Con: colonoscopic resection of large neoplastic lesions is appropriate and safe

Appendix orifice polyps: a study of 691 lesions at a single institution

PURPOSE

Data on the management of appendix orifice lesions are limited. We present our experience on the management of appendix orifice lesions focusing on the range of size, histology, treatment, and outcomes for polyps at the appendix orifice.

METHODS

Retrospective descriptive study at a tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Those having appendix orifice lesion removed and sent for histology between 2000 and 2017.

INTERVENTIONS(S)

Polypectomy, surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Polyp size, shape, histology, treatment.

RESULTS

In total, 691 patients matched our inclusion criteria. Screening was the most common indication for colonoscopy (49.1%). Mean size was 10.1 mm. The most common excision method was cold biopsy forceps (36.3%), followed by hot snare (9.3%), cold snare (8.5%), jumbo cold forceps (6.7%), hot biopsy (6.8%), and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR)/endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) (4%). Recurrence was seen in 19/184 (10.3%) patients. Index polyps ≥ 10 mm had a significantly higher risk of recurrence compared to those ≤ 5 mm (odds ratio 3.2 95% CI 1.1-9.2, p = 0.027). None of the patients had complications. Surgery was performed in 45/691 (6.5%). Polyps > 5 mm (41/45) were more likely to require surgery than polyps ≤ 5 mm (4/45 6.67%), p < 0.001.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective study.

CONCLUSION

Appendix orifice polyps can usually be managed by conventional endoscopic polypectomy methods without the need for ESD.

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.

Characteristics of Patients with Colonic Polyps Requiring Segmental Resection

BACKGROUND

It is unclear if the availability of new techniques for removal of large colonic polyps has affected the use of segmental colon resection. We sought to evaluate the characteristics of polyps undergoing surgical resection, including involvement of therapeutic gastroenterologists (TG).

METHODS

484 patients had a colonic resection; 165 (34%) were identified from the pathology database with polyp, adenoma, or mass in the clinical history field; these charts were reviewed.

RESULTS

128 patients (mean age 68 yrs, 72% male) were included. The mean polyp size was 2.9 cm (0.4 cm-12.0 cm). Adenocarcinoma was diagnosed in 50 (39.1%). 97 (75.8%) patients had a polyp that was felt to be unresectable by EMR, and 31 (24.2%) underwent successful EMR followed by surgery for adenocarcinoma (n = 29). The indication for surgery in those with unresectable polyps was variable and was not clearly documented in 51 (52.6%); only 17 of these patients (17.5%) had a TG involved.

CONCLUSION

A high proportion of polyps managed by segmental resection did not contain adenocarcinoma. This data suggests that even in a tertiary care center where advanced endoscopic techniques are easily available, they are not always utilized. Educational endeavors to ensure that ideal pathways of intervention are utilized require implementation.

Scope or scalpel? A matched study of the treatment of large colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND

Large colorectal polyps can be treated either endoscopically or by formal resection. The aim of this study was to clarify the relative advantages and disadvantages of surgical resection and colonoscopic snaring as means of treating large colorectal polyps.

METHODS

This is a matched cohort study, comparing cases of surgical resection of benign colorectal polyps with endoscopic resection. Cases drawn from pathology and endoscopy databases were matched for the size and site of polyps, and the groups were compared for the end points of complications, length of hospital stay and completeness of the removal of the polyp.

RESULTS

There were 78 patients in each group, with mean ages of 65.6 years (colonoscopy) and 66.8 years (surgery). A total of 39 of the surgery group and 47 of the colonoscopy group were men. Mean polyp size was 34.1 mm (colonoscopy) and 32.1 mm (surgery). There was an exact match for polyp location. Complications occurred in eight colonoscopy patients (10.3%) and 42 surgery patients (56.0%) (P < 0.001, chi-square). Length of hospital stay was 0 days for colonoscopy patients and 7.3 ± 4.7 days for surgery (P < 0.001). The surgery group was separated into laparoscopic (n = 35) and open (n = 43) surgery. There was no difference in complication rates (42.4 versus 53.5%, respectively) but laparoscopic had shorter length of stay (5.8 days ± 4.9 SD versus 8.4 days ± 4.3 SD). Recurrence of surgically resected polyps was zero; at last follow-up 13% of snared polyps persisted.

CONCLUSION

Although resection is a more certain and absolute way of treating benign polyps, endoscopic polypectomy is preferable.

Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions: A systematic review

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for the treatment of colorectal lesions.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted from January 2000 to May 2015. The main outcomes were: recurrence after "en bloc" and "piecemeal" resection; procedure related adverse events; the EMR endoscopic success rate and the completely eradicated resection rate (R0) after ESD.

RESULTS

A total of 66 studies were included in the analysis. The total number of lesions was 17950 (EMR: 11.873; ESD: 6077). Recurrence rate was higher in the EMR than ESD group (765/7303l vs. 50/3910 OR 8.19, 95% CI 6.2-10.9 p<0.0001). EMR-en bloc resection was achieved in 6793/10803 lesions (62.8%) while ESD-en bloc resection was obtained in 5500/6077 lesions (90.5%) (OR 0.18, p<0.0001, 95% CI 0.16-0.2). Perforation occurred more frequently in ESD than in EMR group (p<0.0001, OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.15-0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic resection of large colorectal lesions is safe and effective. Compared with EMR, ESD results in higher "en bloc" resection rate and lower local recurrence rate, however ESD has high procedure-related complication rates.

Advanced endoscopic resection of colorectal lesions

Advanced endoscopic resection techniques allow curative treatment of difficult colonic lesions and avoid the need for surgery in certain cases. If endoscopic resection is indicated, the choice of the most appropriate resection technique depends on lesion characteristics and endoscopist expertise.

Current status of endoscopic resection strategy for large, early colorectal neoplasia in Japan

BACKGROUND

Conventional endoscopic resection (CER) for early colorectal neoplasia (CRN) is widely accepted as a minimally invasive treatment. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was developed in Japan to resect larger lesions, but ESD was not covered by the Japanese national health insurance until April 2012. In addition, treatment strategies vary considerably among medical facilities. To evaluate the current situation in Japan regarding endoscopic treatment of CRNs measuring ≥20 mm, we conducted a prospective multicenter study at 18 medium-volume and high-volume specialized facilities in cooperation with the Japan Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR).

METHODS

The JSCCR conducted a multicenter, observational study of all patients treated by CER and ESD of CRNs measuring ≥20 mm.

RESULTS

From October 2007 to December 2010, CERs and ESDs were performed on 1,845 CRNs (CERs 1,029; ESDs 816). Lesions diagnosed as protruded, flat, and depressed totaled 541, 1224, and 48, respectively. En bloc resection rates and mean procedure times for CER/ESD were 56.9%/94.5% (P < 0.01) and 18 ± 23 min/96 ± 69 min, respectively. The average ESD procedure time was 129 ± 83 min in the ≥40-mm group. As lesion size increased, the CER en bloc resection rate decreased significantly (trend P < 0.01), but the ESD en bloc resection rate remained over 93%. Perforation and delayed bleeding rates of CER/ESD were 0.8%/1.6% (P < 0.05) and 2%/2.2% (P = 0.3), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The en bloc resection rate for ESD was significantly higher than for CER, although complication rates were fairly low. Despite a longer procedure time, safety of colorectal ESD has improved in various facilities in Japan. However, ESD for lesions measuring ≥40 mm must be performed by experienced endoscopists due to the longer procedure time.

Endoscopic resection of large colon polyps

Endoscopic resection, including polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection, and endoscopic submucosal dissection, is the preferred treatment method of large colorectal polyps. Its safety and efficacy have been shown. Endoscopic removal techniques are important because they provide a resection specimen for precise histopathologic staging to further direct diagnosis, prognosis, and management decisions. Used according to its indications, it provides curative resection and obviates the higher morbidity, mortality, and cost associated with alternative surgical treatment.

Laparoscopic-monitored colonoscopic polypectomy: a multimodality method to avoid segmental colon resection

AIM

In some patients with adenoma, snare polypectomy may be technically impossible owing to angulation of the colon or after previous surgery. This may result in a segmental colonic resection, if malignant invasion is thought to be likely. Laparoscopic mobilization of the colon to enable a simultaneous colonoscopy can avoid this difficulty.

METHOD

A feasibility study was performed in 11 patients for whom endoscopic removal was technically impossible due to fibrosis after previous surgery or to anatomical difficulty. In 10, adenoma (histologically benign) had been diagnosed during diagnostic colonoscopy and in the remaining patient the indication was rectal bleeding.

RESULTS

It was possible to perform a full colonoscopy after laparoscopic mobilization in all cases. In nine of the 10 patients with adenoma 11 tubulovillous adenomas were removed endoscopically, and in one the tumour was too large for endoscopic resection even after full mobilization. A laparoscopic segmental resection was performed in this case. In the patient with rectal bleeding, colonoscopy revealed an angiodysplasia of the caecum, also treated by resection. Apart from the two patients having resection, all patients were discharged within 24 h of the procedure. During endoscopic follow up (4-27 months) there were no recurrences.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined laparoscopy and endoscopy enabled removal of adenomas otherwise inaccessible for endoscopic techniques. Thus, segmental colon resections can be avoided in most of these patients.

Minimally invasive approaches for the management of "difficult" colonic polyps

Traditionally, patients with colonic polyps not amenable to endoscopic removal require open colectomy for management. We evaluated our experience with minimally invasive approaches including endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), laparoscopic-assisted endoscopic polypectomy (LAEP), and laparoscopic-assisted colectomy (LAC). Patients referred for surgery for colonic polyps were selected for one of three minimally invasive modalities. A total of 123 patients were referred for resection of “difficult” polyps. Thirty underwent EMR, 25 underwent LAEP, and 68 underwent LAC. Of those selected to undergo EMR or LAEP, 76.4% were successfully managed without colon resection. The remaining 23.6% underwent LAC. Nine complications were encountered, including two requiring reoperative intervention. Of the 123 patients, three were found to have malignant disease on final pathology. Surgical resection can be avoided in a significant number of patients with “difficult” polyps referred for surgery by performing EMR and LAEP. In those who require surgery, minimally invasive resection can be achieved.

Endoscopic mucosal resection of non-polypoid colorectal neoplasm

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is preferred to standard polypectomy for the resection of non-polypoid lesions because these lesions can be technically difficult to capture with a snare; furthermore, without submucosal injection the underlying muscularis propria may be excessively coagulated or even inadvertently resected. Because the resection plane of EMR is in the middle or deeper part of the submucosa, EMR allows the precise depth of the lesion to be evaluated. Although the majority of non-polypoid lesions are adenomatous, non-polypoid colorectal neoplasm has a high association with advanced pathology, irrespective of size. Using EMR, a complete pathologic specimen is obtained, the risk of lymph node metastasis can be accurately assessed based on the depth of invasion, and patients can be suitably managed. Used according to its indications, EMR provides curative resection, and obviates the higher morbidity, mortality, and cost associated with surgical treatment.

Tissue apposition system: new technology to minimize surgery for endoscopically unresectable colonic polyps

OBJECTIVE

This is the first clinical series using the Tissue Apposition System (TAS) device in a feasibility study of polypectomy as an alternative to laparoscopic colectomy (LC) for endoscopically unresectable polyps. TAS is a novel T-tag system for endoscopic placement of sutures, facilitating closure of larger defects from advanced endoluminal or transluminal endoscopic procedures. Such novel instrumentation may reduce risk and accelerate recovery.

METHODS

After institutional review board approval, patients with endoscopically unresectable polyps who would otherwise require LC were enrolled. The polyp site was visualized by colonoscopy and resected with laparoscopic assistance, using endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or submucosal dissection. After confirming benign disease by frozen section, the polypectomy site was closed by TAS under laparoscopic observation to avoid injury to surrounding structures. Follow-up colonoscopy was performed at 3 months.

RESULTS

Seven patients were recruited (5 men; mean age, 66 years). Polyps were from 20 to 50 (mean, 30) mm in diameter; six were in the right colon, and three were on the mesenteric border of the bowel. All final pathology was benign. Mean EMR time was 29 min, mean time taken for TAS was 37 min, and mean total operative time was 199 min. Two TAS procedures required conversion to LC (one unresectable polyp and one device failure). Five TAS procedures were completed, with a mean hospital stay of 1.2 days, and no complications. Follow-up colonoscopy revealed healing without polyp recurrence in any case. One patient (initial 5-cm sigmoid polyp) developed a very mild clinically asymptomatic stricture in the sigmoid colon.

CONCLUSIONS

This initial human experience demonstrates that TAS can be used safely in the colon under laparoscopic control. TAS permits safe closure of defects after endoscopic polypectomy of selected and otherwise unresectable polyps. Such technology may potentially avoid the need for LC and permit rapid recovery with short hospital stay.