Advanced endoscopic resection of colorectal lesions

Does completing advanced endoscopy fellowship improve outcomes after endoscopic mucosal resection?

BACKGROUND

It was reported that about 60% of the physicians in the USA believed that their Gastroenterology fellowship poorly prepared them for large polyp resection. The aim of this study was to compare endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) efficacy and complication rates between skilled general gastroenterologists who perform high volume of EMR and advanced endoscopists.

METHODS

We identified 140 patients with documented large colonic polyps treated by 4 providers using EMR technique at Carilion Clinic, in Roanoke, Virginia, USA between 01/01/2014-12/31/2017, with follow-up through 10-2018. Information on demographics, clinical and pathological features of high-risk polyps (i.e., size, histology, site, and degree of dysplasia), timing of surveillance endoscopies, tools used during resection, and skills of performing endoscopist's were extracted. The cumulative risks of polyp recurrence after first resection using EMR technique were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty patients were identified (mean age, 64.1±11.2 years; 47.1% males). Fifty-five polyps (39.3%) were removed by 2 skilled gastroenterologists and 85 (60.7%) were removed by advanced endoscopists. Most of the polyps resected were located in the right colon (63.6%) and roughly half of the polyps were removed in piecemeal fashion. At follow-up endoscopy, the advanced endoscopy group had lower polyp recurrence rates. The median recurrence after polypectomy was significantly different between the groups (0.88 and 1.03 years for skilled gastroenterologists who did not complete and completed EMR hands-on workshops; respectively vs. 3.99 years for the advanced endoscopist who did not complete EMR hands-on workshop, P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for additional EMR training since polyp recurrence was significantly different between the groups despite high rates of piecemeal resection in the advanced endoscopy groups.

Endoscopic Management of Complex Colorectal Polyps: Current Insights and Future Trends

Most colorectal cancers arise from adenomatous polyps and sessile serrated lesions. Screening colonoscopy and therapeutic polypectomy can potentially reduce colorectal cancer burden by early detection and removal of these polyps, thus decreasing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Most endoscopists are skilled in detecting and removing the vast majority of polyps endoscopically during a routine colonoscopy. Polyps can be considered “complex” based on size, location, morphology, underlying scar tissue, which are not amenable to removal by conventional endoscopic polypectomy techniques. They are technically more challenging to resect and carry an increased risk of complications. Most of these polyps were used to be managed by surgical intervention in the past. Rapid advancement in endoscopic resection techniques has led to a decreasing role of surgery in managing these complex polyps. These endoscopic resection techniques do require an expert in the field and advanced equipment to perform the procedure. In this review, we discuss various advanced endoscopic techniques for the management of complex polyps.

The number of biopsy specimens can influence the non-lifting sign in colorectal laterally spreading tumors

BACKGROUND

 Although the problem of whether to perform a biopsy before endoscopic treatment for colorectal laterally spreading tumor (LST) troubles clinicians, about 50 % of lesions still undergo a preceding biopsy. We aimed to explore factors affecting the non-lifting sign in LST and examine the influence of "biopsy-related factors", such as the number of biopsy specimens and the interval after biopsy on non-lifting sign in cases with a history of biopsy.

METHODS

 Clinical data of 159 LSTs regarding age, gender, history of biopsy, tumor location, tumor size, the depth of submucosal invasion, tumor configuration, histologic type, location with respect to the fold, and result of non-lifting sign testing were investigated retrospectively. For patients with a history of biopsy, the period after biopsy and the number of biopsy specimens also were analyzed.

RESULTS

 Among 159 cases of LST, 112 were positive and 47 were negative for lifting signs. Biopsy history (p = 0.008), tumor size (p = 0.010), and location with respect to the fold (p = 0.022) were identified as factors affecting the non-lifting sign in multivariate analyses. In 75 LST cases with a history of biopsy, only the number of biopsies (p = 0.003) was identified as a factor affecting the non-lifting sign in multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

 For LST, lesions with larger size, being across the fold, and biopsy history were predictive factors for non-lifting signs. Reducing the number of biopsies would reduce the occurrence of non-lifting signs when biopsy is necessary. The impact of the interval after the biopsy on the non-lifting sign will require further study.

Pushing the Envelope in Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: Is It Feasible and Safe in Scarred Lesions?

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection is an established advanced polypectomy technique to manage large colorectal polyps.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients who had endoscopic submucosal dissection in the setting of significant scarring attributed to a previous intervention to determine whether this is safe and feasible.

DESIGN

The study used a prospectively maintained database.

SETTINGS

A scarred lesion was defined as a nonlifting polyp with a history of previous attempted removal with endoscopic mucosal resection, snare, or biopsy where there was no suspicion of malignancy.

PATIENTS

All consecutive patients in the previous 14 months were included.

INTERVENTION

Endoscopic submucosal dissection was the study intervention.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Thirty-day morbidity and mortality, readmission, length of stay, and recurrence were measured.

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients had endoscopic submucosal dissection over a 14-month period with a median polyp size of 31.5 mm (range, 20-45 mm). Eleven patients (12%) were confirmed as having significant scar. There were significantly more previous endoscopic mucosal resections in the scarred group (scarred: 63.6% vs nonscarred: 2.5%; p < 0.001). Significantly more of the scarred patients had their endoscopic submucosal dissection in the operating room versus the endoscopy suite (scarred: 82.0% vs nonscarred: 17.5%; p < 0.001). The 30-day morbidity rate was 18.7%. There were no mortalities. There was no difference in 30-day morbidity between scarred and nonscarred lesions (scarred: 9% vs nonscarred: 20%; p = 0.4). There were more day-case procedures in the nonscarred group (nonscarred: 93.7% vs scarred: 36.4%; p < 0.001). There was no malignancy on final pathology in the scarred group. There was no difference in readmission rate between the scarred and nonscarred lesions. The overall follow-up colonoscopy rate was 53%, and there were no polyp recurrences identified.

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by its small sample size, single institute, surgeon experience, and short follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Not only is endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients who have scarred lesions technically feasible and safe, it avoids a bowel resection in the majority of patients who have exhausted other advanced endoscopy techniques. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B427.

EMPUJAR EL SOBRE EN LA DISECCIN ENDOSCPICA SUBMUCOSA ES FACTIBLE Y SEGURO EN LESIONES CICATRIZADAS

ANTECEDENTES:La disección endoscópica submucosa es una técnica de polipectomía avanzada establecida para tratar pólipos colorrectales grandes.OBJETIVO:Evaluar a pacientes que se sometieron a disección submucosa endoscópica en el contexto de cicatrices significativas debido a una intervención previa para determinar si esto es seguro y factible.DISEÑO:Base de datos mantenida prospectivamente.AJUSTE:Una lesión cicatrizada se definió como un pólipo que no se levanta con antecedentes de intento de extirpación previa con resección endoscópica de la mucosa, lazo o biopsia, donde no había sospecha de malignidad.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes consecutivos en los últimos 14 meses.INTERVENCIÓN:Disección submucosa endoscópica.MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES:Morbilidad y mortalidad a 30 días, reingreso, duración de la estadía, recurrencia.RESULTADOS:Noventa y un pacientes tuvieron disección submucosa endoscópica durante un período de 14 meses con tamaño de pólipo mediana de 31,5 mm (rango, 20 - 45 mm). Se confirmó que once pacientes (12%) tenían una cicatriz significativa. Hubo significativamente más resecciones de mucosa endoscópica previas en el grupo con cicatrices (con cicatrices: 63,6% vs. sin cicatrices: 2,5%, p <0,001). Significativamente más de los pacientes con cicatrices tuvieron su disección submucosa endoscópica en el quirófano en comparación con la sala de endoscopia (con cicatrices: 82% vs. sin cicatrices: 17.5%, p <0.001). La tasa de morbilidad a 30 días fue del 18,7%. No hubo muertes. No hubo diferencia en la morbilidad a 30 días entre las lesiones cicatrizadas y no cicatrizadas (cicatrizadas: 9% frente a no cicatrizadas: 20%, p = 0,4). Hubo más procedimientos ambulatorios en el grupo sin cicatrices (sin cicatrices: 93,7% frente a cicatrices: 36,36%, p <0,001). No hubo malignidad en la patología final en el grupo con cicatrices. No hubo diferencia en la tasa de reingreso entre las lesiones cicatrizadas y no cicatrizadas. La tasa general de colonoscopia de seguimiento fue del 53% y no se identificaron recurrencias de pólipos.LIMITACIONES:Tamaño de muestra pequeño, experiencia de un solo instituto y cirujanos y seguimiento corto.CONCLUSIÓN:La disección endoscópica submucosa en pacientes con lesiones cicatrizadas no solo es técnicamente factible y segura, sino que evita una resección intestinal en la mayoría de los pacientes que han agotado otras técnicas endoscópicas avanzadas. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B427.

Advanced Colonic Polypectomy

Advanced colonic polypectomy techniques are endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and they aim at organ preservation with low complication rates. Main goal of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is to accomplish en-bloc resection that will subsequently allow accurate histopathological evaluation. It consists of injection, circumferential incision, and dissection of the lesion. Steps of the procedure are discussed in detail along with technological advancements.

Combined Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Extended Laparoscopic Appendectomy for the Treatment of Periappendiceal, Cecal, and Appendiceal Adenomas

BACKGROUND

Surgical resection is the gold standard in the treatment of neoplasia involving the appendiceal orifice (Ao). Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of adenomas involving the Ao can be challenging because of the risk of appendicitis, perforation, or incomplete resection. Surgical resection of Ao lesions is limited by the difficulty of ensuring a negative lateral margin without compromising the ileocecal valve and usually necessitates ileocecal resection. Although combined endoscopic and laparoscopic surgery has become more widely accepted for a variety of conditions, a structured approach to lesions involving the Ao has yet to be described. We describe a novel approach to the treatment of periappendiceal, cecal, and appendiceal adenomas-and present an algorithm to guide decision-making regarding the application of these techniques.

METHODS

All patients referred to our therapeutic endoscopy practice with tumors involving the Ao between August 2013 and July 2017 were included. Based on tumor size and involvement of the os, patients were either referred for extended laparoscopic appendectomy (ELA), EMR, or a combined approach.

RESULTS

In total, 47 patients were included; 25 patients underwent EMR only, 13 patients underwent ELA only, and nine patients underwent combined resection. Two patients undergoing EMR had postpolypectomy syndrome. One EMR-only patient with a positive lateral margin was referred for appendectomy, but declined. No patient required ileocecectomy. Pathologic examination revealed a high rate of sessile serrated adenoma (SSA; 36%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results introduce a decision algorithm and suggest that EMR combined with ELA is a safe and curative technique for the treatment of large cecal adenomas involving the Ao.

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.

Colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection with submucosal injection of epinephrine versus hypertonic saline in patients taking antithrombotic agents: propensity-score-matching analysis

Background

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to remove colon polyps is increasingly common in patients taking antithrombotic agents. The safety of EMR with submucosal saline injection has not been clearly demonstrated in this population.

Aims

The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of submucosal injection of saline–epinephrine versus hypertonic saline in colorectal EMR of patients taking antithrombotic agents.

Methods

This study enrolled 204 patients taking antithrombotic agents among 995 consecutive patients who underwent colonic EMR from April 2012 to March 2018 at Ureshino Medical Center. Patients were divided into two groups according to the injected solution: saline–epinephrine or hypertonic (10%) saline (n = 102 in each group). Treatment outcomes and adverse events were evaluated in each group and risk factors for immediate and post-EMR bleeding were investigated.

Results

There were no differences between groups in patient or polyp characteristics. The main antithrombotic agents were low-dose aspirin, warfarin, and clopidogrel. Propensity-score matching created 80 matched pairs. Adjusted comparisons between groups showed similar en bloc resection rates (95.1% with saline–epinephrine vs. 98.0% with hypertonic saline). There were no significant differences in adverse events (immediate EMR bleeding, post-EMR bleeding, perforation, or mortality) between groups. Multivariate analyses revealed that polyp size over 10 mm was associated with an increased risk of immediate EMR bleeding (odds ratio 12.1, 95% confidence interval 2.0–74.0; P = 0.001).

Conclusions

Two tested solutions in colorectal EMR were considered to be both safe and effective in patients taking antithrombotic agents.

The short-term outcomes of laparoscopic-endoscopic cooperative surgery for colorectal tumors (LECS-CR) in cases involving endoscopically unresectable colorectal tumors

PURPOSE

Laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative colorectal surgery (LECS) is widely used for the removal of endoscopically unresectable colonic polyps. We evaluated the invasiveness of LECS in comparison to conventional laparoscopic surgery (CLS) for endoscopically unresectable colorectal tumors.

METHOD

We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with colorectal adenoma or mucosal cancer and submucosal tumors who underwent either LECS or CLS at a single, high-volume center in Japan between 2004 and 2017. The short-term and oncological outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Of the 83 eligible patients, 15 underwent LECS and 68 underwent CLS. There was no conversion to open surgery in either group. En bloc resection was achieved in all cases in both groups. The median time to solid diet intake was the same in both groups (2 days, p = 0.39). The median duration of hospital stay after surgery was 6 days (range 4-12 days) in the LECS group and 10 days (range 5-68 days) in the CLS group (p = 0.01). Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3 postoperative complications only occurred in the CLS group (two cases, p = 0.37).

CONCLUSION

Our results indicated that LECS is a safe and feasible technique that results in high-quality colorectal polyp resection with quicker recovery and favorable 30-days postoperative outcomes.

Effect of time of day and daily endoscopic workload on outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection for large sessile colon polyps

Background

Endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colon polyps is challenging.

Objective

To determine if the time of day or daily endoscopic workload play a role in outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection for large non-pedunculated colon polyps greater than 20 mm.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colon polyps. The time of day and endoscopic workload were compared across the following outcomes: the rate of complete resection of the polyp, the rate of referral for surgery, and the rate of residual neoplasia on follow-up.

Results

One hundred and three endoscopic mucosal resection procedures were performed. There were no differences in the rates of complete resection (80.8% vs. 70.0%; P = 0.25), the need for surgery (27.4% vs. 33.3%; P = 0.55), and rate of residual neoplasia (24.5% vs. 50.0%; P = 0.07) when comparing the time of day. Colon polyps greater than 40 mm were less likely to be completely resected versus polyps sized 20-39 mm (56.8% vs. 91.9%; P < 0.001). In cases with no residual neoplasia on follow-up, the mean duration for the index procedure was 45.6 minutes versus 60.7 minutes when there was residual neoplasia (P < 0.01).

Conclusion

The time of day and endoscopic workload does not affect outcomes for endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colon polyps, but the size of large non-pedunculated colon polyps and resection times do.

Clinical guidelines for endoscopic mucosal resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions

This document summarizes the contents of the Clinical Guidelines for the Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Lesions that was developed by the working group of the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy (GSEED of Endoscopic Resection). This document presents recommendations for the endoscopic management of superficial colorectal neoplastic lesions.

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.

Experience in colon sparing surgery in North America: advanced endoscopic approaches for complex colorectal lesions

BACKGROUND

Need for colon sparing interventions for premalignant lesions not amenable to conventional endoscopic excision has stimulated interest in advanced endoscopic approaches. The aim of this study was to report a single institution's experience with these techniques.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of a prospectively collected database of all patients referred between 2011 and 2015 for colorectal resection of benign appearing deemed endoscopically unresectable by conventional endoscopic techniques. Patients were counseled for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with possible combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery (CELS) or alternatively colorectal resection if unable to resect endoscopically or suspicion for cancer. Lesion characteristic, resection rate, complications, and outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

110 patients were analyzed [mean age 64 years, female gender 55 (50%), median body mass index 29.4 kg/m²]. Indications for interventions were large polyp median endoscopic size 3 cm (range 1.5-6.5) and/or difficult location [cecum (34.9%), ascending colon (22.7%), transverse colon (14.5%), hepatic flexure (11.8%), descending colon (6.3%), sigmoid colon (3.6%), rectum (3.6%), and splenic flexure (2.6%)]. Lesion morphology was sessile (N = 98, 93%) and pedunculated (N = 12, 7%). Successful endoscopic resection rate was 88.2% (N = 97): ESD in 69 patients and CELS in 28 patients. Complication rate was 11.8% (13/110) [delayed bleeding (N = 4), perforation (N = 3), organ-space surgical site infection (SSI) (N = 2), superficial SSI (N = 1), and postoperative ileus (N = 3)]. Out of 110 patients, 13 patients (11.8%) required colectomy for technical failure (7 patients) or carcinoma (6 patients). During a median follow-up of 16 months (range 6-41 months), 2 patients had adenoma recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced endoscopic surgery appears to be a safe and effective alternative to colectomy for patients with complex premalignant lesions deemed unresectable with conventional endoscopic techniques.

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Colon Cancer

The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons is dedicated to ensuring high-quality patient care by advancing the science, prevention, and management of disorders and diseases of the colon, rectum, and anus. The Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee is composed of society members who are chosen because they have demonstrated expertise in the specialty of colon and rectal surgery. This committee was created to lead international efforts in defining quality care for conditions related to the colon, rectum, and anus. This is accompanied by developing Clinical Practice Guidelines based on the best available evidence. These guidelines are inclusive and not prescriptive. Their purpose is to provide information on which decisions can be made, rather than to dictate a specific form of treatment. These guidelines are intended for the use of all practitioners, health care workers, and patients who desire information about the management of the conditions addressed by the topics covered in these guidelines. It should be recognized that these guidelines should not be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. The ultimate judgment regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the physician in light of all the circumstances presented by the individual patient.

The Difficult Colorectal Polyp

Difficult colorectal polyps represent lesions that pose a challenge to traditional endoscopic snare polypectomy. These polyps have historically been managed by surgical resection. Currently, several less invasive options are available to avoid colectomy. Repeat colonoscopy and snare polypectomy by an expert endoscopist, endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and combined endoscopic and laparoscopic surgery have been developed to remove difficult polyps without the need for formal surgical resection. Patients with rectal polyps have the advantage of additional transanal minimally invasive techniques to enhance their resectability. Today, most colorectal polyps can be managed without the need for formal surgical resection.

Colonoscopy: Advanced and Emerging Techniques-A Review of Colonoscopic Approaches to Colorectal Conditions

A complete colonoscopy is key in the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to a variety of colorectal diseases. Major challenges are incomplete polyp removal and missed polyps, particularly in the setting of a difficult colonoscopy. There are a variety of both well-established and newer techniques that have been developed to optimize polyp detection, perform complete polypectomy, and endoscopically treat various complications and conditions such as strictures and perforations. The objective of this article is to familiarize the colorectal surgeon with techniques utilized by advanced endoscopists.

Endoluminal Therapy in Colorectal Cancer

Appropriate endoscopic resection for colorectal polyps can present a challenge to endoscopists, as these lesions may harbor malignancy. With recent advances in endoscopy, however, we are now entering an exciting frontier of endoscopic therapy for gastrointestinal lesions. These techniques include endoluminal mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection, which may be utilized on several colonic lesions. This article will discuss these principle endoscopic techniques, their outcomes, and briefly highlight their influence on endoscopic interventions, including transanal endoscopic microsurgery and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery.

Outcome of EMR as an alternative to surgery in patients with complex colon polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients with complex colon polyps were traditionally referred for surgery to avoid adverse events associated with endoscopic resection. Recent advances in endoscopic imaging as well as endoscopic hemostasis and clip closure allow for the use of EMR as an alternative to surgery for such lesions. To determine the outcome of treatment of complex colon polyps with EMR as an alternative to surgery, we conducted a retrospective observational study.

METHODS

Two hundred three patients with complex colon polyps were referred to an EMR center as an alternative to surgery. Patients underwent a protocol-driven EMR. The primary endpoint was the complete resection rate. Secondary endpoints were safety, residual adenoma rate, and incidence of missed synchronous polyps.

RESULTS

EMR was performed in 155 patients and was deferred in 48 patients who were referred to surgery. EMR specimens revealed benign polyps in 149 and cancer in 6 patients. EMR adverse events occurred in 7 patients, requiring hospitalization in 5 of them. None of the patients died as a result of their adverse events. Surveillance colonoscopy at 4 to 6 months after resection of a benign lesion in 137 patients revealed residual adenoma at the scar site in 6 patients and additional synchronous precancerous lesions in 117 patients that were not removed by the referring endoscopist. None underwent surgery for failure of EMR. The overall precancerous lesion burden was 2.83 per patient, the adenoma burden was 2.13 per patient, and the serrated polyp burden was .69 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

EMR can be used instead of surgery for complex colon polyps in 75% of patients with few adverse events and few residual adenomas at resection sites. In addition, careful repeat examination of the entire colon for synchronous lesions overlooked by the referring endoscopist is required for most patients. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01827241.).

Does Cancer Risk in Colonic Polyps Unsuitable for Polypectomy Support the Need for Advanced Endoscopic Resections?

BACKGROUND

There is a continuing debate on the best approach for endoscopically benign large polyps that are unsuitable for conventional endoscopic resection. This study aimed to estimate the cancer risk in patients with endoscopically benign unresectable colonic polyps referred for surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

We assessed patients with an endoscopic diagnosis of benign adenoma deemed not amenable to endoscopic removal, who underwent colectomy between 1997 and 2012. Patients with preoperative diagnoses of cancer, inherited polyposis syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, and synchronous pathology requiring surgery were excluded.

RESULTS

There were 439 patients (220 [50.1%] men; median age 67 years [range 27 to 97 years]) who underwent colectomy. Of 439 patients, 346 (79%) underwent preoperative endoscopy at our institution. Most of the polyps were located in the right colon (394 of 439, 89.7%), with the majority in the cecum (199 of 394, 45.3%). Polyp morphology was as follows: sessile (n = 252, 57.4%), pedunculated (n = 109, 24.8%), and flat (n = 78, 17.8%). Endoscopic pathology revealed high-grade dysplasia in 88 (20%) patients. Mean colonoscopic and postoperative polyp sizes were 3.0 cm (range 0.3 to 10 cm) and 2.7 cm (range 0 to 11 cm), respectively (p < 0.001). Final surgical pathology revealed cancer in 37 patients (8%). Polyp location, morphology, and histologic types were similar between the benign and malignant polyps. Cancer stages were: stage I (23 patients), stage II (11 patients), and stage III (3 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

For the majority of endoscopically benign colonic polyps, an oncologic colonic resection may be unnecessary, so advanced endoscopic resection techniques or laparoscopic-assisted polypectomy should be considered. When bowel resection is needed, the resection should be performed, obeying oncologic principles and techniques.

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

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

Endoscopic resection of tumors in the lower digestive tract

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

Polidocanol injection decreases the bleeding rate after colon polypectomy: a propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND

EMR is the standard of care for the resection of large polyps.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety profile of submucosal polidocanol injection with epinephrine-saline solution injection for colon polypectomy with a diathermic snare.

DESIGN

After 1-to-1 propensity score caliper matching, comparison of submucosal epinephrine injection was performed with polidocanol injection.

SETTING

Endoscopic suite at the University of Foggia between 2005 and 2014.

PATIENTS

Of 711 patients who underwent endoscopic resection of colon sessile polyps 20 mm or larger, 612 were analyzed after matching.

INTERVENTIONS

Submucosal epinephrine injection in 306 patients and polidocanol injection in 306 patients.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models aimed at identifying independent predictors of postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB).

RESULTS

The 2 groups presented similar baseline clinical parameters and lesion characteristics. All patients had a single polyp 20 mm or larger; the median size was 32 mm (interquartile range [IQR], 25-38) in the polidocanol group and 32 (IQR, 24-38) in the epinephrine group (P=.7). Polidocanol was more effective in preventing both immediate and delayed PPB (P<.001 and P=.003, respectively), and its efficacy was confirmed in almost all of the subgroups, regardless of polyp size and histology. Postprocedure perforation was observed in 2 patients (0.3%), both in the epinephrine group (P=.49). The 2 groups did not differ in the number of snare resections of lesions or the procedure duration (P=.24 and .6, respectively).

LIMITATIONS

Absence of randomization.

CONCLUSION

The submucosal injection of polidocanol for colon EMR is effective and significantly lowers the PPB rate.

Non-polypoid colorectal neoplasms: Classification, therapy and follow-up

In the last years, an increasing interest has been raised on non-polypoid colorectal tumors (NPT) and in particular on large flat neoplastic lesions beyond 10 mm tending to grow laterally, called laterally spreading tumors (LST). LSTs and large sessile polyps have a greater frequency of high-grade dysplasia and local invasiveness as compared to pedunculated lesions of the same size and usually represent a technical challenge for the endoscopist in terms of either diagnosis and resection. According to the Paris classification, NPTs are distinguished in slightly elevated (0-IIa, less than 2.5 mm), flat (0-IIb) or slightly depressed (0-IIc). NPTs are usually flat or slightly elevated and tend to spread laterally while in case of depressed lesions, cell proliferation growth progresses in depth in the colonic wall, thus leading to an increased risk of submucosal invasion (SMI) even for smaller neoplasms. NPTs may be frequently missed by inexperienced endoscopists, thus a careful training and precise assessment of all suspected mucosal areas should be performed. Chromoendoscopy or, if possible, narrow-band imaging technique should be considered for the estimation of SMI risk of NPTs, and the characterization of pit pattern and vascular pattern may be useful to predict the risk of SMI and, therefore, to guide the therapeutic decision. Lesions suitable to endoscopic resection are those confined to the mucosa (or superficial layer of submucosa in selected cases) whereas deeper invasion makes endoscopic therapy infeasible. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR, piecemeal for LSTs > 20 mm, en bloc for smaller neoplasms) remains the first-line therapy for NPTs, whereas endoscopic submucosal dissection in high-volume centers or surgery should be considered for large LSTs for which en bloc resection is mandatory and cannot be achieved by means of EMR. After piecemeal EMR, follow-up colonoscopy should be performed at 3 mo to assess resection completeness. In case of en bloc resection, surveillance colonoscopy should be scheduled at 3 years for adenomatous lesions ≥ 1 cm, or in presence of villous features or high-grade dysplasia patients (regardless of the size), while less intensive surveillance (colonoscopy at 5-10 years) is needed in case of single (or two) NPT < 1 cm presenting tubular features or low-grade dysplasia at histology.

Advanced polypectomy and resection techniques

Most colorectal cancer arises from adenomatous polyps. This gradual process may be interrupted by screening and treatment using colonoscopy and polypectomy. Advances in imaging platforms have led to classification systems that facilitate prediction of histologic type and both stratification for and prediction of the risk of invasion. Endoscopic treatment should be the standard of care even for extensive advanced mucosal neoplasm. Technique selection is influenced by lesion features, location, patient factors, and local expertise. Postprocedural complications are more common following advanced resection and endoscopists should be familiar with risk factors, early detection methods, and management.

Effect of prior biopsy sampling, tattoo placement, and snare sampling on endoscopic resection of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic manipulations, including biopsy sampling, tattoo application on the lesion itself, and sampling of the lesion with a polypectomy snare, are frequently performed on large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions ≥ 20 mm (LNCL) before referral for endoscopic resection.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of prior manipulations on the technical difficulty and recurrence rates of subsequent endoscopic treatment.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Two referral centers.

PATIENTS

Patients with LNCL referred for endoscopic resection.

INTERVENTIONS

Endoscopic resection.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT

En-bloc resection rate, rate of successful complete endoscopic resection without the need for ablation of visible residual, recurrence rate on follow-up, independent predictive factors for en-bloc resection, complete resection without ablation of visible residual, and recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 132 lesions was analyzed: 46 lesions without any prior manipulation, 44 with prior biopsy sampling only, and 42 with prior advanced manipulation including tattoo and/or snare sampling. The en-bloc resection rate was 34.8% for nonmanipulated lesions, 15.9% for lesions with prior biopsy sampling, and 4.8% for lesions with prior advanced manipulation (P = .001). Complete endoscopic resection without the need for ablation of visible residual was performed in 93.5% of nonmanipulated lesions, 68.2% of lesions with prior biopsy sampling, and 50% of lesions with prior advanced manipulation (P < .001). Recurrence rates were 7.7%, 40.7%, and 53.8% in the 3 groups (P = .001). In multivariate analysis, prior biopsy sampling was an independent predictor for inability to perform complete resection without ablation of visible residual (odds ratio .24, P < .05) and for recurrence (odds ratio 11.5, P = .004) compared with nonmanipulated lesions. Prior advanced manipulation was an independent predictor for inability to perform en-bloc resection (odds ratio .024, P = .001), for inability to perform complete resection without ablation of visible residual (odds ratio .081, P < .001), and for recurrence (odds ratio 18.8, P = .001).

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior biopsy sampling and advanced manipulation have significant deleterious effects on endoscopic treatment of LNCL.

Advances, problems, and complications of polypectomy

The major role of colonoscopy with polypectomy in reducing the incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer has been firmly established. Yet there is cause to be uneasy. One of the most striking recent findings is that there is an alarmingly high incomplete polyp removal rate. This phenomenon, together with missed polyps during screening colonoscopy, is thought to be responsible for the majority of interval cancers. Knowledge of serrated polyps needs to broaden as well, since they are quite often missed or incompletely removed. Removal of small and diminutive polyps is almost devoid of complications. Cold snare polypectomy seems to be the best approach for these lesions, with biopsy forcep removal reserved only for the tiniest of polyps. Hot snare or hot biopsy forcep removal of these lesions is no longer recommended. Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection have proven to be effective in the removal of large colorectal lesions, avoiding surgery in the majority of patients, with acceptably low complication rates. Variants of these approaches, as well as new hybrid techniques, are being currently tested. In this paper, we review the current status of the different approaches in removing polypoid and nonpolypoid lesions of the colon, their complications, and future directions in the prevention of colorectal cancer.

Re-evaluation of indications and outcomes of endoscopic excision procedures for colorectal tumors: a review

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are useful therapeutic techniques for colorectal tumors. Currently, new techniques based on these procedures are available, such as endoscopic submucosal dissection with snare (ESD-S) and endoscopic mucosal resection with pre-cutting (EMR-P). For the excision of colorectal tumors, each of these techniques has been characterized as having a high total resection rate, low recurrence rate or low complication rate. In this study, we analysed clinical trials that had recently been published, to search for the most appropriate endoscopic treatment for colorectal tumors. Our search results revealed the following: for a tumor with a diameter less than 20 mm, the surgeon should choose ESD, ESD-S, EMR-P or EMR, depending on the condition of the tumor. On the other hand, to excise a tumor larger than 20 mm in diameter, ESD and ESD-S should be the first choices. However, if the patient has a high risk of complications due to ESD or ESD-S, the use of EMR-P would be suitable. Because of the high possibility of canceration in a tumor larger than 20 mm in diameter, EMR is not the optimal endoscopic treatment for the excision of a colorectal tumor, due to a low total resection rate and a high recurrence rate.