Colonoscopy-Assisted Laparoscopic Wedge Resection for the Treatment of Suspected T1 Colon Cancer

Colonoscopy-Assisted Laparoscopic Wedge Resection for Colonic Lesions and Its Impact on Quality of Life: Results From the LIMERIC Study

BACKGROUND

The LIMERIC study has proven that colonoscopy-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection effectively and safely removes benign colonic lesions unsuitable for endoscopic removal, thereby avoiding the need for major surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of colonoscopy-assisted laparoscopic wedge on health-related quality of life of patients who participated in the LIMERIC study.

DESIGN

Prospective multicenter study.

SETTINGS

The LIMERIC study was performed between 2016 and 2020 in 13 Dutch hospitals. Five-level EuroQoL 5-dimension questionnaires were administered at baseline and 3 months after the procedure.

PATIENTS

Patients with incomplete pre- or postoperative questionnaires or those undergoing combined interventions were excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. Those for whom CAL-WR was not feasible or who underwent completion surgery were excluded from the per-protocol analysis.

INTERVENTION

Colonoscopy-assisted laparoscopic wedge for either 1) colon polyp unsuitable for endoscopic resection; 2) nonlifting residual or recurrent polyp within scar tissue after previous polypectomy; or (3) Rx/R1 endoscopic removal of a low-risk pT1 colon carcinoma.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Three-month health-related quality of life.

RESULTS

Colonoscopy-assisted laparoscopic wedge did not affect health-related quality of life in the per-protocol analysis (n = 56) or in the intention-to-treat analysis (n = 67). The majority of patients reported no change in health status (57%). No significant differences were observed in the distribution of responses across all 5 dimensions before and after colonoscopy-assisted laparoscopic wedge. Patients'EuroQoL self-rated visual analog scale scores were also unaffected by a colonoscopy-assisted laparoscopic wedge, with a median score of 82.5 at baseline and 80 after surgery in the per-protocol analysis ( p = 0.63).

LIMITATIONS

Solely a patient-reported outcome measure evaluating global health-related quality of life was used, rather than one specifically assessing disease-related quality of life, such as the quality of life questionnaire colorectal cancer module 29.

CONCLUSIONS

Colonoscopy-assisted laparoscopic wedge has no significant impact on the health-related quality of life in patients with benign colonic lesions and should therefore be considered before major surgery is performed. See Video Abstract.

RESECCIN LAPAROSCPICA EN CUA ASISTIDA POR COLONOSCOPIA PARA LESIONES COLNICAS IMPACTO EN LA CALIDAD DE VIDA RESULTADOS DEL ESTUDIO LIMERIC

ANTECEDENTES:El estudio LIMERIC ha demostrado que la resección laparoscópica en cuña asistida por colonoscopia elimina de forma eficaz y segura las lesiones colónicas benignas inadecuadas para la extirpación endoscópica, evitando así la necesidad de cirugía mayor.OBJETIVO:Evaluar el impacto de la cuña laparoscópica asistida por colonoscopia en la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud de los pacientes que participaron en el estudio LIMERIC.DISEÑO:Estudio multicéntrico prospectivo.ENTORNO:El estudio LIMERIC se realizó entre 2016 y 2020 en 13 hospitales holandeses. Se administraron cuestionarios EQ-5D-5L al inicio y 3 meses después del procedimiento.PACIENTES:Los pacientes con cuestionarios pre o postoperatorios incompletos o aquellos sometidos a intervenciones combinadas fueron excluidos del análisis por intención de tratar. Aquellos en los que la CAL-WR no era factible o que se sometieron a cirugía de finalización fueron excluidos del análisis por protocolo.INTERVENCIÓN:Cuña laparoscópica asistida por colonoscopia para (1) pólipo de colon no apto para resección endoscópica; (2) pólipo residual o recidivante no elevable dentro de tejido cicatricial tras polipectomía previa; o (3) extirpación endoscópica Rx/R1 de un carcinoma de colon pT1 de bajo riesgo.MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO PRINCIPALES:Calidad de vida relacionada con la salud a los tres meses.RESULTADOS:La cuña laparoscópica asistida por colonoscopia no afectó a la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud en el análisis por protocolo (n = 56), ni en el análisis por intención de tratar (n = 67). La mayoría de los pacientes no informaron ningún cambio en su estado de salud (57%). No se observaron diferencias significativas en la distribución de las respuestas en las 5 dimensiones antes y después de la cuña laparoscópica asistida por colonoscopia. La EQ-VAS autoevaluada de los pacientes tampoco se vio afectada por la cuña laparoscópica asistida por colonoscopia, con una puntuación media de la VAS de 82,5 al inicio y 80 después de la cirugía en el análisis por protocolo (p = 0,63).LIMITACIONES:Se utilizó únicamente una medida de resultados comunicada por el paciente que evaluaba la calidad de vida global relacionada con la salud, en lugar de una que evaluara específicamente la calidad de vida relacionada con la enfermedad, como el QLQ-CR29.CONCLUSIONES:La cuña laparoscópica asistida por colonoscopia no tiene un impacto significativo en la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud en pacientes con lesiones colónicas benignas y, por lo tanto, debe considerarse antes de realizar una cirugía mayor. (Traducción-Dr. Aurian Garcia Gonzalez ).

Risk of Lymph Node Metastasis in T2 Colon Cancer: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Similar to T1 colon cancer (CC), risk stratification may guide T2 CC treatment and reduce unnecessary major surgery. In this study, prediction models were developed that could identify T2 CC patients with a lower risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM) for whom (intensive) follow-up after local treatment could be considered.

METHODS

A nationwide cohort study was performed involving pT2 CC patients who underwent surgery between 2012 and 2020, using data from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit, which were linked to the Nationwide Pathology Databank. Four machine learning models were evaluated to predict LNM.

RESULTS

LNMs were found in 1877/9803 patients (19.1%). Independent risk factors included (younger) age (odds ratio [OR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.979-0.990), left-sided CC (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.4-1.7), poor differentiation (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.4-2.2), and lymphovascular invasion (LVI; OR 4.1, 95% CI 3.6-4.7). A deficient mismatch repair (MMR) status significantly lowered the risk of LNM (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.5). The general linear model demonstrated the highest prediction accuracy, achieving area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.67 and 0.68, with good calibration. In the absence of risk factors, elderly patients (≥74 years of age) had a predicted risk of LNM of 10.7%, yet up to 30% experienced postoperative complications, with mortality rates reaching up to 3.5%. Patients with a deficient MMR status had a predicted risk of LNM of 6.1% if LVI was absent and the tumor was well-differentiated.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of LNM should be weighed against surgical risks. The findings of this study will enable clinicians to make more deliberate considerations about these competing risks before making a shared decision.

Large non-pedunculated colorectal polyp management: The elephant in the room

Minimally invasive innovations have transformed coloproctology. Specific to colorectal cancer (CRC), there has been a shift towards less invasive surgical techniques and use of endoscopic resection as an alternative for low risk T1 CRC. The role of endoscopic resection is however much more extensive: It is now considered the first line management strategy for most large (≥ 20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps, the majority of which are benign. This is due to the well-established efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic techniques compared to surgery. Multiple endoscopic modalities now exist with distinct risk-benefit profiles and their outcomes are further improved by site-specific technical modifications, auxiliary techniques, and adverse event mitigation strategies. Endoscopic capacity continues to evolve with emerging endoscopic techniques and expanding applications, particularly in the confines of a multi-disciplinary setting.

Colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection for colonic neoplasms: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The current literature describes a variety of techniques detailed under the name of combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery (CELS) procedures. This systematic review of literature assessed the outcomes of colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic-wedge resection (CAL-WR) in particular to evaluate its feasibility to remove colonic lesions that do not qualify for endoscopic resection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane) were searched for studies evaluating CAL-WR for the treatment of colonic lesions. Studies with missing full text, language other than English, systematic reviews, and studies with fewer than ten patients were excluded. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Out of 68 results, duplicate studies (n = 27) as well as studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria (n = 32) were removed. Nine studies were included, encompassing 326 patients who underwent a CAL-WR of the colon. The technical success rate varied from 93 to 100%, with an R0 resection rate of 91-100%. Morbidity ranged from 6% to 20%. The quality of the included studies was rated as low to moderate and contained heterogeneous terminology, methodology, and outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient high-quality data and substantial variation in outcome measures to draw firm conclusions regarding the value of CAL-WR. Although CAL-WR is a promising local resection technique for endoscopically unremovable neoplasms of the colon, further investigation of this technique in well-designed prospective, multicenter studies with predefined outcome measures is required.Trial registration: A protocol for this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO with the number CRD42023407966.

T1 colorectal cancer management in the era of minimally invasive endoscopic resection

T1 colorectal cancer (CRC), defined by tumor invasion confined to the submucosa, has historically been managed by surgery. Improved understanding of recurrence and lymph node metastases risk, coupled with advances in endoscopic resection techniques, have led to an increasing capacity for organ-sparing local excision. Minimally invasive management of T1 CRC begins with optical evaluation of the lesion to diagnose invasive disease and quantify depth of invasion, which informs therapeutic decision making. Modality selection between various available endoscopic resection techniques depends upon lesion characteristics, technique risk-benefit profiles, and location-specific implications. Following endoscopic resection, established histopathology features determine the risk of recurrence and subsequent management including surveillance or adjuvant surgical excision. The management of non-operative candidates deviates from conventional recommendations with emerging treatment strategies in select populations.

Colonoscopy-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection for a large symptomatic colonic lipoma

A colonic lipoma is an uncommon lesion that is linked with clinical symptoms in only a small portion of patients. Patients with large lipomas are often referred for major surgery, which is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. In this case, we described a female patient with recurrent episodes of gastrointestinal blood loss, abdominal pain and colocolic intussusceptions due to a large, lumen-filling, obstructive lipoma in the splenic flexure. On abdominal CT, a lesion of 3.6 cm was visualised with a fat-like density without solid components. Considering its benign nature, we intended to preserve the colon by deroofing the upper part of the lesion and then performing a colonoscopy-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection. During reassessment, auto-amputation of part of the lesion was observed, most likely as a result of long-lasting mechanical effects, which made it possible to perform solely a wedge resection with an excellent outcome.

Colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection versus segmental colon resection for benign colonic polyps: a comparative cost analysis

AIM

The colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection (CAL-WR) is proven to be an effective and safe alternative to a segmental colon resection (SCR) for large or complex benign colonic polyps that are not eligible for endoscopic removal. This analysis aimed to evaluate the costs of CAL-WR and compare them to the costs of an SCR.

METHOD

A single-centre 90-day 'in-hospital' comparative cost analysis was performed on patients undergoing CAL-WR or SCR for complex benign polyps between 2016 and 2020. The CAL-WR group consisted of 44 patients who participated in a prospective multicentre study (LIMERIC study). Inclusion criteria were (1) endoscopically unresectable benign polyps; (2) residual or recurrence after previous polypectomy; or (3) irradically resected low risk pT1 colon carcinoma. The comparison group, which was retrospectively identified, included 32 patients who underwent an elective SCR in the same period.

RESULTS

Colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection was associated with significantly fewer complications (7% in the CAL-WR group vs. 45% in the SCR group, P < 0.001), shorter operation time (50 min in the CAL-WR group vs. 119 min in the SCR group, P < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (median length of stay 2 days in the CAL-WR group vs. 4 days in the SCR group, P < 0.001) and less use of surgical resources (reduction in costs of 32% per patient), resulting in a cost savings of €2372 (£2099 GBP) per patient (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Given the clinical and financial benefits, CAL-WR should be recommended for complex benign polyps that are not eligible for endoscopic resection before major surgery is considered.

Limited wedge resection for T1 colon cancer (LIMERIC-II trial) - rationale and study protocol of a prospective multicenter clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The sole presence of deep submucosal invasion is shown to be associated with a limited risk of lymph node metastasis. This justifies a local excision of suspected deep submucosal invasive colon carcinomas (T1 CCs) as a first step treatment strategy. Recently Colonoscopy-Assisted Laparoscopic Wedge Resection (CAL-WR) has been shown to be able to resect pT1 CRCs with a high R0 resection rate, but the long term outcomes are lacking. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety, effectiveness and long-term oncological outcomes of CAL-WR as primary treatment for patients with suspected superficial and also deeply-invasive T1 CCs.

METHODS

In this prospective multicenter clinical trial, patients with a macroscopic and/or histologically suspected T1 CCs will receive CAL-WR as primary treatment in order to prevent unnecessary major surgery for low-risk T1 CCs. To make a CAL-WR technically feasible, the tumor may not include > 50% of the circumference and has to be localized at least 25 cm proximal from the anus. Also, there should be sufficient distance to the ileocecal valve to place a linear stapler. Before inclusion, all eligible patients will be assessed by an expert panel to confirm suspicion of T1 CC, estimate invasion depth and subsequent advise which local resection techniques are possible for removal of the lesion. The primary outcome of this study is the proportion of patients with pT1 CC that is curatively treated with CAL-WR only and in whom thus organ-preservation could be achieved. Secondary outcomes are 1) CAL-WR's technical success and R0 resection rate for T1 CC, 2) procedure-related morbidity and mortality, 3) 5-year overall and disease free survival, 4) 3-year metastasis free survival, 5) procedure-related costs and 6) impact on quality of life. A sample size of 143 patients was calculated.

DISCUSSION

CAL-WR is a full-thickness local resection technique that could also be effective in removing pT1 colon cancer. With the lack of current endoscopic local resection techniques for > 15 mm pT1 CCs with deep submucosal invasion, CAL-WR could fill the gap between endoscopy and major oncologic surgery. The present study is the first to provide insight in the long-term oncological outcomes of CAL-WR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CCMO register (ToetsingOnline), NL81497.075.22, protocol version 2.3 (October 2022).

Colon Cancer Screening Methods: 2023 Update

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. National screening guidelines have been implemented to identify and remove precancerous polyps before they become cancer. Routine CRC screening is advised for people with average risk starting at age 45 because it is a common and preventable malignancy. Various screening modalities are currently in use, ranging from stool-based tests (fecal occult blood test (FOBT), fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and FIT-DNA test), radiologic tests (computed tomographic colonography (CTC), double contrast barium enema), and visual endoscopic examinations (flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), colonoscopy, and colon capsule endoscopy (CCE)) with their varying sensitivity and specificity. Biomarkers also play a vital role in assessing the recurrence of CRC. This review offers a summary of the current screening options, including biomarkers available to detect CRC, highlighting the benefits and challenges encompassing each screening modality.