFCA) was retrospectively evaluated with respect to determination of T stage and lesion length in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) who had previously failed colonoscopy because of severe intestinal stenosis.

METHODS

The population comprised 83 patients with CRC with intestinal stenosis and previously failed colonoscopy who underwent AU-TFCA, and in addition contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 2 wk before surgery. The diagnostic performance of AU-TFCA and CECT/MRI was evaluated relative to the post-operative pathological results (PPRs) by paired sample t-test, receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve, Pearson's χ²-test and κ and intraclass correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

The T staging identified via AU-TFCA, but not CECT/MRI, was relatively consistent with that of the PPRs (linearly weighted κ coefficient: 0.558, p < 0.001, and linearly weighted κ coefficient: 0.237, p < 0.001, respectively). The overall diagnostic accuracy of T staging based on AU-TFCA (83.1%) was significantly higher than that based on CECT/MRI (50.6%). Regarding lesion length, the results of AU-TFCA and PPRs were comparable (t = 1.852, p = 0.068), but those of CECT/MRI and PPRs were significantly different (t = 8.450, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

AU-TFCA is effective in evaluation of lesion length and T stage in patients with severely stenotic CRC lesions who previously failed colonoscopy. The diagnostic accuracy of AU-TFCA is significantly better compared with that of CECT/MRI.

Comparative Cost Analysis Between Endoscopic Resection and Surgery for Submucosal Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

There are few studies analyzing the cost of endoscopic resection and surgical resection in the treatment of submucosal colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to perform a detailed cost analysis of endoscopic resection and surgical resection for submucosal colorectal cancer.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective observational study.

SETTING

This study was conducted at a tertiary academic center.

PATIENTS

Medical records of 484 patients with submucosal colorectal cancer who underwent endoscopic resection or surgical resection between July 2003 and July 2015 were reviewed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The total costs during index admission and follow-up as well as clinical outcomes between the 2 groups were compared in the whole cohort and propensity score-matched cohort.

RESULTS

In the propensity score-matched analysis ( n = 155 in each group), the endoscopic resection and surgical resection groups did not show significant differences in the rates of procedure-related adverse events (6.5% vs 3.9%; p = 0.304) and recurrence (0.6% vs 1.3%; p > 0.99). Readmission was more common in the endoscopic resection group (40.6% vs 11.0%; p < 0.001) because 64 (41.3%) patients underwent additional surgery for endoscopic noncurative resection. The endoscopic resection group had a lower cost during the index admission (1335.6 vs 6698.4 USD; p < 0.001), whereas the surgical resection group had a lower cost during follow-up (2488.7 vs 5035.7 USD; p < 0.001). The total cumulative cost was lower in the endoscopic resection group (6371.3 vs 9187.1 USD; p < 0.001). The same trend was observed in the whole cohort without propensity score matching.

LIMITATIONS

A limitation of this study was the retrospective nature of analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The total cumulative cost for treatment and follow-up for submucosal colorectal cancer was lower in the endoscopic resection group, which had comparable oncologic outcomes as the surgical resection group. Endoscopic resection can be considered a cost-effective option for initial treatment for submucosal colorectal cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B881 .

ANLISIS COMPARATIVO DE COSTOS ENTRE LA RESECCIN ENDOSCPICA Y LA CIRUGA PARA EL CNCER COLORRECTAL SUBMUCOSO

ANTECEDENTES: Existen pocos estudios que analizan el costo de la resección endoscópica y la resección quirúrgica en el tratamiento del cáncer colorrectal submucoso.OBJETIVO: El objetivo fue realizar un análisis detallado de costos tanto de la resección endoscópica y la resección quirúrgica para el cáncer colorrectal submucoso.DISEÑO: Este fue un estudio observacional retrospectivo.AJUSTE: Este estudio se realizó en un centro académico terciario.PACIENTES: Se revisaron las historias clínicas de 484 pacientes con cáncer colorrectal submucoso que fueron sometidos a resección endoscópica o resección quirúrgica entre julio de 2003 y julio de 2015.PRINCIPALES MEDICIONES DE RESULTADOS: Los costos totales durante la admisión índice y el seguimiento, así como los resultados clínicos entre los dos grupos, fueron comparados en toda la cohorte y la cohorte emparejada por puntuación de propensión.RESULTADOS: En el análisis emparejado por puntuación de propensión ( n = 155 en cada grupo), los grupos de resección endoscópica y resección quirúrgica no mostraron diferencias significativas en las tasas de eventos adversos relacionados con el procedimiento (6,5% vs 3,9%, p = 0,304) y recurrencia (0,6% vs 1,3%, p > 0,99). La readmisión fue más común en el grupo de resección endoscópica (40,6% vs 11,0%, p < 0,001) porque 64 (41,3%) pacientes fueron sometidos a una cirugía adicional para lograr la resección en aquellos casos en que la resección endoscópica no fue curativa. El grupo de resección endoscópica tuvo un costo menor durante el ingreso índice (1335.6 vs 6698.4 USD, p < 0.001), mientras que el grupo de resección quirúrgica tuvo un costo menor durante el seguimiento (2488.7 vs 5035.7 USD, p < 0.001). El costo total acumulado fue menor en el grupo de resección endoscópica (6371,3 vs 9187,1 USD, p < 0,001). La misma tendencia se observó en toda la cohorte sin emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión.LIMITACIONES: La naturaleza retrospectiva del análisis.CONCLUSIONES: El costo total acumulado para el tratamiento y seguimiento del cáncer colorrectal submucoso fue menor en el grupo de resección endoscópica, que tuvo resultados oncológicos comparables a los del grupo de resección quirúrgica. La resección endoscópica puede considerarse una opción rentable para el tratamiento inicial del cáncer colorrectal submucoso. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B881 . (Traducción-Dr Osvaldo Gauto ).

Are large ileocecal valve lesions amenable with advanced endoscopic management to avoid bowel resection?

INTRODUCTION

Mucosal lesions located at the ileocecal valve may be challenging for endoscopic intervention because of angulated anatomy and a thinner wall with narrower lumen when compared to other locations of the bowel. This study aimed to evaluate the management and outcomes of ileocecal valve lesions treated endoscopically.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with mucosal neoplasms involving the ileocecal valve managed with advanced endoscopy at a quaternary care hospital between 2011 and 2021 were included from a prospectively collected database. Patient demographics, lesion characteristics, complications, and outcomes are reported.

RESULTS

From 1005 lesions, 80 patients (8%) underwent resection for neoplasms involving ileocecal valve by ESD (n = 38), hybrid ESD (n = 38), EMR (n = 2), and CELS (n = 2). The median age of the study group was 63(37-84) years, and 50% of patients were female. The median lesion size was 34 mm (5-75). The mean procedure time was 66 ± 44 min(range:18-200). The dissection was completed as piecemeal in 41(51%) patients and 35(44%) had en-bloc dissection. Seven(8%) endoscopic interventions required conversion to laparoscopic surgery due to inability to lift the mucosa(n = 4) and perforation(n = 3). No immediate bleeding occurred in the study group. Five patients had late rectal bleeding and two were admitted with post-polypectomy pain within 30 days of intervention. Pathology revealed 4(5%) adenocarcinomas, 33(41.2%) tubular adenomas, 30(37.8%) tubulovillous adenomas, and 5(6.2%) sessile serrated adenomas. Sixty-seven (84.5%) patients completed at least one follow-up colonoscopy and were followed for a median of 11(0-64) months. Six (8.9%) patients had recurrence and were managed with subsequent endoscopic removal.

CONCLUSION

Advanced endoscopy can be safely and effectively performed for the management of ileocecal valve polyps with low complication and acceptable recurrence rates. Advanced endoscopy promises an alternative approach to oncologic ileocecal resection while attaining organ preservation. Our study demonstrates the impact of advanced endoscopy for the treatment of mucosal neoplasms involving ileocecal valve.

The Cost-effectiveness of Watch and Wait for Rectal Cancer

The existing literature suggests with a high degree of certainty that watch and wait is more cost-effective than initial total mesorectal excision. However, it is heavily reliant on poor-quality health-related quality of life data. Furthermore, the cost-effectiveness of organ preservation from a broader societal perspective has not been studied. Finally, the cost-effectiveness of emerging adjuncts to watch and wait for organ preservation, such as contact X-ray brachytherapy, local excision and total neoadjuvant therapy, need to be characterised.

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.

Predictors for malignant potential and deep submucosal invasion in colorectal laterally spreading tumors

BACKGROUND

Colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) with malignant potential require en bloc resection by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), but lesions with deep submucosal invasion (SMI) are endoscopically unresectable.

AIM

To investigate the factors associated with high-grade dysplasia (HGD)/carcinoma and deep SMI in colorectal LSTs.

METHODS

The endoscopic and histological results of consecutive patients who underwent ESD for colorectal LSTs in our hospital from June 2013 to March 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The characteristics of LST subtypes were compared. Risk factors for HGD/carcinoma and deep SMI (invasion depth ≥ 1000 μm) were determined using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 323 patients with 341 colorectal LSTs were enrolled. Among the four subtypes, non-granular pseudodepressed (NG-PD) LSTs (85.5%) had the highest rate of HGD/carcinoma, followed by the granular nodular mixed (G-NM) (77.0%), granular homogenous (29.5%), and non-granular flat elevated (24.2%) subtypes. Deep SMI occurred commonly in NG-PD LSTs (12.9%). In the adjusted multivariate analysis, NG-PD [odds ratio (OR) = 16.8, P < 0.001) and G-NM (OR = 7.8, P < 0.001) subtypes, size ≥ 2 cm (OR = 2.2, P = 0.005), and positive non-lifting sign (OR = 3.3, P = 0.024) were independently associated with HGD/carcinoma. The NG-PD subtype (OR = 13.3, P < 0.001) and rectosigmoid location (OR = 8.7, P = 0.007) were independent risk factors for deep SMI.

CONCLUSION

Because of their increased risk for malignancy, it is highly recommended that NG-PD and G-NM LSTs are removed en bloc through ESD. Given their substantial risk for deep SMI, surgery needs to be considered for NG-PD LSTs located in the rectosigmoid, especially those with positive non-lifting signs.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection or piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection for large superficial colorectal lesions: A cost effectiveness study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic management is preferred to surgical management for large superficial colorectal lesions. However, the optimal endoscopic resection strategy (piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection [pEMR] or endoscopic submucosal dissection [ESD]) is still debated from an economical point of view. To date, in France, there is no Health Insurance reimbursement rate for the hospital stays related to ESD. We searched to estimate the global cost of colorectal ESD and to define the most cost-effectiveness endoscopic strategy.

METHODS

A model was created to compare the cost-effectiveness of ESD and pEMR according to optical diagnosis (Japan NBI Expert Team [JNET], laterally spreading tumour [LST], CONECCT). We distinguished three groups from the same multicentre ESD cohort and compared the medical and economic outcomes: real-life ESD data (Universal-ESD or U-ESD) compared to modelled selective ESD (S-ESD JNET; S-ESD LST; S-ESD CONECCT) and exclusive pEMR strategies (Universal-EMR or U-EMR).

RESULTS

The en-bloc, R0, and curative resection rates were 97.5%, 86.5%, and 82.6%, respectively in the real life French ESD cohort of 833 colorectal lesions. U-ESD was the least-expensive strategy, with a global cost of 2,858,048.17 €, i.e. 3,431.03 €/patient and was also the most effective strategy because it avoided 774 surgeries, which was more than any other strategy. It outperformed S-ESD CONNECT (global cost = 2,951,411.44 €, and 3,543.11 €/patient, 765 surgeries avoided, S-ESD LST (global cost = 3,055,951.53 €, and 3,668.61 €/patient, 749 surgeries avoided), and S-ESD JNET (global cost = 3,547,426.97 € and 4,258.62 €/patient, 704 surgeries avoided) and U-EMR (global cost = 4,060,547.62 € and 4,874.61 €/patient, 620 surgeries avoided). Even though a model which optimized pEMR results (0% technical failure, 0% primary surgery), U-EMR strategy remained the most expansive strategy and the one that avoided the least surgeries.

CONCLUSION

ESD for all LSTs upper than 20 mm is more cost-effective than pEMR, and S-ESD.

Participants' experiences of the management of screen-detected complex polyps within a structured bowel cancer screening programme

Background

The Bowel Screening Wales complex polyp removal service was introduced to address variations in surgery rates for screen‐detected complex benign colorectal polyps, to improve the quality of the screening service and to make management of these polyps more equitable across Wales. Little is known about patient experiences and the potential impact on quality of life when undergoing complex polyp removal. This study is part of a wider research programme evaluating the decision‐making, pathways and outcomes from complex polyp removal.

Objective

This study aimed to understand experiences of having a complex polyp removed and how this may influence quality of life.

Design

Semi‐structured telephone interviews were conducted, and a thematic approach was used for data analysis.

Setting and Participants

All participants had a complex polyp removed after a positive stool test and review by Bowel Screening Wales' Network Multi‐Disciplinary Team.

Results

Twenty‐one participants were interviewed. Most participants had their complex polyps removed endoscopically and reported no or minor problems or negative outcomes following their procedure. For a small minority, worse problems (e.g., pain, bowel dysfunction) and negative outcomes (e.g., cancer) followed their procedures. Most participants felt supported and reassured throughout their procedures. Any physical and emotional changes to quality of life were mainly linked to procedure outcomes.

Discussion

Experiences of complex polyp removal were generally positive, with minimal changes in quality of life.

Conclusions

While most people had a positive experience of having a complex polyp removed, support initiatives, such as counselling or signposting to coping strategies, may be helpful to reduce any potential negative effects of procedures on quality of life.

Patient or Public Contribution

Four patient and public involvement partners provided feedback on participant materials.

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.

Colon Polypectomy with Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection

Endoscopic resection has become the gold standard for the management of most of the large colorectal polyps. Various endoscopic resection techniques include endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR). ESD is a minimally invasive method for the resection of advanced lesions in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract to achieve en-bloc resection. While, EFTR is more commonly used in lesions with suspected deeper submucosal invasion, lesions originating from muscularis propria, or those with advanced fibrosis. This article reviews the indications, technique, and adverse events for use of ESD and EFTR in the colon.

Polypectomy for Large Polyps with Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

Beginning in 1955, when the saline injection was first described to prevent transmural injury during polyp fulguration, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has grown exponentially, both in scope and in practice. Because EMR is an organ-preserving technique even for large polyps, this allows for comparable outcomes to surgery, but substantially improved cost savings and significantly reduced morbidity and mortality. To achieve this, however, one must master the 4 fundamental components that are critical to the success of EMR- time, team, tools, and technique. This article aims to provide a compendium of state of the art updates within the field of endoluminal resection.

Management of the colonic polyps referred for surgery: an opportunity for improvement

PURPOSE

To examine local practice for non-malignant polyps and to calculate morbidity and mortality associated with bowel resection for this indication.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted by reviewing our local gastrointestinal pathology database over a five-year period to identify colonic resections performed for benign polyps. Using search terms "polyp" and "adenoma," 272 cases were identified. Exclusion criteria included: cancer diagnosis, emergency surgeries, multiple resections, and subtotal colectomies for polyposis. 106 patients were included in the study. Primary outcome was perioperative mortality. Secondary outcomes included patient morbidity, characteristics of polyps requiring surgery, and the number of patients referred for a second endoscopic opinion prior to proceeding with surgery.

RESULTS

64 male and 42 female patients with a mean age of 65.3 years (± 8.6 years) underwent colon resection for benign polyps. The mean polyp size was 32.7 mm (± 19.5 mm). 30 patients (28.6%) had polyps equal to or less than 2 cm. Most of the polyps described were sessile (n = 55, 51.9%) and located in the right colon (n = 84, 79.3%). Endoscopic resection was attempted in 31 patients (29.2%), and five cases (4.7%) were referred for a second endoscopic opinion prior to proceeding with surgery. Endoscopists incorrectly felt that polyps were malignant in 62 cases (58.5%). Using Clavien-Dindo classification, most patients had no complications n = 36 (34.0%) or minor complications n = 41 (38.7%). Twelve patients (11.3%) had complications that required antibiotics, blood transfusions, or total parental nutrition. Nine patients (8.5%) required surgical or endoscopic management. Six patients (5.7%) required ICU admission. Mortality rate was 1.9% (n = 2).

CONCLUSION

Surgery for benign colonic polyps is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. These findings reveal a gap in endoscopic management of benign colonic polyps.

Cost comparisons of endoscopic and surgical resection of stage T1 rectal cancer

Background and study aims  Management of T1 rectal cancer is complex and includes several resection methods, making cost comparisons challenging. The aim of this study was to compare costs of endoscopic and surgical resection and to investigate hypothetical cost scenarios for the treatment of T1 rectal cancer. Patients and methods  Retrospective population-based cost minimization study on prospectively collected data on T1 rectal cancer patients treated using endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), open, laparoscopic, or robotic resection, in Skåne County, Sweden (2011-2017). The hypothetical cost scenarios were based on the distribution of high-risk features of lymph node metastases in a national cohort (2009-2017). Results  Eighty-five patients with T1 RC undergoing ESD (n = 16), TEM (n = 17), open (n = 35), laparoscopic (n = 9), and robotic (n = 8) resection were included. ESD had a total 1-year cost of 5165 € and was significantly ( P  < 0.05) less expensive compared to TEM (14871€), open (21 453 €), laparoscopic (22 488 €) and robotic resection (26 562 €). Risk factors for lymph node metastases were seen in 68 % of 779 cases of T1 rectal cancers included in the national cohort. The hypothetical scenario of performing ESD on all T1 RC had the lowest total 1-year per patient cost compared to all other alternatives. Conclusions  This is the first study analyzing total 1-year costs of endoscopic and surgical methods to resect T1 rectal cancer, which showed that the cost of ESD was significantly lower compared to TEM and surgical resection. In fact, based on hypothetical cost scenarios, ESD is still justifiable from a cost perspective even when all high-risk cases are followed by surgery in accordance to guidelines.

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.

A Comprehensive Overview of Colon Cancer- A Grim Reaper of the 21st Century

A few decades ago, the incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) was low and is now the fourth in the list of deadly cancers producing nearly a million deaths annually. A population that is aging along with risk factors such as smoking, obesity, sedentary lifestyle with little or no physical activity, and non-healthy food habits of developed countries can increase the risk of colorectal cancer. The balance in gut microbiota and the metabolites produced during bacterial fermentation within the host plays a significant role in regulating intestinal diseases as well as colorectal cancer development. Recent progress in the understanding of illness resulted in multiple treatment options such as surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy, including targeted therapy and multitherapies. The treatment plan for CRC depends on the location, stage and grade of cancer as well as genomic biomarker tests. Despite all the advancements made in the genetic and molecular aspects of the disease, the knowledge seems inadequate as the drug action as well as the wide variation in drug response did not appear strongly correlated with the individual molecular and genetic characteristics, which suggests the requirement of comprehensive molecular understanding of this complex heterogeneous disease. Furthermore, multitherapies or a broad spectrum approach, which is an amalgamation of the various promising as well as effective therapeutic strategies that can tackle heterogeneity and act on several targets of the disease, need to be validated in clinical studies. The latest treatment options have significantly increased the survival of up to three years in the case of advanced disease. The fact that colorectal cancer is developed from a polypoid precursor, as well as the symptoms of the disease that occur at an advanced stage, underlines how screening programs can help early detection and decrease mortality as well as morbidity from CRC.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in North America: A Large Prospective Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in Asia has been shown to be superior to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and surgery for the management of selected early gastrointestinal cancers. We aimed to evaluate technical outcomes of ESD in North America.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter prospective study on ESD across 10 centers in the United States and Canada between April 2016 and April 2020. End points included rates of en bloc resection, R0 resection, curative resection, adverse events, factors associated with failed resection, and recurrence post-R0 resection.

RESULTS

Six hundred and ninety-two patients (median age, 66 years; 57.8% were men) underwent ESD (median lesion size, 40 mm; interquartile range, 25-52 mm) for lesions in the esophagus (n = 181), stomach (n = 101), duodenum (n = 11), colon (n = 211) and rectum (n = 188). En bloc, R0, and curative resection rates were 91.5%, 84.2%, and 78.3%, respectively. Bleeding and perforation were reported in 2.3% and 2.9% of the cases, respectively. Only 1 patient (0.14%) required surgery for adverse events. On multivariable analysis, severe submucosal fibrosis was associated with failed en bloc, R0, and curative resection and higher risk for adverse events. Overall recurrence was 5.8% (31 of 532) at a mean follow-up of 13.3 months (range, 1-60 months).

CONCLUSIONS

In this large multicenter prospective North American experience, we demonstrate that ESD can be performed safely, effectively, and is associated with a low recurrence rate. The technical resection outcomes achieved in this study are in line with the current established consensus quality parameters and further support the implementation of ESD for the treatment of select gastrointestinal neoplasms; ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02989818.

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.

"Unresectable" polyp management utilizing advanced endoscopic techniques results in high rate of colon preservation

PURPOSE

"Endoscopically unresectable" benign polyps identified during screening colonoscopy are often referred for segmental colectomy. Application of advanced endoscopic techniques can increase endoscopic polyp resection, sparing patients the morbidity of colectomy. This retrospective case-control study aimed to evaluate the success of colon preserving resection of "endoscopically unresectable" benign polyps using advanced endoscopic techniques including endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, endoluminal surgical intervention, full-thickness laparo-endoscopic excision, and combined endo-laparoscopic resection.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained institutional database identified 95 patients referred for "endoscopically unresectable" benign polyps from 2015 to 2018. Cases were compared to 190 propensity score matched controls from the same database undergoing elective laparoscopic colectomy for other reasons. Primary outcome was rate of complete endoscopic polyp removal. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, unplanned 30-day readmission and reoperation, 30-day mortality, and post-procedural complications.

RESULTS

Advanced endoscopic techniques achieved complete polyp removal without colectomy in 66 patients (70%). Failure was most commonly associated with previously attempted endoscopic resection and occult malignancy. Compared with matched colectomy controls, endoscopic polyp resection resulted in significantly shorter hospital length of stay (1.13 ± 2.41 vs 3.89 ± 4.57 days; p < 0.001), lower unplanned 30-day readmission (1.1% vs 7.7%; p < 0.05), and fewer postoperative complications (4.2% vs 33.9%; p < 0.001). Unplanned 30-day reoperation (2.1% vs 4.4%; p = 0.34) and 30-day mortality (0% vs 0.6%; p = 0.75) trended lower.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic resection of complex polyps can be highly successful, and it is associated with favorable outcomes and decreased morbidity when compared with segmental colon resection. Attempting colon preservation using these techniques is warranted.

Evaluation of a progressive algorithmic approach for the treatment of unresectable colon polyps using colon conservation techniques

BACKGROUND

The majority of endoscopically unresectable colon polyps (EUCP) are treated by segmental colectomy. However, up to 90% of EUCP do not harbor malignancy, making colectomy an unnecessary procedure. To minimize unnecessary segmental colectomy, we established a progressive treatment algorithm utilizing colon conservation techniques (CCT). In our progressive CCT algorithm, patients with EUCP first underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). If unsuccessful, they progressed to combined endo-laparoscopic surgery (CELS) and ultimately to segmental colectomy, if necessary.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients treated by our progressive CCT algorithm from August 2015 to April 2019. Demographic information, polyp characteristics, and clinical outcomes were analyzed. We also compared the outcomes of our CCT algorithm group to 156 patients undergoing segmental colectomy for EUCP at related institutions from August 2015 to August 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 102 EUCP in 97 patients were treated with our progressive CCT algorithm. Of these, 76 of 102 (75.5%) EUCP were removed without requiring segmental colectomy, with 42 EUCP removed via ESD and 34 via CELS. Interval surveillance colonoscopy confirmed that 72 of 97 (74.2%) patients with EUCP treated by CCT completely avoided segmental colectomy. Polyps > 5 cm in size was a significant predictor of CCT failure (OR 3.83, P = 0.03). When compared to an external cohort of patients undergoing segmental colectomy for EUCP, the CCT algorithm was associated with longer operative time, but shorter length of stay, with no difference in postoperative complications. The estimated total healthcare cost of the CCT algorithm was lower than segmental colectomy ($10,956.77 versus $16,692.94), with more dramatic cost savings seen in ESD ($4,492.70) and CELS ($8,507.06).

CONCLUSIONS

An established progressive CCT algorithm can result in high colon conservation rate and decrease associated health care costs compared to segmental colectomy. It is a reasonable treatment strategy for patients with EUCP.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection in the treatment of patients with early colorectal carcinoma and precancerous lesions

BACKGROUND

Our study aims to explore the indications and clinical efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) on the early colorectal carcinoma and precancerous lesions.

METHODS

The clinical data of 29 patients with early colorectal carcinoma and precancerous lesions who were treated with ESD at Nantong First People's Hospital between January 2018 and December 2019 were collected. Then the endoscopic morphology, postoperative pathological classification, tumor resection rate, postoperative complications, and follow-up outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Colorectal carcinoma lesions were distributed in the left colon, accounting for 89.6%. There were 14 cases (48.3%) with protuberant endoscopic tumors, accounting for the highest proportion, while 2 cases (6.9%) of the flat tumors, accounting for the lowest proportion. The average operation time for ESD was 123 minutes, and en-bloc resection was 100% while the curative resection rate was 89.6%. There were 3 cases (10.3%) with delayed hemorrhage after ESD, and 1 case with persistent hemorrhage during the operation was transferred to surgical treatment. No cases with infection or perforation after ESD. For postoperative pathological classification, villous-tubular adenoma with low-grade epithelioma accounted for 31%; tubular adenoma with high-grade epithelioma only accounted for 3.4%. There was no recurrence in the follow-up for 1-20 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Control of surgical indications strictly, improvement of operation skills, attention to postoperative pathological feedback, and close follow-up are necessary guarantees to improve the clinical effectiveness of ESD.

Effect of referral pattern and histopathology grade on surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The incidence of surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps is rising. The aims of this study were to evaluate referral patterns to surgery for nonmalignant polyps, to compare outcomes between surgery and endoscopic resection (ER), and to identify factors associated with surgery in a university-based, tertiary care center.

METHODS

Patients referred to colorectal surgery (CRS) for nonmalignant colorectal polyps between 2014 and 2019 were selected from the institution's integrated data repository. Clinical characteristics were obtained through chart review. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with surgery for nonmalignant polyps.

RESULTS

Six hundred sixty-four patients with colorectal lesions were referred to CRS, of which 315 were for nonmalignant polyps. Most referrals (69%) came from gastroenterologists. Of the 315 cases, 136 underwent surgery and 117 were referred for attempt at ER. Complete ER was achieved in 87.2% (n = 102), with polyp recurrence in 27.2% at a median of 14 months (range, 0-72). When compared with surgery, ER was associated with a lower hospitalization rate (22.2% vs 95.6%; P < .0001), shorter hospital stay (mean, .5 ± .9 vs 2.23 ± 1 days; P < .0001), and fewer adverse events (5.9% vs 22.8%; P = .0002). Intramucosal adenocarcinoma on baseline pathology (odds ratio, 5.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-28.2) and referrals by academic gastroenterologists (odds ratio, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-5.72) were associated with a higher likelihood of surgery on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastroenterologists commonly refer nonmalignant colorectal polyps to surgery, even though ER is effective and associated with lower morbidity. Both referrals from academic gastroenterologists and baseline pathology of intramucosal adenocarcinoma were factors associated with surgery. All colorectal polyps should be evaluated in a multidisciplinary approach to identify lesions suitable for ER before embarking in surgery.

Management of delayed bleeding after endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal polyps: a retrospective multi-center cohort study

Background and study aims  Delayed bleeding (DB) is the most frequent major adverse event after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs). Evidence-based guidelines for management of DB are lacking. We aimed to evaluate the clinical presentation, treatment and outcome of patients with DB and to determine factors associated with hemostatic therapy. Patients and methods  Patients with DB were identified by analyzing all consecutive EMR procedures for LNPCPs (≥ 2 cm) from one academic center (2012-2017) and seven regional hospitals (2015-2017). DB was defined as any postprocedural bleeding necessitating emergency department presentation, hospitalization or reintervention. Outcome of DB was assessed for three clinical scenarios: continued bleeding (CB), spontaneous resolution without recurrent bleeding during 24 hours observation (SR), and recurrent bleeding (RB). Variables associated with hemostatic therapy were analyzed using logistic regression. Results  DB occurred after 42/542 (7.7 %) EMR procedures and re-colonoscopy was performed in 30 patients (72 %). Re-colonoscopy and hemostatic therapy rates were 92 % and 75 % for CB (n = 24), 25 % and 8 % for SR (n = 12), and 83 % and 67 % for RB (n = 6), respectively. Frequent hematochezia (≥ hourly) was the only factor significantly associated with hemostatic therapy (RR 2.23, p = 0.01). Re-bleeding after endoscopic hemostatic therapy occurred in 3/22 (13.6 %) patients. Conclusion  Ongoing or recurrent hematochezia is associated with a high rate of hemostatic therapy, warranting re-colonoscopy in these patients. A conservative approach is justified when bleeding spontaneously settles, and without recurrent hematochezia during 24 hours observation patients can be safely discharged without endoscopic re-examination.

Management of T1 colorectal cancers detected at screening colonoscopy: A study from the French national screening programme

AIM

The main aim of this study was to examine the management strategies that were used and to determine the outcomes (survival and recurrence rate) of screen-detected T1-CRC.

METHODS

Medical records from 207 patients with T1-CRC diagnosed through the French national screening programme in one district from 2003 to 2015 were analysed. The 5-year overall, CRC-specific and CRC-free survival were calculated for the whole cohort and for the 3 groups treated by endoscopic resection (ER) alone, ER followed by subsequent surgery (ERSS), and primary surgery (PS).

RESULTS

Of the 207 patients, 81 (39%) underwent PS, and 126 (61%) underwent primary ER, of whom 82 (64%) underwent subsequent surgery. The 5-year overall and cancer-specific survival rates were 95.5% (95% CI, 90.8; 97.9) and 98.8% (95% CI, 95.4; 99.7%), respectively. Long-term cancer-specific mortality and recurrence crude rates were 2.4% and 5.6%, respectively. The 5-year CRC-free survival rate was 96.1% (95% CI, 91.8; 98.1%) and did not differ amongst the 3 groups (ER alone, ERSS and PS).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the good prognosis of screen-detected T1-CRC, regardless of the treatment strategy used. But, there is a room to improve the screening programme quality with regard to the management of screen-detected CRC.

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).

Valuing innovative endoscopic techniques: prophylactic clip closure after endoscopic resection of large colon polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Clip closure of the mucosal defect after resecting large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps reduces postprocedure bleeding and is cost saving for payers. Clip costs are not reimbursed by payers, posing a major barrier to adoption of this technique in the community. We aimed to determine appropriate clip costs to support broader use of this procedure in practice.

METHODS

We performed budget impact analysis using our recent decision analytic model, comparing prophylactic clip closure with no clip closure on national cost and outcomes data, to determine the maximum feasible clip price while maintaining cost savings in practice. Sensitivity analyses were performed on important clinical factors.

RESULTS

In the original model, the baseline postprocedure bleeding risk was 6.8%, increasing cost of care by $614.11 averaged among all patients undergoing large polyp resection without clip closure. Prophylactic clip closure of only large right-sided polyps reduced postprocedure bleeding risk by 70.7% but resulted in cost saving only if the price of clips was $100 or less. Comparatively, prophylactic clip closure of large left-sided polyps had no clinical benefit and was not cost saving. Clip closure strategies focused only on extra-large polyps (≥40 mm), or patients taking antithrombotics regardless of polyp characteristics, were only minimally cost saving. Cost savings and maximum tolerated clip prices depended on medical comorbidity, which directly influences the costs of care to manage postprocedure bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clip closure after endoscopic resection of large colon polyps, particularly those in the right colon segment, is cost saving but requires clip costs less than $100. Translating these findings into practice requires gastroenterology practices to obtain reimbursement from payers for improved clinical outcomes and to align commercial clip prices with this clinical indication.

Cost of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Versus Endoscopic Piecemeal Mucosal Resection in the Colorectum

BACKGROUND

Few studies have compared the costs of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection (EPMR).

AIMS

Here, we aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of these approaches by analyzing clinical outcomes and costs.

METHODS

Data from patients undergoing colorectal ESD and EPMR were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical outcomes (procedure time, complete resection, and recurrence) were compared, and total direct costs (procedural and follow-up) were assessed.

RESULTS

Data from 429 ESD and 115 EPMR patients were included in the analysis. The complete resection rate was significantly higher (83.9% vs. 32.2%, p < 0.001), recurrence rate was lower (0.5% vs. 7.1%, p < 0.001), procedure time was longer (55.4 ± 47.0 vs. 25.6 ± 32.7 min, p < 0.001), and total direct procedural costs at the initial resection were higher (1480.0 ± 728.0 vs. 729.8 ± 299.7 USD, p < 0.001) in the ESD group than in the EPMR group. The total number of surveillance endoscopies was higher in the EPMR group (1.7 ± 1.5 vs. 1.3 ± 1.1, p = 0.003). The cumulative total costs of ESD and EPMR were comparable at 3 and 2 years' follow-up in the adenoma and mucosal/superficial submucosal cancer subgroups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Colorectal ESD was associated with higher complete resection and lower recurrence rates. EPMR showed shorter procedure times and similar cumulative total direct costs. ESD or EPMR should be chosen based on both clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Variation in colectomy rates for benign polyp and colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Removal of pre-cancerous polyps on screening colonoscopy is a mainstay of colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. Complex polyps may require surgical removal with colectomy, an operation with a 17% morbidity and 1.5% mortality rate. Recently, advanced endoscopic techniques have allowed some patients with complex polyps to avoid the morbidity of colectomy. However, the rate of colectomy for benign polyp in the United States is unclear, and variation in this rate across geographic regions has not been studied. We compared regional variation in colectomy rates for CRC versus benign polyp.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective population-based study of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing colectomy for CRC or benign polyp, using the 100% Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files from 2010 to 2015. We used multivariable linear regression to obtain population-based colectomy rates for CRC and benign polyp at the hospital referral region (HRR) level, adjusted for age, sex, and race.

RESULTS

Of 280,815 patients, 157,802 (65.8%) underwent colectomy for CRC compared to 81,937 (34.2%) for benign polyp. Across HRRs, colectomy rates varied 5.8-fold for cancer (0.32-1.84 per 1000 beneficiaries). However, there was a 69-fold variation for benign polyp (0.01-0.69). While the rate of colectomy for CRC was correlated with the rate of colectomy for benign polyp (slope = 0.61, 95% CI 0.48-0.75), HRRs with the lowest or highest rates of colectomy for CRC did not necessarily have similarly low or high rates for benign polyp.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of colectomy for benign polyp is much more variable compared to CRC, suggesting overuse of colectomy for benign polyp in some regions. This variation may stem from provider-level differences, such as endoscopists' referral practice or skill or surgeons' decision to perform colectomy, or from limited access to advanced endoscopists. Interventions to increase endoscopic resection of benign polyps may spare some patients the morbidity and cost of surgery.

Cap-fitted endoscopic mucosal resection of ≥ 20 mm colon flat lesions followed by argon plasma coagulation results in a low adenoma recurrence rate

Background and study aims  Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is increasingly used for the treatment of large colonic polyps (≥ 20 mm). A drawback of EMR is local adenoma recurrence. Therefore, we studied the impact of argon plasma coagulation (APC) of the EMR edge on local adenoma recurrence. Patients and methods  This was a retrospective study of patients with laterally spreading tumors (LST) ≥ 20 mm, who underwent EMR from January 2009 to August 2018 and follow-up endoscopic assessment. A cap-fitted endoscope was used to assess completeness of resection by systematically inspecting the EMR defect for any macroscopic disease. This was followed by forced APC of the resection edge followed by clip closure of the defect. Surveillance colonoscopy was performed at 6 months after resection to detect recurrence. Results  Two hundred forty-six patients met the inclusion criteria. Most were female (53 %) and white (80 %), with a Median age of 64 years. Median polyp size was 35 mm (interquartile range, 30-45 mm). Most polyps were located in the right colon (77 %) and were removed by piecemeal EMR (70 %). Eleven patients (5 %) had residual tumor at the resection site. Conclusions  We observed low adenoma recurrence after argon plasma coagulation of the EMR edge with a cap fitted colonoscope in patients with LST ≥ 20 mm of the colon, which requires further validation in a randomized controlled study.

Lack of proper reimbursement is hampering adoption of minimally invasive gastrointestinal endoscopy in North America

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and related procedures are minimally invasive and cost-effective alternates to surgery. However, there is no approved or listed current procedural terminology (CPT) for ESD. We aimed to review the current reimbursement process hurdles for ESD procedures in private practice model in United States. We reviewed the data of two advanced endoscopists (one in New York and other in Pennsylvania State) performing ESD in their private practice set-ups. We found the reimbursement process was complex, with number of refusals varied from 0-9 for ESD procedures. It was not paid at all in 8.3% of cases by the medical insurance. Endoscopic mucosal resection, which is considered inferior as compared to ESD, but has a listed CPT, was denied in only 0.83% cases. Our data highlights the billing hurdles by the endoscopists to adopt ESD-related procedures in private practice model.

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.

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.

Colorectal cancer

Several decades ago, colorectal cancer was infrequently diagnosed. Nowadays, it is the world's fourth most deadly cancer with almost 900 000 deaths annually. Besides an ageing population and dietary habits of high-income countries, unfavourable risk factors such as obesity, lack of physical exercise, and smoking increase the risk of colorectal cancer. Advancements in pathophysiological understanding have increased the array of treatment options for local and advanced disease leading to individual treatment plans. Treatments include endoscopic and surgical local excision, downstaging preoperative radiotherapy and systemic therapy, extensive surgery for locoregional and metastatic disease, local ablative therapies for metastases, and palliative chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. Although these new treatment options have doubled overall survival for advanced disease to 3 years, survival is still best for those with non-metastasised disease. As the disease only becomes symptomatic at an advanced stage, worldwide organised screening programmes are being implemented, which aim to increase early detection and reduce morbidity and mortality from colorectal cancer.

Surgery Versus Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Large Polyps: Making Sense of When to Use Which Approach

Endoscopic resection for large colorectal lesion is effective and cost-saving than surgery. Piecemeal resections are often effective if applied meticulously but endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) allows meritorious removal of large lesions in one piece. For rectal lesions, transanal endoscopic microsurgery or transanal minimally invasive surgery offers more radical transmural resection but ESD is also effective for removal of complex rectal lesions. Surgical resection with lymph node dissection is the gold standard for invasive cancer; however, the management of low-risk early-stage colorectal cancer is worth debating. Treatment selection for large colorectal lesions is discussed based on lesion factor and treatment outcomes.

Intra-procedural and delayed bleeding after resection of large colorectal lesions: The SCALP study

Background and aim

The safety of endoscopic resection of large colorectal lesions (LCLs) (≥20 mm) is clinically relevant. The aim of the present study was to assess the rate of post-resection adverse events (AEs) in a real-life setting.

Patients and methods

In a prospective, multicentre, observational study, data from consecutive resections of LCLs over a 6-month period were collected in 24 centres. Patients were followed up at 15 days from resection for AEs. The primary endpoint was intra-procedural bleeding according to lesion morphology. Secondary endpoints were delayed bleeding and perforation. Patient and polyp characteristics, and polypectomy techniques were analysed with respect to the bleeding events.

Results

In total, 1504 patients (female/male: 633/871, mean age, 66.1) with 1648 LCLs (29.1% pedunculated and 70.9% non-pedunculated lesions) were included. Overall, 168 (11.2%) patients had post-resection bleeding (8.5 and 2.0% immediate and delayed, respectively), while 15 (1.0%) cases of perforation occurred. Independent predictors of immediate bleeding for pedunculated lesions were bleeding prophylaxis (odds ratio (OR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13-0.62), simple polypectomy (versus endoscopic mucosal resection, OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17-0.88) and inpatient setting (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.07-5.08), while bleeding prophylaxis (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.30-0.98), academic setting (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12-0.54) and size (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.05) were predictors for those non-pedunculated. Indication for colonoscopy (screening versus diagnostic (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.12-0.86)), antithrombotic therapy (OR 3.12, 95% CI 1.54-6.39) and size (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.12-4.87) independently predicted delayed bleeding.

Conclusions

A low rate of post-resection AEs was observed in a real-life setting, reassuring as to the safety of endoscopic resection of ≥2 cm colorectal lesions. Bleeding prophylaxis reduced the intra-procedural bleeding risk, while antithrombotic therapy increased delayed bleeding.CLINICALTRIAL: (NCT02694120).

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection vs Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection For Barrett's Esophagus and Colorectal Neoplasia

Endoscopic resection has become the first-line therapy for the management of superficial neoplasia throughout the gastrointestinal tract. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are established yet distinct techniques for the treatment of superficial gastrointestinal neoplasia. EMR is simpler and faster but is limited by its ability to resect large lesions en bloc. Limitations of piecemeal EMR of large lesions include a high rate of recurrence and a less-than-ideal tissue specimen for accurate histologic evaluation. ESD, on the other hand, allows en bloc resection regardless of lesion size, reducing risk for recurrence and facilitating precise histologic staging. However, ESD can take longer than EMR, is technically more complex, and traditionally has been associated with a higher rate of adverse events. Ultimately, the optimal endoscopic technique should be selected based on organ location, type of neoplastic lesion, and local expertise. The role of ESD has expanded in Eastern regions, beyond squamous cell lesions in the esophagus and gastric cancer to include superficial Barrett's esophagus (BE) and colon neoplasia. However, there is controversy in Western regions over use of ESD for BE and colon neoplasia. We discuss the clinical outcomes of EMR and ESD for the treatment of superficial BE and colon neoplasia, focusing on practical considerations for formulating the most appropriate endoscopic resection approach for each patient.