Does Cancer Risk in Colonic Polyps Unsuitable for Polypectomy Support the Need for Advanced Endoscopic Resections? J Am Coll Surg. 2016;223:478-484. [PMID: 27374941 DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2016.05.018]

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Up to 15% of colorectal polyps are amenable for conventional polypectomy. Advanced endoscopic resection techniques are introduced for the treatment of those polyps. They provide higher en bloc resection rates compared with conventional techniques, while helping patients to avoid the complications of surgery. Note that 20 mm is considered as the largest size of a polyp that can be resected by polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in an en bloc fashion. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is recommended for polyps larger than 20 mm. Intramucosal carcinomas and carcinomas with limited submucosal invasion can also be resected with ESD. EMR is snare resection of a polyp following submucosal injection and elevation. ESD involves several steps such as marking, submucosal injection, incision, and dissection. Bleeding and perforation are the most common complications following advanced endoscopic procedures, which can be treated with coagulation and endoscopic clipping. En bloc resection rates range from 44.5 to 63% for EMR and from 87.9 to 96% for ESD. Recurrence rates following EMR and ESD are 7.4 to 17% and 0.9 to 2%, respectively. ESD is considered enough for the treatment of invasive carcinomas in the presence of submucosal invasion less than 1000 μm, absence of lymphovascular invasion, well-moderate histological differentiation, low-grade tumor budding, and negative resection margins.

Management of Rectal Cancer in Lynch Syndrome: Balancing Risk Reduction and Quality of Life

Patients with Lynch syndrome are predisposed to developing colorectal cancer and a variety of extracolonic malignancies, at a young age. The management of rectal cancer in the setting of Lynch syndrome is a complex clinical scenario that requires the expertise of a multidisciplinary management team. In this review, we delve into the approach for rectal cancer in these patients, and specifically focus on several key aspects of treatment. Some unique aspects of rectal cancer in Lynch syndrome include the decision between proctectomy alone versus total proctocolectomy with or without an ileal pouch, the utility of chemotherapy and immunotherapy, nonoperative rectal cancer management, and the management of rectal polyps. Throughout, we highlight the delicate interplay between future cancer risk reduction and quality of life optimization.

The role of advanced endoscopy in appendiceal polyp management and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Appendiceal orifice lesions are often managed operatively with limited or oncologic resections. The aim is to report the management of appendiceal orifice mucosal neoplasms using advanced endoscopic interventions.

METHODS

Patients with appendiceal orifice mucosal neoplasms who underwent advanced endoscopic resections between 2011 and 2021 with either endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic mucosal dissection (ESD), hybrid ESD, or combined endoscopic laparoscopic surgery (CELS) were included from a prospectively collected dataset. Patient and lesion details and procedure outcomes are reported.

RESULTS

Out of 1005 lesions resected with advanced endoscopic techniques, 41 patients (4%) underwent appendiceal orifice mucosal neoplasm resection, including 39% by hybrid ESD, 34% by ESD, 15% by EMR, and 12% by CELS. The median age was 65, and 54% were male. The median lesion size was 20 mm. The dissection was completed piecemeal in 49% of patients. Post-procedure, one patient had a complication within 30 days and was admitted with post-polypectomy abdominal pain treated with observation for 2 days with no intervention. Pathology revealed 49% sessile-serrated lesions, 24% tubular adenomas, and 15% tubulovillous adenomas. Patients were followed up for a median of 8 (0-48) months. One patient with a sessile-serrated lesion experienced a recurrence after EMR which was re-resected with EMR.

CONCLUSION

Advanced endoscopic interventions for appendiceal orifice mucosal neoplasms can be performed with a low rate of complications and early recurrence. While conventionally lesions at the appendiceal orifice are often treated with surgical resection, advanced endoscopic interventions are an alternative approach with promising results which allow for cecal preservation.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Advanced endoscopic resections in the treatment of malignant colorectal lesions: Are early oncological outcomes impacted?

BACKGROUND

Limited data exists on the impact of advanced endoscopic resections on early oncological outcomes of malignant colorectal lesions, especially in the presence of perforation.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of patients who underwent advanced endoscopic resections and had adenocarcinoma was performed. The primary endpoint was cancer recurrence.

RESULTS

63 patients were included. Mean age was 64.6 years with 58.7% of the patients being male. Mean BMI was 30.2 kg/m² 12 patients underwent advanced endoscopic resections followed by surveillance, 5 patients had conversion to surgery due to intra-procedural perforation, and 5 patients due to incomplete resection. 41 patients underwent salvage surgery following a median of 5.4 weeks of initial endoscopic resection. Neither local nor distant recurrence was observed within a median follow-up of 21.2 months.

CONCLUSION

Advanced endoscopic procedures do not have negative impact on the early oncological outcomes of patients with malignant colorectal lesions, even in the presence of perforation.

Is Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Lesions Performed in the Endoscopy Suite Safe and Cost Saving?

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare the outcomes and the cost differences of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures in the endoscopy suite (ES) versus the operating room (OR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The procedures in the OR were compared with procedures performed in the ES for demographics, lesion characteristics, procedure outcome, and procedure charges. The study included 163 procedures in the ES and 73 in the OR.

RESULTS

Both were similar in age, sex, body mass index, and intraprocedural and postoperative 30-day (late) complications. ES cases had significantly greater polyp size, were more commonly right-sided polyps, and had shorter hospital stays, with similar en bloc and margin-negative resection rates. The overall cost ratio of ESD procedures in ES to OR was 0.47 ( P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Colorectal ESD procedures performed in the ES have similar efficacy and safety as those in the OR. Procedures performed in the ES were associated with a shorter length of stay and significant periprocedural cost savings.

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.

Laparoscopic wedge resection as an alternative to laparoscopic oncological colon resection for benign endoscopically unresectable colon polyps

AIM

The aim of this study was to investigate, by comparing clinical and histological outcomes, whether laparoscopic (hybrid) wedge resection (LWR) could be a less invasive and safe alternative to laparoscopic oncological colon resection (OCR) for patients with an endoscopically unresectable, suspected benign, colon polyp.

METHOD

All patients with an endoscopically unresectable colon polyp who were referred for surgery between 2009 and 2018 and without biopsy-proven colon cancer were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Patients with macroscopic features of malignancy during endoscopy were excluded. Clinical and histological results for patients who underwent OCR or LWR were reviewed.

RESULTS

One hundred-and-twenty-two patients were included. Ninety-seven patients underwent OCR and 25 LWR. Major complications occurred in 16.7% (n = 16) of the OCR group compared with 4.0% (n = 1) of the LWR group (p = 0.06). In the OCR group the anastomotic leakage rate was 6.3% (n = 6) and the mortality rate 3.1% (n = 3). No anastomotic leakage or deaths occurred in the LWR group. The median length of hospital stay after OCR was 5 days [interquartile range (IQR) 5-9 days)] compared with 2 days (IQR 2-4 days) after LWR (p < 0.0001). Definite pathology showed a malignancy rate of 4.2% (n = 4) in the OCR group and 4.0% (n = 1) (without high-risk features) in the LWR group.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that LWR was associated with significantly lower complication rates and acceptable oncological risks compared with OCR. Therefore we suggest that LWR is a safe alternative treatment, next to other endoscopic options. The treatment that is most suitable for an individual patient should be discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting.

Adjuvant Therapies in Colon Cancer

Most of the patients with localized colon cancer undergo curative resection. However, significant number of patients will recur with metastatic disease, especially those with node positive cancer. Adjuvant chemotherapy has shown to improve cure rate and survival by eradicating micrometastases. The benefit of adjuvant therapy is well established in node-positive cancers, while their role in stage II cancer is not well defined. A number of molecular markers have been identified that are prognostic and/or predictive in colon cancer. Such molecular markers, and other clinicopathological features play an important role in selection of appropriate therapy and duration of treatment. Emerging evidence for the utility of genomic profiling or detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) are promising which may further facilitate decision making in the future. This chapter reviews the evolution of adjuvant therapy for resected colon cancer, the current evidence and the factors influence the choice of therapy.

Endorobots for Colonoscopy: Design Challenges and Available Technologies

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer death worldwide, after lung cancer (Sung et al., 2021). Early stage detection is key to increase the survival rate. Colonoscopy remains to be the gold standard procedure due to its dual capability to optically inspect the entire colonic mucosa and to perform interventional procedures at the same time. However, this causes pain and discomfort, whereby it requires sedation or anaesthesia of the patient. It is a difficult procedure to perform that can cause damage to the colonic wall in some cases. Development of new technologies aims to overcome the current limitations on colonoscopy by using advancements in endorobotics research. The design of these advanced medical devices is challenging because of the limited space of the lumen, the contorted shape, and the long tract of the large bowel. The force applied to the colonic wall needs to be controlled to avoid collateral effects such as injuries to the colonic mucosa and pain during the procedure. This article discusses the current challenges in the colonoscopy procedure, the available locomotion technologies for endorobots used in colonoscopy at a prototype level and the commercial products available.

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

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Ileocecal Valve Sparing Resection for the Treatment of Benign Cecal Polyps Unsuitable for Polypectomy

Background:

Not all benign-appearance polyps are amenable to endoscopic removal and colectomy is required in some cases. This study aims to compare the early outcomes of cecal wedge resection with ileocecal valve sparring versus standard right colectomy in patients with endoscopically unresectable cecal polyps referred for surgery.

Methods:

From Apr 2010 to Aug 2019, all consecutive patients who underwent cecal wedge resection or right colectomy in ten European centers for a presumed endoscopically benign polyp unsuitable for endoscopic resection were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was morbidity. Secondary endpoints were operative time and length of hospital stay.

Results:

One hundred and ten patients were included: 25 patients underwent cecal wedge resection and 85 a right colectomy. There were 56 men (51%) and 90% of the procedures were performed laparoscopically. 29 lesions were located at the appendix orifice (26.4%). Mortality was nil. There were no significant differences between both procedures for morbidity rate (20% versus 24.7%) or reoperation (4% versus 4.7%). Cecal wedge was related to shorter operative time (63 min versus 150 min, P = .008) and shorter hospital stay (5 days versus 6 days, P = .049). Only 1 patient had a salvage right colectomy after cecal wedge for a pTis adenoma.

Conclusions:

For benign-appearance cecal polyps unsuitable for endoscopic ablation, cecal wedge resection is safe and should be considered as an attractive alternative to right colectomy.

Long-term Outcomes of Primary Endoscopic Resection vs Surgery for T1 Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There is controversy over the best therapeutic approach for T1 colorectal cancer. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term outcomes of endoscopic resection (ER) vs those of primary or additional surgery.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases through October 2019 for studies that reported outcomes (overall survival, disease-specific survival, recurrence-free survival at 5 years, recurrence, and metastasis) of ER vs surgery in patients with colorectal neoplasms. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated based on time to events.

RESULTS

In total, 17 published studies with 19,979 patients were included. The median follow-up time among the studies was 36 months. The meta-analysis found no significant differences between primary ER and primary surgery in overall survival (79.6% vs 82.1%, HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.84-1.45), recurrence-free survival (96.0% vs 96.7%, HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.87-1.88), or disease-specific survival (94.8% vs 96.5%; HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.67-1.78). Additional surgery and primary surgery did not produce significant differences in recurrence-free survival (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.85-1.89). A significantly lower proportion of patients who underwent primary ER had procedure-related adverse events (2.3%) than patients who underwent primary surgery (10.9%) (P < .001). Lymphovascular invasion and rectal cancer, but not depth of submucosal invasion, were independently associated with recurrence for all T1 colorectal cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that ER should be considered as the first-line treatment for endoscopically resectable T1 colorectal cancers. In cases of noncurative resection, additional surgery can have comparable outcomes to primary surgery.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Therapeutic endoscopy is an emerging field within general surgery. This article explores the evidence for and usage of endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection throughout the gastrointestinal tract. We aim to educate surgeons and provide an understanding of these techniques. With education and appropriate training, the surgeon will gain confidence and hopefully adopt these tools into their daily practice.

Early stage colon cancer: Current treatment standards, evolving paradigms, and future directions

Colon cancer continues to be one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity throughout the world despite the availability of reliable screening tools and effective therapies. The majority of patients with colon cancer are diagnosed at an early stage (stages I to III), which provides an opportunity for cure. The current treatment paradigm of early stage colon cancer consists of surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy in a select group of patients, which is directed at the eradication of minimal residual disease to achieve a cure. Surgery alone is curative for the vast majority of colon cancer patients. Currently, surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy can achieve long term survival in about two-thirds of colon cancer patients with nodal involvement. Adjuvant chemotherapy is recommended for all patients with stage III colon cancer, while the benefit in stage II patients is not unequivocally established despite several large clinical trials. Contemporary research in early stage colon cancer is focused on minimally invasive surgical techniques, strategies to limit treatment-related toxicities, precise patient selection for adjuvant therapy, utilization of molecular and clinicopathologic information to personalize therapy and exploration of new therapies exploiting the evolving knowledge of tumor biology. In this review, we will discuss the current standard treatment, evolving treatment paradigms, and the emerging biomarkers, that will likely help improve patient selection and personalization of therapy leading to superior outcomes.

Feasibility and learning curve of unsupervised colorectal endoscopic submucosal hydrodissection at a Western Center

OBJECTIVES

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (CR-ESD) is an evolving technique in Western countries. We aimed to determine the results of the untutored implementation of endoscopic submucosal hydrodissection for the treatment of complex colorectal polyps and establish the learning curve for this technique.

METHODS

This study included data from 80 consecutive CR-ESDs performed by a single unsupervised western therapeutic endoscopist. To assess the learning curve, procedures were divided into four groups of 20 each.

RESULTS

En bloc resection was achieved in 55, 75, 75 and 95% cases in the consecutive time periods (period 1 vs. 4, P = 0.003). Curative resection was achieved in 55, 75, 70 and 95%, respectively (P = 0.037). Overall, series results demonstrated R0 resection in 75% of cases, with 23.7% requiring conversion to endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection, and 1.25% incomplete resections. Complications included perforations (7.5%) and bleeding (3.7%). Multivariate analysis revealed factors more likely to result in association with non en bloc vs. En bloc resection, where polyp size ≥35 mm [70 vs. 23.4%; odds ratio (OR) 13.2 (1.7-100.9); P = 0. 013], severe fibrosis [40 vs. 11.7%; OR 10.2 (1.2-86.3); P = 0.033] and where carbon dioxide for insufflation was not used [65 vs. 30%; OR 0.09 (0.01-0.53); P = 0.008].

CONCLUSION

CR-ESD by hydrodissection has good safety and efficacy profile and offers well tolerated and effective treatment for complex polyps. As such, this technique may be useful in the West, in centers, where previous gastric ESD is not frequent or Japanese mentoring is not possible.

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).

Pathology definitions and resection strategies for early colorectal neoplasia: Eastern versus Western approaches in the post-Vienna era

There is a well-known discrepancy between East and West classifications of colorectal neoplasm, especially "intramucosal carcinoma," categorized as subgroup 4.4 in the Vienna classification, usually recognized as high-grade dysplasia in the United States and as carcinoma in situ in Japan. Focusing on management, in the current National Comprehensive Cancer Network algorithm, high-grade dysplasia, carcinoma in situ, and intramucosal carcinoma are managed similarly, whereas submucosal invasion by carcinoma requires en bloc resection. To bridge the differences with regard to these conceptual problems in the definition and management of carcinoma in situ and intramucosal carcinoma, endoscopists and pathologists from Japan and the United States gathered and discussed from their perspectives how to accurately assess specimens of en bloc/piecemeal resection and to effectively predict lymph node metastasis risk.

Variation in colectomy rates for benign polyp and colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Management of Large Cecal Polyps: When Can the Ileocecal Valve Be Spared?

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal resection comprises the first-line treatment for large cecal polyps. With up to 14% of unresectable colonic polyps harboring malignancy, the management of endoscopically unresectable cecal polyps remains an oncologic right hemicolectomy, which can be associated with substantial postoperative morbidity.

OBJECTIVE

This study compares the outcomes of patients with cecal polyps who underwent either endoscopic mucosal resection, a cecectomy, or a right hemicolectomy.

DATA SOURCES

Patients undergoing either endoscopic mucosal resection, partial cecectomy, or right hemicolectomy from 2008 to 2017 at a single tertiary care institution were selected.

STUDY SELECTION

This was a retrospective cohort study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes measured were the rate of malignancy, complication rate, estimated blood loss, and hospital length of stay between surgical cohorts.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-nine patients with cecal polyps were identified, of which 52 were referred for surgery. Nineteen underwent partial cecectomy and 33 (27.3%) underwent right hemicolectomy. Two patients undergoing cecectomy required conversion to hemicolectomy because the resected specimen did not contain the polyp. The 2 surgical cohorts did not differ significantly regarding age, sex, or ASA classification. Procedural complication rates were higher among those undergoing hemicolectomy compared with those undergoing cecectomy (37.1% versus 5.9%, p = 0.02). Estimated blood loss (50 vs 10 mL, p = 0.02), operative duration (98 vs 76 minutes, p = 0.009), and length of stay (4 vs 2 days, p < 0.001) were higher in patients undergoing hemicolectomy than in those undergoing cecectomy. No invasive malignancies were identified on final pathology within the cecectomy cohort.

LIMITATIONS

Single-institution data and retrospective design were limitations of this study.

CONCLUSIONS

In tertiary centers, the majority of large cecal polyps are benign and can be addressed by using endoscopic mucosal resection. When involvement of the appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve precludes endoscopic treatment, surgical resection is the standard of care. In the subset of cases not involving the ileocecal valve and without preoperative evidence of malignancy, partial cecectomy spares the ileocecal valve and can offer reduced postoperative morbidity compared with a formal right hemicolectomy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A674.

Increasing Rates of Surgery for Patients With Nonmalignant Colorectal Polyps in the United States

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Despite the availability of endoscopic therapy, many patients in the United States undergo surgical resection for nonmalignant colorectal polyps. We aimed to quantify and examine trends in the use of surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps in a nationally representative sample.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample for 2000 through 2014. We included all adult patients who underwent elective colectomy or proctectomy and had a diagnosis of either nonmalignant colorectal polyp or colorectal cancer. We compared trends in surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps with surgery for colorectal cancer and calculated age, sex, race, region, and teaching status/bed-size-specific incidence rates of surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps.

RESULTS

From 2000 through 2014, there were 1,230,458 surgeries for nonmalignant colorectal polyps and colorectal cancer in the United States. Among those surgeries, 25% were performed for nonmalignant colorectal polyps. The incidence of surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps has increased significantly, from 5.9 in 2000 to 9.4 in 2014 per 100,000 adults (incidence rate difference, 3.56; 95% confidence interval 3.40-3.72), while the incidence of surgery for colorectal cancer has significantly decreased, from 31.5 to 24.7 surgeries per 100,000 adults (incidence rate difference, -6.80; 95% confidence interval -7.11 to -6.49). The incidence of surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps has been increasing among individuals age 20 to 79, in men and women and including all races and ethnicities.

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of a large, nationally representative sample, we found that surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps is common and has significantly increased over the past 14 years.

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.