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

Comparison of Postoperative Outcome and Prognosis Among Laparoscopic Left Colectomy and Laparoscopic Sigmoidectomy in Sigmoid Colon Cancer Patients: A Propensity Score Matching Study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of laparoscopic left colectomy (LLC) and laparoscopic sigmoidectomy (LSD) on short-term outcomes and prognosis of sigmoid colon cancer (SCC) patients using propensity score matching (PSM).

METHODS

In this retrospective study, the SCC patients who underwent LLC or LSD surgery were collected from a single clinical center from Jan 2011 to Dec 2019. Short-term outcomes and prognosis were compared between patients who received LSD surgery and LLC surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 356 patients were included in this study. After 1:1 PSM analysis, there were 50 patients who underwent LLC surgery and 50 patients who underwent LSD surgery left in this study. No significant difference was found in baseline characteristics after PSM (P > .05). In comparison with the LLC surgery group, the LSD surgery group had shorter operation time (P = .003) after PSM. Moreover, the surgical procedure was not an independent predictor for overall survival (OS) (P = .918, 95% CI = .333-2.688) and disease-free survival DFS (P = .730, 95% CI = .335-2.150), but age (OS: P = .009, 95% CI = 1.010-1.075; DFS: P = .014, 95% CI = 1.007-1.061) and tumor stage (OS: P = .004, 95% CI = 1.302-3.844; DFS: P < .01, 95% CI = 1.572-4.171) were the independent risk factors for OS and DFS in SCC patients.

CONCLUSION

There was no significant difference between the two surgical procedures for prognosis of SCC patients. However, the possible reasons for changing the surgical procedures should be cautious by surgeons.

Granular cell tumor of the cecum: Case report of mini invasive surgical resection and review of the literature

Introduction and importance

Granular Cell Tumor (GCT) is a rare lesion with unclear histogenesis, predominantly described as a skin lesion. Visceral localization of GCT is even more rare with few cases reported in the literature. Nowadays GCT guidelines are not available.

Case presentation

A 45-year-old Caucasian woman was visited in our surgical department for significant weight loss (about 30 kg) during the previous 6 months. Colonoscopy showed a caecal polypoid lesion that was resected with a diatermic loop and classified as GCT. Microscopically, the neoplasm partially involved the mucosa and diffusely the submucosa, extending to the endoscopic resection margins. Because of the high risk of perforation during endoscopic radicalisation attempt, the patient underwent ileocecal resection. The postoperative course was uneventful.

Clinical discussion

GCT is a rare soft tissue neoplasm probably deriving from Schwann cells. The main treatment for GCT is an endoscopic mucosal/submucosal resection. Nevertheless, a radicalization of the lesion through a surgical attempt should be preferred when the endoscopic procedure is linked to a high risk of perforation.

It is important to distinguish GCT from other polypoid lesions of the colon, due to its malignant potential (about 2%) and its relapsing capacity when margins are involved.

Conclusion

GTC is a rare neoplasm and as its diagnosis is made only histologically, it should be included in differential diagnosis of colonic polypoid lesions. Surgery can be considered the best choice when an endoscopic attempt of GCT lesions is linked to a high risk of colon perforation.

•

Granular Cell Tumor (GCT) is a rare lesion with unclear histogenesis.

•

Visceral localizations are even more rare that skin lesions.

•

GCT should be distinguished from all other polypoid lesions.

•

GCT epidemiology is limited due to its unknown origin and rare occurrence.

•

Some specialists recommend a surgical resection for lesions >2–5 cm.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection with Circumferential Mucosal Incision for Colorectal Neoplasms: Comparison with Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and between Two Endoscopists with Different Experiences

Background/Aims

Endoscopic mucosal resection with circumferential mucosal incision (CMI-EMR) may offer benefits comparable to those of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), while requiring less technical proficiency than ESD.

Methods

We retrospectively compared the outcomes of CMI-EMR (n=34) and size-matched ESD (n=102), which were performed by a Korean endoscopist for colorectal epithelial lesions of 20–35 mm. Procedural parameters of CMI-EMRs performed by an American ESD novice (n=30) were compared with those performed by the Korean endoscopist.

Results

The lesion size was 22.3±3.9 mm and 22.9±2.4 mm in the CMI-EMR and size-matched ESD groups, respectively (p=0.730). The resection time was 12.7±7.0 minutes in the CMI-EMR group and 45.6±30.1 minutes in the ESD group (p<0.001). The en bloc resection rate was 94.1% in the CMI-EMR group and 100% in the ESD group (p=0.061). There were no differences in the en bloc resection and complication rates of CMI-EMRs between a Korean and an American endoscopist.

Conclusions

For the treatment of moderate-size colorectal lesions, CMI-EMR showed a trend toward lower en bloc resection rate, but required shorter procedure time than ESD. CMI-EMR outcomes were similar when performed by a Korean ESD expert and an American ESD novice.

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an advanced endoscopic technique that allows en-bloc resection of gastrointestinal tumor. We systematically review the medical literature in order to evaluate the safety and efficacy of colorectal ESD. Patients and methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid, CINAHL, and Cochrane for studies reporting on the clinical efficacy and safety profile of colorectal ESD. Results: Included in this study were 13833 tumors in 13603 patients (42 % female) who underwent colorectal ESD between 1998 and 2014. The R0 resection rate was 83 % (95 % CI, 80 - 86 %) with significant between-study heterogeneity (P < 0.001) which was partly explained by difference in continent (P = 0.004), study design (P = 0.04), duration of the procedure (P = 0.009), and, marginally, by average tumor size (P = 0.09). Endoscopic en bloc and curative resection rates were 92 % (95 % CI, 90 - 94 %) and 86 % (95 % CI, 80 - 90 %), respectively. The rates of immediate and delayed perforation were 4.2 % (95 % CI, 3.5 - 5.0 %) and 0.22 % (95 % CI, 0.11 - 0.46 %), respectively, while rates of immediate and delayed major bleeding were 0.75 % (95 % CI, 0.31 - 1.8 %) and 2.1 % (95 % CI, 1.6 - 2.6 %). After an average postoperative follow up of 19 months, the rate of tumor recurrence was 0.04 % (95 % CI, 0.01 - 0.31) among those with R0 resection and 3.6 % (95 % CI, 1.4 - 8.8 %) among those without R0 resection. Overall, irrespective of the resection status, recurrence rate was 1.0 % (95 % CI, 0.42 - 2.1 %). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis, the largest and most comprehensive assessment of colorectal ESD to date, showed that colorectal ESD is safe and effective for colorectal tumors and warrants consideration as first-line therapy when an expert operator is available.