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

Dual Channel Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the recommended technique for colon polypectomy for nonpedunculated lesions that are >20 mm in size not requiring excision. Dual-channel EMR (DC-EMR) uses an endoscope with two working channels to facilitate easier submucosal injection, snare resection, and clip closure of polypectomy defects. There is also promising early literature indicating that this endoscopic modality can reduce the overall learning curve present for single-channel colonoscopy EMR. This chapter will describe the steps and techniques required to perform DC-EMR, potential complications, recommended postprocedure surveillance, and future directions.

Endoscopic Resection of Neoplasia in the Lower GI Tract: A Clinical Algorithm

Background

Colorectal cancer is a highly prevalent malignancy and a significant driver of cancer mortality and health-related expenditure worldwide. Polyp removal reduces the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. In 2024, endoscopists have an array of resection modalities at their disposal. Each technique requires a unique skillset and has individual advantages and limitations. Consequently, resection in the colorectum requires an evidence-based algorithm approach that considers these factors.

Summary

A literature review of endoscopic resection for colonic neoplasia was conducted. Best supporting scientific evidence was summarized for the endoscopic resection of diminutive polyps, large ≥20 mm lesions and polyps containing invasive cancer. Factors including resection modality, complications and lesion selection were explored to inform an algorithm approach to colorectal resection.

Key Messages

Endoscopic resection in the colorectum is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Detailed understanding of polyp size, location, morphology and predicted histology are critical factors that inform appropriate endoscopic resection practice.

Cold versus hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection for large (≥15 mm) flat non-pedunculated colorectal polyps: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Conventional hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (H-EMR) is effective for the management of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colon polyps (LNPCPs) however, electrocautery-related complications may incur significant morbidity. With a superior safety profile, cold snare EMR (C-EMR) of LNPCPs is an attractive alternative however evidence is lacking. We conducted a randomised trial to compare the efficacy and safety of C-EMR to H-EMR.

METHODS

Flat, 15-50 mm adenomatous LNPCPs were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to C-EMR or H-EMR with margin thermal ablation at a single tertiary centre. The primary outcome was endoscopically visible and/or histologically confirmed recurrence at 6 months surveillance colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB), delayed perforation and technical success.

RESULTS

177 LNPCPs in 177 patients were randomised to C-EMR arm (n=87) or H-EMR (n=90). Treatment groups were equivalent for technical success 86/87 (98.9%) C-EMR versus H-EMR 90/90 (100%); p=0.31. Recurrence was significantly greater in C-EMR (16/87, 18.4% vs 1/90, 1.1%; relative risk (RR) 16.6, 95% CI 2.24 to 122; p<0.001).Delayed perforation (1/90 (1.1%) vs 0; p=0.32) only occurred in the H-EMR group. CSPEB was significantly greater in the H-EMR arm (7/90 (7.8%) vs 1/87 (1.1%); RR 6.77, 95% CI 0.85 to 53.9; p=0.034).

CONCLUSION

Compared with H-EMR, C-EMR for flat, adenomatous LNPCPs, demonstrates superior safety with equivalent technical success. However, endoscopic recurrence is significantly greater for cold snare resection and is currently a limitation of the technique.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04138030.

Precision endoscopy in colorectal polyps' characterization and planning of endoscopic therapy

Precision endoscopy in the management of colorectal polyps and early colorectal cancer has emerged as the standard of care. It includes optical characterization of polyps and estimation of submucosal invasion depth of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps to select the appropriate endoscopic resection modality. Over time, several imaging modalities have been implemented in endoscopic practice to improve optical performance. Among these, image-enhanced endoscopy systems and magnification endoscopy represent now well-established tools. New advanced technologies, such as endocytoscopy and confocal laser endomicroscopy, have recently shown promising results in predicting the histology of colorectal polyps. In recent years, artificial intelligence has continued to enhance endoscopic performance in the characterization of colorectal polyps, overcoming the limitations of other imaging modes. In this review we retrace the path of precision endoscopy, analyzing the yield of various endoscopic imaging techniques in personalizing management of colorectal polyps and early colorectal cancer.

A novel tool for case selection in endoscopic mucosal resection training

BACKGROUND

 As endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large (≥ 20 mm) adenomatous nonpedunculated colonic polyps (LNPCPs) becomes widely practiced outside expert centers, appropriate training is necessary to avoid failed resection and inappropriate surgical referral. No EMR-specific tool guides case selection for endoscopists learning EMR. This study aimed to develop an EMR case selection score (EMR-CSS) to identify potentially challenging lesions for "EMR-naïve" endoscopists developing competency.

METHODS

 Consecutive EMRs were recruited from a single center over 130 months. Lesion characteristics, intraprocedural data, and adverse events were recorded. Challenging lesions with intraprocedural bleeding (IPB), intraprocedural perforation (IPP), or unsuccessful resection were identified and predictive variables identified. Significant variables were used to form a numerical score and receiver operating characteristic curves were used to generate cutoff values.

RESULTS

 Of 1993 LNPCPs, 286 (14.4 %) were in challenging locations (anorectal junction, ileocecal valve, or appendiceal orifice), 368 (18.5 %) procedures were complicated by IPB and 77 (3.9 %) by IPP; 110 (5.5 %) procedures were unsuccessful. The composite end point of IPB, IPP, or unsuccessful EMR was present in 526 cases (26.4 %). Lesion size, challenging location, and sessile morphology were predictive of the composite outcome. A six-point score was generated with a cutoff value of 2 demonstrating 81 % sensitivity across the training and validation cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

 The EMR-CSS is a novel case selection tool for conventional EMR training, which identifies a subset of adenomatous LNPCPs that can be successfully and safely attempted in early EMR training.

Safety and Efficacy of Powered Non-Thermal Endoscopic Resection Device for Removal of Colonic Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Endoscopic mucosal resection is a frequently employed method for removing colonic polyps. Nonetheless, the recurrence of these polyps over a healed submucosal base can complicate the extraction of leftover lesions through standard procedures. EndoRotor®, a non-thermal device specifically designed for endoscopic mucosal resection, has recently been assessed for its utility in removing colonic polyps, non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus, and pancreatic necrosis. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to ascertain the safety and efficacy of EndoRotor® in resecting scared or recurrence colonic polyps.

Methods

We conducted an exhaustive review of existing literature using databases such as Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library until January 2023. Our aim was to find all studies that assessed the safety of non-thermal endoscopic resection devices in removing colonic polyps. The primary outcome we focused on was the rate of technical success. Secondary outcomes that we considered included the frequency of remaining lesions and instances of adverse events. To analyze these data, we used comprehensive meta-analysis software.

Results

Our analysis incorporated three studies comprising 54 patients who underwent resection of 60 lesions. The combined technical success rate was 93.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 77.7-98.6%, I2 = 25.5%). In patients who had another endoscopic examination, 20 were found to have a residual lesion. After the initial session, the combined rate of remaining lesions was 39.8% (95% CI: 15.3-70.8%, I2 = 74.5%). There were eight occurrences of intraoperative bleeding and four instances of bleeding post-procedure. The combined rate of intraoperative bleeding was 13.2% (95% CI: 6.7-24.3%, I2 = 0%), and post-procedure bleeding stood at 8.5% (95% CI: 3.4-19.8%, I2 = 0%). Only one major bleeding event was recorded, and no cases of perforation were reported.

Conclusion

Our research indicates that the EndoRotor® effectively removes scarred colonic polyps, though the rate of remaining lesions is significant, potentially necessitating several sessions for a thorough removal. There is a need for broader prospective studies, mainly randomized controlled trials, to further assess EndoRotor®'s efficiency and safety in eliminating colonic polyps.

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 ).

pT1 colorectal cancer: A treatment dilemma

The implementation of population screening programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) has led to a considerable increase in the prevalence pT1-CRC originating on polyps amenable by local treatments. However, a high proportion of patients are referred for unnecessary oncological surgeries without a clear benefit in terms of survival. Selecting the appropriate endoscopic resection technique in the moment of diagnosis becomes crucial to provide the best treatment alternative to each individual polyp and patient. For this, it is imperative to increase the optical diagnostic skill for differentiating pT1-CRCs and decide the appropriate initial therapy. En bloc resection is crucial to obtain an adequate histological specimen that might allow organ preserving therapeutic management. In this review, we address key challenges in T1 CRC management, explore the efficacy and safety of the available diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, and shed light on upcoming advances in the field.

Impact of a Routine Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the Surgical Management of Nonmalignant Colorectal Lesions Treated in a Referral Cancer Center

BACKGROUND

Recent data show an increasing number of abdominal surgeries being performed for the treatment of nonmalignant colorectal polyps in the West but in settings in which colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection is not routinely performed. This study evaluated the number of nonmalignant colorectal lesions referred to surgical treatment in a tertiary cancer center that incorporated magnification chromoendoscopy and endoscopic submucosal dissection as part of the standard management of complex colorectal polyps.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to estimate the number of patients with nonmalignant colorectal lesions referred to surgical resection at our institution after the standardization of routine endoscopic submucosal dissection and to describe outcomes for patients undergoing colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection.

DESIGN

Single-center retrospective study from a prospectively collected database of endoscopic submucosal dissections and colorectal surgeries performed between January 2016 and December 2019.

SETTING

Reference cancer center.

PATIENTS

Consecutive adult patients with complex nonmalignant colorectal polyps were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients with nonmalignant colorectal polyps were treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection or surgery (elective colectomy, rectosigmoidectomy, low anterior resection, or proctocolectomy).

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the percentage of patients referred to colorectal surgery for nonmalignant lesions.

RESULTS

In the study period, 1.1% of 825 colorectal surgeries were performed for nonmalignant lesions, and 97 complex polyps were endoscopically removed by endoscopic submucosal dissection. The en bloc, R0, and curative resection rates of endoscopic submucosal dissection were 91.7%, 83.5%, and 81.4%, respectively. The mean tumor size was 59 (SD 37.8) mm. Perforations during endoscopic submucosal dissection occurred in 3 cases, all treated with clipping. One patient presented with a delayed perforation 2 days after the endoscopic resection and underwent surgery. The mean follow-up period was 3 years, with no tumor recurrence in this cohort.

LIMITATIONS

Single-center retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

A workflow that includes assessment of the lesions with magnification chromoendoscopy and resection through endoscopic submucosal dissection can lead to a very low rate of abdominal surgery for nonmalignant colorectal lesions. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C123 .

IMPACTO DE LA DISECCIN SUBMUCOSA ENDOSCPICA COLORRECTAL DE RUTINA EN EL MANEJO QUIRRGICO DE LESIONES COLORRECTALES NO MALIGNAS TRATADAS EN UN CENTRO ONCOLGICO DE REFERENCIA

ANTECEDENTES:Datos recientes muestran un número cada vez mayor de cirugías abdominales realizadas para el tratamiento de pólipos colorrectales no malignos en Occidente, pero no en los entornos donde la disección submucosa endoscópica colorrectal se realiza de forma rutinaria. El estudio evaluó el número de lesiones colorrectales no malignas referidas a tratamiento quirúrgico en un centro oncológico terciario, que incorporó cromoendoscopia de aumento y disección submucosa endoscópica como parte del manejo estándar de pólipos colorrectales complejos.OBJETIVO:Estimar el número de pacientes con lesiones colorrectales no malignas referidos para resección quirúrgica en nuestra institución, después de la estandarización de la disección submucosa endoscópica de rutina y describir los resultados para los pacientes sometidos a disección submucosa endoscópica colorrectal.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo de un solo centro, a partir de una base de datos recolectada prospectivamente de disecciones submucosas endoscópicas y cirugías colorrectales realizadas entre enero de 2016 y diciembre de 2019.AJUSTE:Centro oncológico de referencia.PACIENTES:Pacientes adultos consecutivos con pólipos colorrectales no malignos complejos.INTERVENCIONES:Pacientes con pólipos colorrectales no malignos tratados mediante disección submucosa endoscópica o cirugía (colectomía electiva, rectosigmoidectomía, resección anterior baja o proctocolectomía).PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:La medida de resultado primario fue el porcentaje de pacientes remitidos a cirugía colorrectal por lesiones no malignas.RESULTADOS:En el período, 1,1% de 825 cirugías colorrectales fueron realizadas por lesiones no malignas y 97 pólipos complejos fueron extirpados por. disección submucosa endoscópica. Las tasas de resección en bloque, R0 y curativa de disección submucosa endoscópica fueron 91,7%, 83,5% y 81,4%, respectivamente. El tamaño tumoral medio fue de 59 (DE 37,8) mm. Se produjeron perforaciones durante la disección submucosa endoscópica en 3 casos, todos tratados con clipaje. Un paciente presentó una perforación diferida 2 días después de la resección endoscópica y fue intervenido quirúrgicamente. El seguimiento medio fue de 3 años, sin recurrencia tumoral en esta cohorte.LIMITACIONES:Estudio retrospectivo de un solo centro.CONCLUSIONES:Un flujo de trabajo que incluye la evaluación de las lesiones con cromoendoscopia de aumento y resección a través de disección submucosa endoscópica, puede conducir a una tasa muy baja de cirugía abdominal para lesiones colorrectales no malignas. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C123 . (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy ).

Expanding endoscopic boundaries: Endoscopic resection of large appendiceal orifice polyps with endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

Large appendiceal orifice polyps are traditionally treated surgically. Recently, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) have been utilized as alternative resection techniques.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection techniques for the management of large appendiceal orifice polyps.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study conducted to assess the feasibility and safety of EMR and ESD for large appendiceal orifice polyps. This project was approved by the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Board. Patients who underwent endoscopic resection of appendiceal orifice polyps ≥ 1 cm from 2015 to 2022 at a tertiary referral endoscopy center in the United States were enrolled. The main outcomes of this study included en bloc resection, R0 resection, post resection adverse events, and polyp recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 19 patients were identified. Most patients were female (53%) and Caucasian (95%). The mean age was 63.3 ± 10.8 years, and the average body mass index was 28.8 ± 6.4. The mean polyp size was 25.5 ± 14.2 mm. 74% of polyps were localized to the appendix (at or inside the appendiceal orifice) and the remaining extended into the cecum. 68% of polyps occupied ≥ 50% of the appendiceal orifice circumference. The mean procedure duration was 61.6 ± 37.9 minutes. Polyps were resected via endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and hybrid procedures in 5, 6, and 8 patients, respectively. Final pathology was remarkable for tubular adenoma (n = 10) [one with high grade dysplasia], sessile serrated adenoma (n = 7), and tubulovillous adenoma (n = 2) [two with high grade dysplasia]. En bloc resection was achieved in 84% with an 88% R0 resection rate. Despite the large polyp sizes and challenging procedures, 89% (n = 17) of patients were discharged on the same day as their procedure. Two patients were admitted for post-procedure observation for conservative pain management. Eight patients underwent repeat colonoscopy without evidence of residual or recurrent adenomatous polyps.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights how endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and hybrid procedures are all appropriate techniques with minimal adverse effects, further validating the utility of endoscopic procedures in the management of large appendiceal polyps.

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.

Setting up a regional expert panel for complex colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal lesions: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022

ESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based).ESGE does not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection.ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the treatment of choice for most superficial esophageal squamous cell and superficial gastric lesions.For Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated lesions, ESGE suggests the use of ESD for lesions suspicious of submucosal invasion (Paris type 0-Is, 0-IIc), for malignant lesions > 20 mm, and for lesions in scarred/fibrotic areas.ESGE does not recommend routine use of ESD for duodenal or small-bowel lesions.ESGE suggests that ESD should be considered for en bloc resection of colorectal (but particularly rectal) lesions with suspicion of limited submucosal invasion (demarcated depressed area with irregular surface pattern or a large protruding or bulky component, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm) or for lesions that otherwise cannot be completely removed by snare-based techniques.ESGE recommends that an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with histology no more advanced than intramucosal cancer (no more than m2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma), well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion or ulceration, should be considered a very low risk (curative) resection, and no further staging procedure or treatment is generally recommended.ESGE recommends that the following should be considered to be a low risk (curative) resection and no further treatment is generally recommended: an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with superficial submucosal invasion (sm1), that is well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion, of size ≤ 20 mm for an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma or ≤ 30 mm for a stomach lesion or of any size for a BE-related or colorectal lesion, and with no lymphovascular invasion, and no budding grade 2 or 3 for colorectal lesions.ESGE recommends that, after an endoscopically complete resection, if there is a positive horizontal margin or if resection is piecemeal, but there is no submucosal invasion and no other high risk criteria are met, this should be considered a local-risk resection and endoscopic surveillance or re-treatment is recommended rather than surgery or other additional treatment.ESGE recommends that when there is a diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion, or deeper infiltration than sm1, or positive vertical margins, or undifferentiated tumor, or, for colorectal lesions, budding grade 2 or 3, this should be considered a high risk (noncurative) resection, and complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments should be considered on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE recommends scheduled endoscopic surveillance with high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based) with biopsies of only the suspicious areas after a curative ESD.

Endoscopic Management of Ingested Narcotic Substances: A Case Report and Literature Review

Management of swallowed narcotics remains in contention despite the increased frequency of occurrence. International societies recommend conservative therapy with escalation to surgical interventions in cases where drug packets do not progress. However, multiple studies demonstrate a treatment benefit of endoscopic intervention. We report the case of a 27-year-old male who presented after ingesting heroin bundles and failed the 48-hour of conservative therapy. Repeat computed tomography scanning demonstrated no movement of the package. Endoscopic retrieval was successful, and the patient was discharged the same day. Endoscopic intervention in the removal of bagged narcotics should be considered in patients presenting after purposely ingesting narcotics as means of planned concealment. 

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.

Role of minimally invasive techniques in gastrointestinal surgery: Current status and future perspectives

In recent years, the incidence of gastrointestinal cancer has remained high. Currently, surgical resection is still the most effective method for treating gastrointestinal cancer. Traditionally, radical surgery depends on open surgery. However, traditional open surgery inflicts great trauma and is associated with a slow recovery. Minimally invasive surgery, which aims to reduce postoperative complications and accelerate postoperative recovery, has been rapidly developed in the last two decades; it is increasingly used in the field of gastrointestinal surgery and widely used in early-stage gastrointestinal cancer. Nevertheless, many operations for gastrointestinal cancer treatment are still performed by open surgery. One reason for this may be the challenges of minimally invasive technology, especially when operating in narrow spaces, such as within the pelvis or near the upper edge of the pancreas. Moreover, some of the current literature has questioned oncologic outcomes after minimally invasive surgery for gastrointestinal cancer. Overall, the current evidence suggests that minimally invasive techniques are safe and feasible in gastrointestinal cancer surgery, but most of the studies published in this field are retrospective studies and case-matched studies. Large-scale randomized prospective studies are needed to further support the application of minimally invasive surgery. In this review, we summarize several common minimally invasive methods used to treat gastrointestinal cancer and discuss the advances in the minimally invasive treatment of gastrointestinal cancer in detail.

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.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Strategies to Improve Quality of Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy: Expert Review

The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association Institute Clinical Practice Update was to review the available evidence and provide best practice advice regarding strategies to improve the quality of screening and surveillance colonoscopy. This review is framed around 15 best practice advice statements regarding colonoscopy quality that were agreed upon by the authors, based on a review of the available evidence and published guidelines. This is not a formal systematic review and thus no formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendation has been carried out.

The impact of submucosal fatty tissue during colon endoscopic submucosal dissection in a western center

OBJECTIVES

Obesity is associated with submucosal fatty tissue. The main aim of this study was to assess the impact of submucosal fatty tissue on the success of colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD) in a western population.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of 125 consecutive C-ESDs performed between October 2015 and July 2017. Fatty tissue sign was defined as positive when the submucosal layer was covered with fatty tissue. The complexity of performing an ESD was assessed by the performing endoscopist, defined by the occurrence of intraprocedural perforation, inability to complete an en-bloc resection or a procedure time exceeding 180 min.

RESULTS

Fatty tissue sign positive was present in 44.8% of the procedures. There were 28 (22.4%) c-ESD defined as complex. Factors associated with complex ESD included; fatty tissue sign [odds ratio (OR) 12.5; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.9-81.9; P = 0.008], severe fibrosis (OR 148.6; 95% CI, 6.6-3358.0; P = 0.002), poor maneuverability (OR 267.4; 95% CI, 11.5-6212.5; P < 0.001) and polyp size ≥35 mm (OR 17.2; 95% CI, 2.6-113.8; P = 0.003). In patients demonstrating the fatty tissue sign, BMI and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR) were higher (27.8 vs. 24.7; P < 0.001 and 0.56 vs. 0.49; P < 0.001, respectively) and en-bloc resection was achieved less frequently (76.8 vs. 97.1%, P = 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed higher risk of fatty tissue sign positive associated with WHtR ≥0.52 (OR 26.10, 95% CI, 7.63-89.35, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the fatty tissue sign contributes to procedural complexity during C-ESD. Central obesity correlates with the likelihood of submucosal fatty tissue and as such should be taken into account when planning procedures.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Colonic Mucosal Neoplasia and Evaluation of Long-Term Recurrence: A Single-Center Experience of 500 Cases

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an alternative to surgery for the treatment of large laterally spreading lesions. Residual or recurrent adenoma is a major limitation. This study aimed to quantify early and late recurrences and to assess its associated risk factors.

METHODS

The study was a single-center, multiendoscopist, longitudinal study conducted between January 1, 2013 and April 26, 2017. A total of 480 patients with 500 polyps who underwent an endoscopic resection were included. Surveillance colonoscopy (SC) was performed at 4 to 6 months (SC1) and 16 to 18 months (SC2).

RESULTS

At SC1, early recurrence was noted in 77 of 354 (21.8%) lesions; 76 (98.7%) were treated endoscopically. The remaining 277 of 354 (78.2%) lesions had no recurrence at SC1; only 41 lesions (15%) were followed up at SC2. Recurrence at SC2 was found in 4 lesions (9.8%), all of which were treated endoscopically. Lesion size >40 mm was associated with recurrence. Recurrence at both SC1 and SC2 was successfully treated endoscopically in 78 of 81 lesions (96.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

EMR is an effective, minimally invasive technique for the treatment of large laterally spreading lesions. Although recurrence is a concern, its risk is low (21.8% on SC1 and 9.8% on SC2) and was managed endoscopically in 96.3% cases on follow-up endoscopy.

Morbidity and mortality after major large bowel resection of non-malignant polyp among participants in a population-based screening program

Background and aims

Colonoscopy following positive fecal occult blood screening may detect non-malignant polyps deemed to require major large bowel resection. We aimed to estimate the major inpatient morbidity and mortality associated with major resection of non-malignant polyps detected at colonoscopy following positive guaiac fecal occult blood screening in Ontario's population-based colorectal screening program.

Methods

We identified those without a diagnosis of colorectal cancer in the Ontario Cancer Registry ≤24 months following the date of colonoscopy prompted by positive fecal occult blood screening between 2008 and 2017, who underwent a major large bowel resection ≤24 months after the colonoscopy, with a diagnosis code for non-malignant polyp, in the absence of a code for any other large bowel diagnosis. We extracted records of major inpatient complications and readmissions ≤30 days following resection. We computed mortality within 90 days following resection.

Results

For those undergoing colonoscopy ≤6 months following positive guaiac fecal occult blood screening, 420/127,872 (0.03%) underwent major large bowel resection for a non-malignant polyp. In 50/420 (11.9%), the resection included one or more rectosigmoid or rectal polyps, with or without a colonic polyp. There were one or more major inpatient complications or readmissions within 30 days in 117/420 (27.9%). Death occurred within 90 days in 6/420 (1.4%).

Conclusions

Serious inpatient complications and readmissions following major large bowel resection for non-malignant colorectal polyps are common, but mortality ≤90 days following resection is low. These outcomes should be considered as unintended adverse consequences of population-based colorectal screening programs.

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.

Automated Classification of Colorectal Neoplasms in White-Light Colonoscopy Images via Deep Learning

Background: Classification of colorectal neoplasms during colonoscopic examination is important to avoid unnecessary endoscopic biopsy or resection. This study aimed to develop and validate deep learning models that automatically classify colorectal lesions histologically on white-light colonoscopy images. Methods: White-light colonoscopy images of colorectal lesions exhibiting pathological results were collected and classified into seven categories: stages T1-4 colorectal cancer (CRC), high-grade dysplasia (HGD), tubular adenoma (TA), and non-neoplasms. The images were then re-classified into four categories including advanced CRC, early CRC/HGD, TA, and non-neoplasms. Two convolutional neural network models were trained, and the performances were evaluated in an internal test dataset and an external validation dataset. Results: In total, 3828 images were collected from 1339 patients. The mean accuracies of ResNet-152 model for the seven-category and four-category classification were 60.2% and 67.3% in the internal test dataset, and 74.7% and 79.2% in the external validation dataset, respectively, including 240 images. In the external validation, ResNet-152 outperformed two endoscopists for four-category classification, and showed a higher mean area under the curve (AUC) for detecting TA+ lesions (0.818) compared to the worst-performing endoscopist. The mean AUC for detecting HGD+ lesions reached 0.876 by Inception-ResNet-v2. Conclusions: A deep learning model presented promising performance in classifying colorectal lesions on white-light colonoscopy images; this model could help endoscopists build optimal treatment strategies.

Clinical implications of decision making in colorectal polypectomy: an international survey of Western endoscopists suggests priorities for change

Introduction  Colonoscopy prevents colorectal cancer via the detection and resection of premalignant polyps. This effect may be attenuated by variations in polypectomy, with multiple techniques available and a wide range of experience amongst endoscopists. We assessed current practice against the best available contemporary evidence. Methods  An online survey was distributed to members of the gastroenterological and surgical societies of seven countries during July 2017. Images of colorectal polyps were presented and respondents requested to provide the polypectomy technique they would employ in their daily practice. Responses were compared to the evidence-based techniques in the 2017 ESGE Colorectal Polypectomy Guideline. Results  In total, 707 endoscopists (627 physicians, 71 surgeons, 9 nurse endoscopists, median practice duration 18 years) completed the survey. Of these, 3.1 % selected hot biopsy forceps and 5.2 % hot snare polypectomy (without submucosal lifting) to remove a 3 mm ascending colon polyp. Only 43.3 % selected cold snare polypectomy (CSP) to remove an 8 mm ascending colon polyp. Surgical referral was selected by 16.7 % of respondents for a 45 mm transverse colon polyp without endoscopic evidence of submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC). Endoscopic resection was selected by 12.0 % for an 80 mm sigmoid polyp with imaging consistent with deep SMIC, and a further 26.4 % selected tertiary endoscopist referral, suggesting they had not appreciated that it was endoscopically unresectable. Conclusion  CSP is underutilized for small polyp resection despite its favorable safety and efficacy. Benign polyps are commonly referred for surgery and overt SMIC is underappreciated using endoscopic imaging. Addressing these issues may reduce diathermy-related adverse events, surgery, and unnecessary colonoscopic procedures for patients and reduce rates of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer.

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.

Endoscopic management of large ileocecal valve lesions over an 18-year interval

Background and study aims  Ileocecal valve (ICV) lesions are challenging to remove endoscopically. Patients and methods  This was a retrospective cohort study, performed at an academic tertiary US hospital. Sessile polyps or flat ICV lesions ≥ 20 mm in size referred for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) were included. Successful resection rates, complication rates and recurrence were compared to lesions ≥ 20 mm in size not located on the ICV. Results  During an 18-year interval, there were 118 ICV lesions ≥ 20 mm with mean size 28.6 mm (44.9 % females; mean age 71.6 years), comprising 9.03 % of all referred polyps. Ninety ICV lesions (76.3 %) were resected endoscopically, compared to 91.3 % of non-ICV lesions ( P  < 0.001). However, in the most recent 8 years, successful EMR of ICV lesions increased to 93 %. Conventional adenomas comprised 92.2 % of ICV lesions and 7.8 % were serrated. Delayed hemorrhage and perforation occurred in 3.3 % and 0 % of ICV lesions, respectively, compared to 4.8 % and 0.5 % in the non-ICV group. At first follow-up, rates of residual polyp in the ICV and non-ICV groups were 16.5 % and 13.6 %, respectively ( P  = 0.485). At second follow-up residual rates in the ICV and non-ICV lesion groups were 18.6 % and 6.7 %, respectively ( P  = .005). Conclusions  Large ICV polyps are a common source of tertiary referrals. Over an 18-year experience, risk of EMR for ICV polyps was numerically lower, and risk of recurrence was numerically higher at first follow and significantly higher at second follow-up compared to non-ICV polyps.

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.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Optimal Management of Malignant Polyps, From Endoscopic Assessment and Resection to Decisions About Surgery

Colorectal cancer is defined clinically as invasion of dysplastic cells into the submucosa. Lesions with submucosal invasion but without invasion into the muscularis propria are generally called malignant polyps. A stepwise approach produces optimal management of malignant polyps (including polypoid and flat/depressed lesions). The first step is to avoid endoscopic resection of non-pedunculated lesions with endoscopic features that predict deep submucosal invasion. Lesions without such features are candidates for endoscopic resection. The second step is to assess candidates for endoscopic resection for features that predict an increased risk of superficial submucosal invasion. Such lesions should be considered for en bloc endoscopic excision if feasible. The third step is giving patients with endoscopically resected malignant polyps good advice regarding whether to undergo adjuvant therapy, usually surgery. We review the endoscopic and histologic criteria that guide clinicians through these steps.

The prevalence of venous thromboembolism in rectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) following rectal surgery is a significant and preventable cause of morbidity and mortality, yet the true prevalence is not well established. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the available literature and determined its prevalence following rectal surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review assessed the prevalence of VTE following rectal surgery. In addition, we evaluated whether subgroups (open vs. minimally invasive or benign vs. malignant resections) impacted on its prevalence or rate of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE).

RESULT

Thirty-eight studies met the predefined inclusion criteria. The aggregate prevalence of VTE following rectal surgery was 1.25% (95% CI 0.86-1.63), with DVT and PE occurring in 0.68% (95% CI 0.48-0.89) and 0.57% (95% CI 0.47-0.68) of patients. VTE following cancer and benign resection was 1.59% (95% CI 0.60-1.23 and 1.5% (95% CI 0.89-2.12) respectively. The prevalence of VTE in patients having minimally invasive resection was lower than those having open surgery [0.58% (16/2770) vs. 2.22% (250/11278); RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33-0.86].

CONCLUSION

This review observed that there is sparse evidence on prevalence of VTE following rectal surgery. It provides aggregated data and analysis of available literature, showing overall prevalence is low, especially in those having minimally invasive procedures.

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.

Role of Magnification Chromoendoscopy in the Management of Colorectal Neoplastic Lesions Suspicious for Submucosal Invasion

BACKGROUND

Correctly predicting the depth of tumor invasion in the colorectal wall is crucial for successful endoscopic resection of superficial colorectal neoplasms.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of magnifying chromoendoscopy in a Western medical center to predict the depth of invasion by the pit pattern classification in patients with colorectal neoplasms with a high risk of submucosal invasion.

DESIGN

This single-center retrospective study, from a prospectively collected database, was conducted between April 2009 and June 2015.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at a single academic center.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients with colorectal neoplasms with high risk of submucosal invasion were included. These tumors were defined by large (≥20 mm) sessile polyps (nonpedunculated), laterally spreading tumors, or depressed lesions of any size.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients underwent magnifying chromoendoscopy and were classified according to the Kudo pit pattern. The therapeutic decision, endoscopic or surgery, was defined by the magnification assessment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of magnifying chromoendoscopy for assessment of these lesions were determined.

RESULTS

A total of 123 lesions were included, with a mean size of 54.0 ± 37.1 mm. Preoperative magnifying chromoendoscopy with pit pattern classification had 73.3% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 100% positive predictive value, 96.4% negative predictive value, and 96.7% accuracy to predict depth of invasion and consequently to guide the appropriate treatment. Thirty-three rectal lesions were also examined by MRI, and 31 were diagnosed as T2 lesions. Twenty two (70.1%) of these lesions were diagnosed as noninvasive by magnifying colonoscopy, were treated by endoscopic resection, and met the curative criteria.

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-center retrospective study with a single expert endoscopist experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Magnifying chromoendoscopy is highly accurate for assessing colorectal neoplasms suspicious for submucosal invasion and can help to select the most appropriate treatment. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A920.

Cost analysis and outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions in an outpatient setting

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), a minimally invasive treatment for early gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, is considered challenging and risky in the colorectum. As such, most patients undergoing ESD are hospitalized due to the perceived increased risk of adverse events. The aim of this study was to compare the costs, safety and efficacy of colorectal-ESD in an outpatient vs inpatient setting in a tertiary level center.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study on consecutive patients admitted for colorectal-ESD. Patients were divided into outpatients (Group-A, same-day discharge), and inpatients (Group-B, admitted for at least one night). Data on overall costs, outcomes and adverse events were assessed for each group.

RESULTS

A total of 136 patients were considered. Fourteen were excluded because ESD was not performed due to intraprocedural suspicion of invasive cancer. Eighty-three patients were treated as outpatients (Group-A, 68%) and 39 (Group-B, 32%) were hospitalized. R0-rate was 90.4% in Group-A and 89.7% in Group-B(P = 0.98). One perforation occurred in Group-A (1.2%) and 2 in Group-B(5.1%, P = 0.2). Mean Length of stay (LOS) was 1 day for outpatients and 3.3 days for inpatients. Management of Group-A as outpatients produced a cost savings of 941€ on average per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient colorectal-ESD is a feasible, cost-effective strategy to manage superficial colorectal tumors with outcomes comparable to inpatient colorectal-ESD. By using proper selection criteria, outpatient ESD could be considered the first-line approach for most patients.

What is the cost of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)? A medico-economic study

Introduction

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the gold-standard treatment for superficial lesions of the digestive tract. No medico-economic study has been conducted in Europe.

Material and methods

A monocentric study was conducted including all patients undergoing ESD between January 2015 and December 2017. The global cost of hospital stays was measured by microcosting, and revenue was based on the diagnosis-related group (DRG) system. The primary objective was to assess the cost/revenue balance. A medico-economic comparison with surgery was performed as a secondary outcome.

Results

A total of 193 patients were prospectively included. The cost per procedure was €3463.79, subtracted from a €2726.84 revenue, with a deficit of -€736.96 per stay. Presence of comorbidities/complications increasing DRG value was the only predictive factor for a positive budgetary balance in a multivariate analysis (odds ratio 49.21, 95% confidence interval 11.3-214.25, p < 0.0001). In comparison with surgery, ESD was associated with shorter length of stay (11 vs 2 days; p < 0.0001) and lower morbidity (28% vs 14%; p = 0.061), lower cost (€8960 vs €1770; p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

The ESD cost/revenue balance is negative in 80% of cases. Given the benefits of ESD in terms of patient morbidity and financial savings compared with surgery, the implementation of a specific ESD reimbursement is warranted.

Safe and Effective Endoscopic Resection of Massive Colorectal Adenomas ≥8 cm in a Tertiary Referral Center

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection of large colorectal lesions is well reported and is the first line of treatment for all noninvasive colorectal neoplasms in many centers, but little is known about the outcomes of endoscopic resection of truly massive colorectal lesions ≥8 cm.

OBJECTIVE

We report on the outcomes of endoscopic resection for massive (≥8 cm) colorectal adenomas and compare the outcomes with resection of large (2.0-7.9 cm) lesions.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted in a tertiary referral unit for interventional endoscopy.

PATIENTS

A total of 435 endoscopic resections of large colorectal polyps (≥2 cm) were included, of which 96 were ≥8 cm.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes included initial successful resection, complications, recurrence, surgery, and hospital admission.

RESULTS

Endoscopic resection was successful for 91 of 96 massive lesions (≥8 cm). Mean size was 10.1 cm (range, 8-16 cm). A total of 75% had previous attempts at resection or heavy manipulation before referral. Thirty two were resected using endoscopic submucosal dissection or hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection and the rest using piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection. No patients required surgery for a perforation. Five patients had postprocedural bleeding. There were 25 recurrences: 2 were treated with transanal endoscopic microsurgery, 2 with right hemicolectomy, and the rest with endoscopic resection. Compared with patients with large lesions, more patients with massive adenomas had complications (19.8% versus 3.3%), required admission (39.6% versus 11.0%), developed recurrence (30.8% versus 9.9%), or required surgery for recurrence (5.0% versus 0.8%).

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic resection of massive colorectal adenomas ≥8 cm is achievable with few significant complications, and the majority of patients avoid surgery. Systematic assessment is required to appropriately select patients for endoscopic resection, which should be performed in specialist units. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A653.

Management of complex polyps of the colon and rectum

PUPRPOSE

Benign polyps that are technically challenging and unsafe to remove via polypectomy are known as complex polyps. Concerns regarding safety and completeness of resection dictate they undergo advanced endoscopic techniques, such as endoscopic mucosal resection or surgery. We provide a comprehensive overview of complex polyps and current treatment options.

METHODS

A review of the English literature was conducted to identifyarticles describing the management of complex polyps of the colon and rectum.

RESULTS

Endoscopic mucosal resection is the standard of care for the majority of complex polyps. Only polyps that fail endoscopic mucosal resection or are highly suspicious of invasive cancer but which cannot be removed endoscopically warrant surgery.

CONCLUSION

Several factors influence the treatment of a complex polyp; therefore, there cannot be a "one-size-fitsall" approach. Treatment should be tailored to the lesion's characteristics, the risk of adverse events, and the resources available to the treating physician.