Endoscopic resection of colorectal lesions: The narrowing divide between East and West

Endoscopic resection for non-polypoid dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate efficacy and safety of endoscopic treatment for the non-polypoid dysplasia in patients with long-standing IBD.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov registry were comprehensively searched. Pooled estimates of curative, R0, en-bloc resection rates, CRC, metachronous dysplasia, and local recurrence rates were calculated. Subgroup analysis according to areas, lesion size, endoscopic resection techniques, and grades of dysplasia were conducted. Data synthesis was completed in R using the package "meta".

RESULTS

Of the 973 studies initially identified, 7 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. These were all single-arm cohorts and included a total of 202 patients with IBD and non-polypoid dysplasia. The combined R0 and en-bloc resection rate were 0.70 (95% CI 0.55-0.81) and 0.86 (95% CI 0.65-0.95), respectively, with a recurrence rate of 0.08 (95% CI 0.05-0.13). CRC and metachronous dysplasia incidences were pooled as 32.53 (95% CI 12.21-86.67) and 90.24 (95% CI 44.91-181.33) per 1000 patient years.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-polypoid dysplasia associated with IBD can be resected endoscopically, especially by ESD. However, these patients have higher CRC and metachronous dysplasia incidence rates than patients with polypoid dysplasia, indicating a closer endoscopic surveillance.

Dissection-enabled scaffold-assisted resection (DeSCAR): a novel technique for resection of residual or non-lifting gastrointestinal neoplasia of the colon, expanded experience and follow-up

Background and study aims  Colonic lesions may not be amenable to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) due to previous manipulation, submucosal invasion, or lesion flatness. In 2018, we described Dissection-enabled Scaffold Assisted Resection (DeSCAR) to be safe for the endoscopic resection of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions 1 In this study, we expand our original cohort to describe our expanded experience with patients undergoing DeSCAR and assess the efficacy, safety, and feasibility of DeSCAR for endoscopic resection of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions. Patients and methods  We retrospectively reviewed 57 patients from 2015-2019 who underwent DeSCAR for colonic lesions with incomplete lifting and/or previous manipulation. Cases were reviewed for location, prior manipulation, rates of successful resection, adverse events, and endoscopic follow up to assess for residual lesions. Results  Fifty-seven lesions underwent DeSCAR. Of the patients, 51 % were female, and average patient age was 69 years. Lesions were located in the cecum (n = 16), right colon (n = 27), left colon (n = 10), and rectum (n = 4). Average lesion size was 27.7 mm. Previous manipulation occurred in 54 cases (72 % biopsy, 44 % resection attempt, 18 % intralesional tattoo). The technical success rate for resection of non-lifting lesions was 98 %. There were two delayed bleeding episodes (one required endoscopic intervention) and one small perforation (managed by endoscopic hemoclip closure). Endoscopic follow up was available in 31 patients (54 %) with no residual adenoma in 28 patients (90 % of those surveilled). Conclusions  Our expanded experience with DeSCAR demonstrates high safety, feasibility, and effectiveness for the endoscopic management of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of early colorectal neoplasms using an endoscopic submucosal dissection knife: a retrospective multicenter study

Background and study aims  Endoscopic full-thickness resection allows resection of early gastrointestinal neoplasms not amenable to conventional endoscopic resection techniques, due to their location, presence of submucosal fibrosis, or suspected deep mural invasion. It is typically achieved using a dedicated over-the-scope device (full-thickness resection device or FTRD). The aim of our study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes of endoscopic full-thickness resection using an endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) knife. Patients and methods  Consecutive patients who underwent full-thickness endoscopic resection at six tertiary care centers from August 2010 to June 2017 were retrospectively included. We conducted a comparative analysis of patient characteristics, technical success, adverse events, and time to discharge between patients treated by a full-thickness resection using an ESD knife. Results  Twenty-one procedures were performed using an ESD knife. En-bloc resection and R0 resection rates were 95.2 % and 65 %, respectively. Clinical symptoms of perforation occurred in 66.7 %. There was no need for surgery or additional endoscopic procedures. Conclusion  Endoscopic full-thickness resection of early colorectal neoplasms using an ESD knife might be feasible and safe. It allows complete resection of lesions with no limitation in size. The technique may be preferable to an other-the-scope resection device in lesions larger than 20 mm, and to surgery in selected cases of low-risk T1 colorectal carcinomas, non-lifting adenomas, submucosal tumors, or technically challenging lesion locations.

Long-term follow-up after EMR of large colorectal lesions: metachronous lesions, predictors and surveillance timing

Background: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the first-line approach to large colorectal sessile lesions. These patients have been associated with high rates of metachronous lesions (ML), but long-term follow-up (LtFU) data are lacking. We aimed at evaluating the efficacy of an LtFU protocol and analyse the development and risk factors for ML.Methods: A prospectively collected database was analysed. Seventy-six patients submitted to EMR of large colorectal sessile lesions between 2007 and 2013 complied with a specific endoscopic surveillance, consisting of two protocols - initial follow-up (iFU) and LtFU. iFU intended to inspect the mucosectomy scars twice (at 3-6 and 12 months) and remove synchronous lesions (SL). Protocol examinations of LtFU were carried out at the first- and fourth-year post-iFU, aiming to remove ML. Statistical analysis included variables related to patient, index lesion, SL and ML characteristics.Results: Rates of ML were 39.5% and 20.4% at the first- and fourth-year of LtFU, and respectively 11.8% and 3.7% of them were advanced ML. All ML were endoscopically resectable. At univariate analysis, male gender (OR: 2.91; p=.029), the presence of SL (OR 3.86, p=.010) and advanced SL (OR 4.25, p=.006) were risk factors for ML. At multivariate analysis, male gender (p=.031) and advanced SL (p=.006) were significant predictors of ML development.Conclusions: We confirmed the increased risk of ML in patients with large colorectal lesions. A significant number of advanced ML was removed at the first LtFU colonoscopy, probably it should be carried out earlier than currently recommended.

Risk factors for early and late adenoma recurrence after advanced colorectal endoscopic resection at an expert Western center

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Few large Western series examine risk factors for recurrence after endoscopic resection (ER) of large (≥20 mm) colorectal laterally spreading tumors. Recurrence beyond initial surveillance is seldom reported, and differences between residual/recurrent adenoma and late recurrence are not scrutinized. We report the incidence of recurrence at successive surveillance intervals, identify risk factors for recurrent/residual adenoma and late recurrence, and describe the outcomes of ER of recurrent adenomas.

METHODS

Recurrence was calculated for successive surveillance periods after colorectal ER. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify independent risk factors for recurrent/residual adenoma and late recurrence (≥12 months).

RESULTS

Six hundred twenty colorectal ERs were performed, and 456 eligible patients (98%) had completed 3- to 6-month surveillance. Residual/recurrent adenoma (3-6 months) was detected in 8.3%, at 12 months in 6.1%, between 24 and 36 months in 6.4%, and after 36 months in 13.5%. Independent risk factors for residual/recurrent adenoma were piecemeal resection (odds ratio [OR], 13.0; P = .01), adjunctive argon plasma coagulation (OR, 2.4; P = .01), and lesion occupying ≥75% of the luminal circumference (OR, 5.6; P < .001) and for late recurrence were lesion size >60 mm (OR, 6.3; P < .001) and piecemeal resection (OR, 4.4; P = .04). Of 66 patients with recurrence, 5 required surgery, 8 left the treatment pathway, 20 are still receiving ER or surveillance, and 33 had ER with normal subsequent surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrence occurs at successive periods of surveillance after ER even beyond 3 years. Aside from piecemeal resection, risk factors for residual/recurrent adenoma and late recurrence are different. Recurrence can be challenging to treat, but surgery is rarely required.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of colorectal lesions with the full-thickness resection device: clinical experience from two referral centers in Greece

Background:

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD^®) is an invasive treatment for colorectal lesions not resectable by conventional endoscopic techniques. This study presents the first Greek experience of the FTRD^® procedure, assessing the efficacy and safety of EFTR.

Methods:

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 17 consecutive patients treated with the FTRD^® at 2 referral centers from October 2015 through December 2018. The indications included difficult adenomas (non-lifting and/or at difficult locations), early adenocarcinomas and subepithelial tumors. Primary endpoints were technical success and R0 resection.

Results:

Technical success and R0 resection were achieved in 82.3% procedures (14/17) and in 87.5% of those with difficult adenomas (8 patients). In the subgroup with carcinomas (n=3), the rate of technical success and R0 resection was 66.6%, while in the subgroup with subepithelial tumors (n=6) the rate was 83.3%. Technical success and R0 resection were significantly lower for lesions >20 mm vs. ≤20 mm (P=0.0429). In the 17 patients a total of 3 adverse events occurred (17.6%) and one of the patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy because of EFTR around the appendix.

Conclusions:

Our study showed favorable results concerning EFTR feasibility, efficacy and safety, especially for lesions ≤20 mm, non-lifting adenomas, and subepithelial tumors. Technical success, R0 resection, and adverse events rates were comparable with previously published data. Larger randomized studies are needed to better define the clinical benefit and long-term outcomes of EFTR in selected patients.

Colo-rectal endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) with the over-the-scope device (FTRD®): A multicenter Italian experience

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic full-thickness resection(EFTR) with FTRD^® in colo-rectum may be useful for several indications.The aim was to assess its efficacy and safety.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this retrospective multicenter study 114 patients were screened; 110 (61M/49F, mean age 68 ± 11 years, range 20-90) underwent EFTR using FTRD^®. Indications were:residual/recurrent adenoma (39), incomplete resection at histology (R1 resection) (26), non-lifting lesion (12), adenoma involving the appendix (2) or diverticulum (2), subepithelial lesions(10), suspected T1 carcinoma (16), diagnostic resection (3). Technical success (TS: lesion reached and resected), R0 resection (negative lateral and deep margins),EFTR rate(all layers documented in the specimen) and safety have been evaluated.

RESULTS

TS was achieved in 94.4% of cases. EFTR was achieved in 91% with lateral and deep R0 resection in 90% and 92%. Mean size of specimens was 20 mm (range 6-42). In residual/recurrent adenomas, final analysis revealed: low-risk T1 (11), adenoma with low-grade dysplasia (LGD) (24) and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) (3), scar tissue (1). Histology reports of R1 resections were: adenoma with LGD (6), with HGD (1), low-risk (6) and high-risk (1) T1, scar tissue (12). Non-lifting lesions were diagnosed as: adenoma with HGD (3), low-risk (7) and high risk (2) T1. Adverse clinical events occurred in 12 patients (11%),while adverse technical events in11%. Three-months follow-up was available in 100 cases and residual disease was evident in only seven patients.

CONCLUSIONS

EFTR using FTRD^® seems to be a feasible, effective and safe technique for treating selected colo-rectal lesions. Comparative prospective studies are needed to confirm these promising results.

European experience of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review of clinical efficacy and safety

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an advanced method allowing en bloc resection of large and complex lesions in colon and rectum. Herein, the European experience of colorectal ESD was systematically reviewed in the medical literature to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of colorectal ESD in Europe.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed for full-text studies including more than 20 cases of colorectal ESD emanating from European centres was performed. Data were independently extracted by two authors using predefined data fields, including efficacy and safety.

RESULTS

We included 15 studies containing a total of 1404 colorectal ESD cases (41% in the colon) performed between 2007 and 2018. Lesion size was 40 mm (range 24-59 mm) and procedure time was 102 min (range 48-176 min). En bloc resection rate was 83% (range 67-93%) and R0 resection rate was 70% (range 35-91%). Perforation rate was 7% (range 0-19%) and bleeding rate was 5% (range 0-12%). The percentage of ESD cases undergoing emergency surgery was 2% (range 0-6%). Additional elective surgery was performed in 3% of all cases due to histopathological findings showing deep submucosal invasion or more advanced cancer. The recurrence rate was 4% (range 0-12%) after a median follow-up time of 12 months (range 3-24 months).

CONCLUSIONS

This review shows that ESD is effective and safe for treating large and complex colorectal lesions in Europe although there is room for improvement. Thus, it is important to develop standardized and high-quality educational programs in colorectal ESD in Europe.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection of malignant non-pedunculated colorectal lesions

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an established method for en bloc resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal lesions in Asia but dissemination of ESD in Western countries is limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of ESD in the management of malignant non-pedunculated colorectal lesions in a European center.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Among 255 patients undergoing colorectal ESD between 2014 and 2016, 29 cases were identified as submucosal invasive cancers and included in this study. The main outcomes were en bloc, R0 and curative resection as well as procedural time, complications and recurrence.

RESULTS

Median tumor size was 40 mm (range 20 - 70 mm). Thirteen cancers were located in the colon and 16 were located in the rectum. Procedural time was 89 minutes (range 18 - 594 minutes). Complete resection was achieved in 28 cases, en bloc and R0 resection rates were 83 % and 69 %, respectively. Curative resection rate was 38 %. One case had a perforation in the sigmoid colon requiring emergency surgery. No significant bleeding occurred. Six patients underwent additional surgery after ESD, one of whom had residual tumor. One recurrence was detected in 20 patients that were followed-up endoscopically, median follow-up time was 13 months (range 2 - 30 months).

CONCLUSION

ESD seems to be a safe and effective method for treating non-pedunculated malignant colorectal lesions after careful patient selection and proper endoscopic training.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

This was a retrospective study.

SETTINGS

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

PATIENTS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

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

Colonoscopic full-thickness resection using an over-the-scope device: a prospective multicentre study in various indications

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a novel treatment of colorectal lesions not amenable to conventional endoscopic resection. The aim of this prospective multicentre study was to assess the efficacy and safety of the full-thickness resection device.

DESIGN

181 patients were recruited in 9 centres with the indication of difficult adenomas (non-lifting and/or at difficult locations), early cancers and subepithelial tumours (SET). Primary endpoint was complete en bloc and R0 resection.

RESULTS

EFTR was technically successful in 89.5%, R0 resection rate was 76.9%. In 127 patients with difficult adenomas and benign histology, R0 resection rate was 77.7%. In 14 cases, lesions harboured unsuspected cancer, another 15 lesions were primarily known as cancers. Of these 29 cases, R0 resection was achieved in 72.4%; 8 further cases had deep submucosal infiltration >1000 µm. Therefore, curative resection could only be achieved in 13/29 (44.8%). In the subgroup with SET (n=23), R0 resection rate was 87.0%. In general, R0 resection rate was higher with lesions ≤2 cm vs >2 cm (81.2% vs 58.1%, p=0.0038). Adverse event rate was 9.9% with a 2.2% rate of emergency surgery. Three-month follow-up was available from 154 cases and recurrent/residual tumour was evident in 15.3%.

CONCLUSION

EFTR has a reasonable technical efficacy especially in lesions ≤2 cm with acceptable complication rates. Curative resection rate for early cancers was too low to recommend its primary use in this indication. Further comparative studies have to show the clinical value and long-term outcome of EFTR in benign colorectal lesions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02362126; Results.

Using Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection as a Routine Component of the Standard Treatment Strategy for Large and Complex Colorectal Lesions in a Western Tertiary Referral Unit

BACKGROUND

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection results in high rates of en bloc resection, few recurrences, and accurate diagnosis, and it is useful in lesions with significant fibrosis. However, endoscopic submucosal dissection has not been widely adopted by Western endoscopists and the published experience from Western centers is very limited.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to report the outcomes from a UK tertiary center using colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection as part of a standard lesion specific treatment approach.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective study.

SETTING

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

PATIENTS

A total of 116 colorectal lesions were resected using endoscopic submucosal dissection or hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection in 107 patients.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes included complications, recurrence, requirement for surgery, en bloc and R0 resection.

RESULTS

One hundred sixteen lesions (mean size 58.8mm) were resected using endoscopic submucosal dissection (n = 58) and hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (n = 58). Eighty-two (70.7%) had failed attempts at resection (n = 58) or extensive sampling before referral. Twelve contained invasive adenocarcinoma; endoscopic resection was curative in 6. Only 2 of 6 patients with noncurative endoscopic resection agreed to surgery, and none had lymph node metastases. Six of 7 perforations were successfully treated with endoscopic clips. Where endoscopic submucosal dissection was used alone, en bloc resection was achieved in 93% and R0 resection was achieved in 91%. Two patients experienced recurrence; both were managed with endoscopic resection.

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study. Procedures were planned as endoscopic submucosal dissection, but some may have been converted to hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection and not recorded.

CONCLUSION

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection can be used in a Western center as part of a standard lesion-specific approach to deliver effective organ-conserving treatment to patients with large challenging lesions. Lesion assessment in Western practice should be improved to reduce the incidence of prior heavy manipulation and to guide appropriate referral. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A601.

Outcomes of Endoscopic Resections of Large Laterally Spreading Colorectal Lesions in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: a Single United Kingdom Center Experience

BACKGROUND

The SCENIC consensus statement recommends endoscopic resection of all visible dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease, but patients with large or complex lesions may still be advised to have colectomy. This article presents outcomes for large nonpolypoid resections associated with colitis at our institution.

METHODS

Data including demographics, clinical history, lesion characteristics, method of resection, and postresection surveillance were collected prospectively in patients with visible lesions within colitic mucosa from January 2011 to November 2016. Resection techniques included endoscopic mucosal resection , endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and hybrid ESD. Surveillance with magnification chromoendoscopy was performed at 3 months, 1-year postresection, and annually thereafter.

RESULTS

Fifteen lesions satisfied the inclusion criteria in 15 patients. Mean lesion size was 48.3+/-21.7 (20-90) mm. All lesions were non-polypoid with distinct margins and no ulceration. 73% lesions were scarred of which 64% had undergone prior instrumentation. En bloc resection was achieved in n=6. Presumed endoscopic diagnosis was confirmed histopathologically in all resected lesions. One case of perforation and another with bleeding were both managed endoscopically. Median follow-up was 28 months (12-35) with no recurrence.

CONCLUSION

This cohort series demonstrates that endoscopic resection of large non-polypoid lesions associated with colitis is feasible and safe using an array of resection methods supporting the role of advanced endoscopic therapeutics for the management of colitis associated dysplasia in a western tertiary endoscopic center.

Combining eastern and western practices for safe and effective endoscopic resection of large complex colorectal lesions

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps is well established. However, significant differences in technique exist between eastern and western interventional endoscopists. We report the results of endoscopic resection of large complex colorectal lesions from a specialist unit that combines eastern and western techniques for assessment and resection.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Endoscopic resections of colorectal lesions of at least 2 cm were included. Lesions were assessed using magnification chromoendoscopy supplemented by colonoscopic ultrasound in selected cases. A lesion-specific approach to resection with endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was used. Surveillance endoscopy was performed at 3 (SC1) and 12 (SC2) months.

RESULTS

Four hundred and sixty-six large (≥20 mm) colorectal lesions (mean size 54.8 mm) were resected. Three hundread and fifty-six were resected using endoscopic mucosal resection and 110 by ESD or hybrid ESD. Fifty-one percent of lesions had been subjected to previous failed attempts at resection or heavy manipulation (≥6 biopsies). Nevertheless, endoscopic resection was deemed successful after an initial attempt in 98%. Recurrence occurred in 15% and could be treated with endoscopic resection in most. Only two patients required surgery for perforation. Nine patients had postprocedure bleeding; only two required endoscopic clips. Ninety-six percent of patients without invasive cancer were free from recurrence and had avoided surgery at last follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Combining eastern and western practices for assessment and resection results in safe and effective organ-conserving treatment of complex colorectal lesions. Accurate assessment before and after resection using magnification chromoendoscopy and a lesion-specific approach to resection, incorporating ESD where appropriate, are important factors in achieving these results.

Dissection-enabled scaffold-assisted resection (DeSCAR): a novel technique for resection of residual or non-lifting GI neoplasia of the colon (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

As a result of previous manipulation or submucosal invasion, GI lesions referred for EMR frequently have flat areas of visible tissue that cannot be snared. Current methods for treating residual tissue may lead to incomplete eradication or not allow complete tissue sampling for histologic evaluation. Our aim is to describe dissection-enabled scaffold-assisted resection (DeSCAR), a new technique combining circumferential ESD with EMR for removal of superficial non-lifting or residual "islands" with suspected submucosal involvement/fibrosis.

METHODS

From 2015 to 2017, lesions referred for EMR were retrospectively reviewed. Cases were identified where lifting and/or snaring of the lesion was incomplete and the DeSCAR technique was undertaken. Cases were reviewed for location, previous manipulation, rates of successful hybrid resection, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine lesions underwent DeSCAR because of non-lifting or residual "islands" of tissue. Fifty-two percent of the patients were male and 48% were female; average age was 66 years (standard deviation ±9.9 years). Lesions were located in the cecum (n = 10), right side of the colon (n = 12), left side of the colon (n = 4), and rectum (n = 3). Average size was 31 mm (standard deviation ±20.6 mm). Previous manipulation had occurred in 28 of 29 cases (83% biopsy, 34% resection attempt, 52% tattoo). The technical success rate for resection of non-lifting lesions was 100%. There was one episode of delayed bleeding but no other adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

DeSCAR is a feasible and safe alternative to argon plasma coagulation and avulsion for the endoscopic management of non-lifting or residual GI lesions, providing en bloc resection of tissue for histologic review. Further studies are needed to demonstrate long-term eradication and for comparison with other methods.

Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rate in the era of high-definition colonoscopy

AIM

To investigate the post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rate for high-definition (HD) colonoscopy compared with that for standard-definition colonoscopy reported previously.

METHODS

Using medical records at Sano Hospital (SH) and Dokkyo Medical University Koshigaya Hospital (DMUKH), we retrospectively obtained data on consecutive patients diagnosed as having CRC between January 2010 and December 2015. The definition of PCCRC was diagnosis of CRC between 7 and 36 mo after initial high-definition colonoscopy that had detected no cancer, and patients were divided into a PCCRC group and a non-PCCRC group. The primary outcome was the rate of PCCRC for HD colonoscopy. The secondary outcomes were factors associated with PCCRC and possible reason for occurrence of early and advanced PCCRC.

RESULTS

Among 892 CRC patients, 11 were diagnosed as having PCCRC and 881 had non-PCCRC. The PCCRC rate was 1.7% (8/471) at SH and 0.7% (3/421) at DMUKH. In comparison with the non-PCCRC group, the PCCRC group had a significantly higher preponderance of smaller tumors (39 mm vs 19 mm, P = 0.002), a shallower invasion depth (T1 rate, 25.4% vs 63.6%, P = 0.01), a non-polypoid macroscopic appearance (39.0% vs 85.7%, P = 0.02) and an earlier stage (59.7% vs 90.9%, P = 0.03). Possible reasons for PCCRC were “missed or new” in 9 patients (82%), “incomplete resection” in 1 (9%), and “inadequate examination’” in 1 (9%). Among 9 “missed or new” PCCRC, the leading cause was non-polypoid shape for early PCCRC and blinded location for advanced PCCRC.

CONCLUSION

The PCCRC rate for HD colonoscopy was 0.7%-1.7%, being lower than that for standard-definition colonoscopy (1.8%-9.0%) reported previously employing the same methodology.

One-to-One Correspondence Locations of Resected Polyps after Endoscopic Resection Using Catcher Tagged Method: A Randomized Prospective Study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Multiple colorectal polyps with a diameter in the range of 10-19 mm are unable to be retrieved through a 3-mm endoscopic channel by the aspiration method. This study aims to assess the usefulness of Catcher Tag retrieval, which not only allows the accurate identification of the resected location but also enables the easiest retrieval in a short time without any special device.

METHODS

One hundred thirty five patients (483 polyps) were diagnosed with colorectal neoplasm, and 64 patients (225 polyps) were enrolled and randomly allocated into the Net forceps group (NET) and the Catcher Tagged group (TAG). In TAG, 3 types of colored ring-threads were used to retrieve resected polyps. After local injection of natural saline, ring-threads were placed close to polyps. The primary outcome was the number of one-to-one correspondence locations (UMIN000020826).

RESULTS

There was significant difference in one-to-one correspondence (p = 0.004). The average retrieval procedure time was 13.56 ± 3.47 (min) in NET and 3.55 ± 1.68 in TAG (p = 0.006). In NET, 1 polyp in each of 4 cases was lost during endoscopic mucosal resection and 2 polyps were lost in 1 case. In TAG, no polyp was lost (p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

The Catcher Tagged method is very useful for accurate one-to-one correspondence locations and pathological evaluation, and easy-to-retrieve multiple resected specimens.

Current standards and new developments of colorectal polyp management and resection techniques

Colonoscopy and endoscopic removal of precancerous polyps play an important role in colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. Improved endoscopes and quality standards have led to an increasing polyp and adenoma detection rate. Optimal polyp resection techniques and management strategies are key for an effective colonoscopy practice. Areas covered: Strategies for how to improve diminutive polyp (polyps up to 5 mm in size) management are discussed because of their high prevalence. Systematic removal of diminutive polyps leads to increasing costs of colonoscopy practice, while the effect on colorectal cancer prevention might be negligible. Furthermore, polypectomy recommendations for mid-size and large polyps are provided. For all larger polyps larger, complete and safe resection is mandatory to avoid post colonoscopy cancers. The focus for managing such larger polyps is to use new techniques (i.e. cold snares) and to attempt complete removal and to reduce post-polypectomy complications. Expert commentary: The resect-and-discard strategy is a promising management strategy for diminutive polyps. However, modification of this approach might be required in order to make widespread adoption feasible. Cold snare polypectomy is a promising new approach for small polyp resection. For resection of large polyps adequate treatment recommendations with regard to endoscopic mucosal resection and complication prevention are provided.

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: patient selection and special considerations

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables en bloc resection of large complex colorectal superficial neoplastic lesions, resulting in very low rates of local recurrence, high-quality pathologic specimens for accurate histopathologic diagnosis and potentially curative treatment of early adenocarcinoma without resorting to major surgical resection. The safety and efficacy of the technique, which was pioneered in the upper gastrointestinal tract, has been established by the consistently impressive outcomes from expert centers in Japan and some other eastern countries. However, ESD is challenging to perform in the colorectum and there is a significant risk of complications, particularly in the early stages of the learning curve. Early studies from western centers raised concerns about the high complication rates, and the impressive results from Japanese centers were not replicated. As a result, many western endoscopists are skeptical about the role of ESD and few centers have incorporated the technique into their practice. Nevertheless, although the distribution of expertise, referral centers and modes of practice may differ in Japan and western countries, ESD has an important role and can be safely and effectively incorporated into western practice. Key to achieving this is meticulous lesion assessment and selection, appropriate referral to centers with the necessary expertise and experience and application of the appropriate technique individualized to the patient. This review discusses the advantages, risks and benefits of ESD to treat colorectal lesions and the importance of preprocedure lesion assessment and in vivo diagnosis and outlines a pragmatic rationale for appropriate lesion selection as well as the patient, technical and institutional factors that should be considered.

Pocket-creation method facilitates endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal laterally spreading tumors, non-granular type

Background and study aims The pocket-creation method (PCM) is a novel strategy for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy of the PCM for colorectal laterally spreading tumors, non-granular type (LST-NG). Patients and methods The records of 126 consecutive patients with colorectal LST-NG who underwent ESD between April 2012 and July 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into PCM (n = 73) and conventional method (CM) (n = 53) groups. Results The en bloc resection rate in the PCM group was significantly higher than in the CM group (100 % [73/73] vs. 92 % [49/53], P = 0.03). The en bloc resection rate with severe fibrosis was higher in the PCM group than in the CM group (100 % [3/3] vs. 60 % [3/5]). The R0 resection rate for the two groups was not statistically significantly different (93 % [68/73] vs. 91 % [48/53], P = 0.74). The perforation rate in the PCM group was lower than in the CM group although not statistically significantly less (0 % 0/73 vs. 4 % 2/53, P = 0.18). For lesions resected en bloc, dissection speed for the PCM group was significantly faster than for the CM group (median [IQR], 19 [13 -24] vs. 14 [10 - 22] mm²/min, P = 0.03). Conclusion ESD using PCM achieves a reliable and safe resection of colorectal LST-NG.

Avulsion is superior to argon plasma coagulation for treatment of visible residual neoplasia during EMR of colorectal polyps (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EMR is used widely for treatment of nonpedunculated colorectal adenomas ≥ 2 cm. Recurrence at the resection site occurs in 10% to 30% of cases.

METHODS

Records of consecutive patients referred for endoscopic resection over a 4-year period were reviewed retrospectively. In the first part of the study period, our routine practice was to use argon plasma coagulation (APC) to treat all visible residual neoplasia after exhaustive attempts at snare resection during EMR. In the second part of the study period, we changed our practice to use avulsion to treat all visible residual neoplasia after exhaustive attempts at snare resection during EMR. We analyzed the effect of this change in practice on recurrence rates after EMR.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-three resected lesions were analyzed. Fifty-nine (26%) were treated with en-bloc EMR, 55 (25%) by piecemeal EMR with complete snare removal of all visible neoplasia, 63 (28%) by piecemeal EMR with APC of visible residual neoplasia, and 46 (21%) by piecemeal EMR with avulsion of visible residual neoplasia. There was no significant difference in adverse event rates among the 4 groups. The recurrence rates on follow-up colonoscopy were 4.2%, 3.0%, 59.3%, and 10.3%, respectively. The recurrence rate for patients treated with avulsion was significantly lower than for those treated with APC (odds ratio, .079; P < .001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that use of avulsion instead of APC was a significant predictor of no recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

After exhaustive attempts at snare resection during EMR, avulsion is superior to APC for treatment of residual visible neoplasia. Compared with APC, avulsion significantly decreases the recurrence rate without significantly increasing the risk of the procedure.