Wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for laterally spreading colorectal lesions: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Impact of margin thermal ablation after cold-forceps avulsion with snare-tip soft coagulation for nonlifting large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps

Nonlifting large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (NL-LNPCPs) account for 15% of LNPCPs and are effectively managed by endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with adjunctive cold-forceps avulsion with adjuvant snare-tip soft coagulation (CAST). Recurrence rates >10% at surveillance colonoscopy are however a significant limitation. We aimed to compare the outcomes of CAST plus margin thermal ablation (MTA) versus CAST alone for NL-LNPCPs.Prospective observational data on consecutive patients with NL-LNPCPs treated by EMR and CAST at a single tertiary center were retrospectively evaluated. Two cohorts were established: the pre-MTA period (January 2012-June 2017) and the MTA period (July 2017-October 2023). The primary outcome was the residual/recurrent adenoma (RRA) rate at first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1). Secondary outcomes included the RRA rate at SC2 and adverse events.Over 142 months, 300 patients underwent EMR and CAST for LNPCP: 103 lesions pre-MTA and 197 with MTA. At SC1 and SC2, recurrence was lower in the MTA cohort compared with the pre-MTA cohort (5.0% vs. 18.8% and 0.8% vs. 10.0%, respectively; both P<0.001). Adverse events were similar between the two cohorts for deep mural injury types III-V (pre-MTA 2.9% vs. MTA 5.6%; P=0.29) and delayed bleeding (pre-MTA 8.7% vs. MTA 7.1%; P=0.49). On multivariate analysis, MTA was the only variable independently associated with a reduced likelihood of recurrence (odds ratio 0.20, 95%CI 0.07-0.54; P=0.001).For NL-LNPCPs, MTA in combination with CAST is safe and effective and reduces recurrence at SC1 in comparison with CAST alone.

A retrospective study on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of ileocecal valve lesions

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ileocecal valve (ICV) lesions poses unique technical challenges because of its anatomic complexity. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ESD for ICV lesions.

METHODS

From December 2016 to June 2023, the clinic characteristics and outcomes of ESD on 51 ICV lesions and 84 cecal lesions were reviewed. Factors related to longer procedure time were analyzed for ESD of ICV lesions.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics and clinical features of the lesions were not significantly different between the groups. The median procedure time of the ICV group was significantly longer than that of the cecal group (35 min vs. 24 min, respectively; P =.04). There were no significant differences in en bloc resection rates between the ICV and cecal groups (92.2% vs. 97.6%, respectively; P =.14). During the median follow-up of 32 months (IQR, 6-89), there was no case of recurrence in the ICV group. A specimen diameter of ≥25 mm and a circumferential spread of ≥1/2 were factors related to a longer procedure time (specimen diameter: OR=4.2 95%CI, 2.1-15.4, P =.02; circumferential spread: OR=3.7, 95%CI, 1.2-12.7, P =.03).

CONCLUSION

ESD for ICV lesions requires a longer procedure duration than ESD for cecal lesions, but it is safe and effective, making it a challenging and promising therapeutic approach.

Endoscopic approach to large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps

Large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm (LNPCPs) constitute approximately 1% of all colorectal polyps and present a spectrum of risks, including overt and covert submucosal invasive cancer (T1 colorectal cancer (CRC)). Importantly, a curative resection may be achieved for LNPCPs with superficial T1 CRC (T1a or T1b <1000 µm into submucosa), if an enbloc R0 excision (clear margins) with favourable histology is achieved (ie, absence of high-grade tumour budding, lympho-vascular invasion, and poor differentiation). Thus, while consensus recommendations advocate for endoscopic resection as the primary treatment option for LNPCPs, thorough optical assessment is imperative for selecting the most suitable ER strategy. In this review, we highlight the critical components of optical evaluation that assist in predicting the risk of T1 CRC, including morphology (Paris and LST classifications), surface pit/vascular pattern (JNET and Kudo classifications), and lesion location. Different resection modalities, including endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection are discussed, along with important considerations that may influence the resection strategy of choice, such as access to the LNPCP and submucosal fibrosis.

Prevalence of Endoscopically Curable Low-Risk Cancer Among Large (≥20 mm) Nonpedunculated Polyps in the Right Colon

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection is increasingly promoted for the treatment of all large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) to cure potential low-risk cancers (superficial submucosal invasion without additional high-risk histopathologic features). The effect of a universal en bloc strategy on oncologic outcomes for the treatment of LNPCPs in the right colon is unknown. We evaluated this in a large Western population.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of patients referred for endoscopic resection (ER) of LNPCPs was analyzed. Patients found to have cancer after ER and those referred directly to surgery were included. The primary outcome was to determine the proportion of right colon LNPCPs with low-risk cancer.

RESULTS

Over 180 months until June 2023, 3294 sporadic right colon LNPCPs in 2956 patients were referred for ER at 7 sites (median size 30 [interquartile range 22.5-37.5] mm). A total of 63 (2.1%) patients were referred directly to surgery, and cancer was proven in 56 (88.9%). A total of 2851 (96.4%) of 2956 LNPCPs underwent ER (median size 35 [interquartile range 25-45] mm), of which 75 (2.6%) were cancers. The overall prevalence of cancer in the right colon was 4.4% (n = 131 of 2956). Detailed histopathologic analysis was possible in 115 (88%) of 131 cancers (71 after ER, 44 direct to surgery). After excluding missing histopathologic data, 23 (0.78%) of 2940 sporadic right colon LNPCPs were low-risk cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of right colon LNPCPs referred for ER containing low-risk cancer amenable to endoscopic cure was <1%, in a large, multicenter Western cohort. A universal endoscopic submucosal dissection strategy for the management of right colon LNPCPs is unlikely to yield improved patient outcomes given the minimal impact on oncologic outcomes.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, Numbers: NCT01368289, NCT02000141.

Early Rectal Cancer: Advances in Diagnosis and Management Strategies

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most prevalent cause of cancer-related death and the third most common cancer globally. Early-stage rectal cancer is defined by lesions confined to the bowel wall, without extension beyond the submucosa in T1 or the muscularis propria in T2, with no indication of lymph node involvement or distant metastasis. The gold standard for managing rectal cancer is total mesorectal excision (TME); however, it is linked to considerable morbidities and impaired quality of life. There is a growing interest in local resection and non-operative treatment of early RC for organ preservation. Local resection options include three types of transanal endoscopic surgery (TES): transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), transanal endoscopic operations (TEO), and transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS), while endoscopic resection includes endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Although the oncological outcome of local resection of early rectal cancer is debated in the current literature, some studies have shown comparable outcomes with radical surgery in selected patients. The use of adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in early rectal cancer management is also controversial in the literature, but a number of studies have reported promising outcomes. This review focuses on the available literature regarding diagnosis, staging, and management strategies of early rectal cancer and provides possible recommendations.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for laterally spreading rectal tumours

AIM

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are the two main techniques used for endoscopic resection of superficial rectal tumours. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of ESD and EMR in treating superficial rectal tumours.

METHOD

A retrospective observational study was conducted at two French centres including all patients treated with ESD or EMR for superficial rectal tumours. The primary outcome was the rate of local recurrence at the first follow-up endoscopy after endoscopic resection. Secondary outcomes included the curative resection rate, procedure duration, length of hospital stay, complication rates and the need for additional surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 254 patients were included, 159 treated with ESD and 95 treated with EMR. The local recurrence rate at the first follow-up endoscopy was 8.6% and was significantly lower in the ESD group than in the EMR group (4.3% vs. 16.9%; p = 0.005). The rates of en bloc and histologically complete resections were higher in the ESD group (88.1% vs. 42.7% and 85.5% vs. 38.9%, respectively; p < 0.001), while the curative resection rate was 90.6% in the EMR group and 92.5% in the ESD group (p = 0.59). Mostly due to poor histoprognostical criteria, 6.0% of patients underwent additional surgery (6.3% vs. 5.2% in the ESD vs. EMR group, respectively; p = 0.73).

CONCLUSION

ESD demonstrated higher rates of en bloc, R0 resection than EMR, translating into significantly lower rates of local recurrence at the first follow-up endoscopy.

The impact of a multidisciplinary team approach on the management of patients diagnosed with complex colorectal polyps

AIM

Large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) have a greater than average risk of malignancy, incomplete resection/recurrence and complications associated with treatment. Appropriate management of these lesions is crucial to prevent cancer and reduce harm. The British Society of Gastroenterologists (BSG) and the Association of Coloproctologists of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) published guidelines for the management of LNPCPs in 2015. The aim of this work was to evaluate the case mix and outcomes from a single centre's multidisciplinary approach to managing such lesions against the key performance indicators (KPIs) set within these national guidelines.

METHOD

Cohort study from a single centre over a 2-year period, January 2020 to December 2022.

RESULTS

After exclusions, a total of 229 cases were discussed. Most complex polyps were treated endoscopically, with conservative management recommended in 22 cases where patients had significant comorbidities and were unlikely to benefit from therapy. The overall surgical intervention rate (including transanal endoscopic microsurgery/per anal excision) was 14%. Of the cases treated endoscopically, there was residual polyp detected in 3.9% at 12-months' follow-up. Complications were rare. There was a single case of perforation following endoscopic submucosal dissection and no significant postprocedure bleeds. There were no perforations following endoscopic mucosal resection, although postpolypectomy bleeding requiring admission occurred in 4%. Sixty-eight per cent of patients were treated within 56 days of multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion, despite the timeframe being within a period of huge disruption due to the global COVID pandemic. KPI standards published by the BSG were therefore met.

CONCLUSION

MDT management of complex polyps (LNPCPs) is effective and meets the standards set by national guidance. Patient outcomes following treatment for complex polypectomy are improved when the most appropriate procedure is performed by the most appropriate operator. Discussion at a complex polyp MDT can facilitate this approach.

Evaluation of a novel forward-looking optical coherence tomography probe for endoscopic applications: an ex vivo feasibility study

BACKGROUND

As a result of recent advances in the development of small microelectromechanical system mirrors, a novel forward-looking optical coherence tomography (OCT) probe with a uniquely large field of view is being commercially developed. The aim of this study is to prospectively assess the feasibility of this advanced OCT probe in interpreting ex vivo images of colorectal polyp tissue and to identify necessary steps for further development.

METHODS

A total of 13 colorectal lesions from 9 patients, removed during endoscopic resection, were imaged ex vivo with the OCT device and compared with histopathological images that served as the gold standard for diagnostics. Normal tissue from one patient, removed during the endoscopic procedure, was imaged as a negative control. We assessed the presence of features indicative for polyp type and degree of dysplasia, by comparing OCT images to histopathological images and by evaluating the presence of OCT-specific features identified by previous studies, such as effacement (loss of layered tissue structure), a hyperreflective epithelial layer, and irregularity of the surface.

RESULTS

As verified by corresponding histological images, tissue structures such as blood vessels and tissue layers could be distinguished in OCT images of the normal tissue sample. Detailed structures on histological images such as crypts and cell nuclei could not be identified in the OCT images. However, we did identify OCT features specific for colorectal lesions, such as effacement and a hyperreflective epithelial layer. In general, the imaging depth was about 1 mm.

CONCLUSION

Some relevant tissue structures could be observed in OCT images of the novel device. However, some adaptations, such as increasing imaging depth using a laser with a longer central wavelength, are required to improve its clinical value for the imaging of colorectal lesions.

Endoscopic Resection for Colorectal Tumors

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection techniques for colorectal tumors are constantly evolving with improvements.

SUMMARY

Over the past decade, there has been a paradigm shift toward cold polypectomy for the removal of small lesions (<10 mm), known as the "cold revolution". In recent years, underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has emerged as an alternative to conventional EMR and has been gaining popularity for resection of intermediate and large-sized lesions (≥10 mm). Although colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) requires a high level of advanced skills, improvements in dissection techniques and devices have facilitated the procedure. In Japan, the safety and efficacy of ESD for resecting large lesions (≥20 mm) have been demonstrated in a large-scale, multicenter, prospective cohort study (CREATE-J). ESD is also being increasingly adopted in Western countries. As endoscopic resection continues to advance and include large and more complex defects, a variety of closure techniques and new devices are being developed. Meanwhile, the number of endoscopic resections for T1-colorectal cancer (T1-CRC), including those intended for total excisional biopsy, has been increasing owing to the aging population and improvements in endoscopic technique.

KEY MESSAGES

This review provides a broad summary of endoscopic resection for colorectal tumors including advancements in closure techniques and devices for mucosal defects, as well as the potential role of endoscopic resection for patients with T1-CRC.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic subserosal dissection treatment for gastrointetinal submucosal tumors in the upper gastrointestinal tract

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic subserosal dissection for patients with submucosal tumors in the upper gastrointestinal tract.

METHODS

This retrospective single-center study included 16 patients who underwent ESSD. All patients were enrolled from July 2018 to Dec 2021. Parameters such as demographics, size, resection margin, complications, pathological features, procedure time and follow-up were investigated and analyzed.

RESULTS

Our study achieved 100% en bloc resection and 100% R0 resection. The most common location was the corpus with a mean tumor size of 2.78 ± 1.56 cm. The mean age, procedure time, were 53.4 ± 10.3 years, 85.31 ± 46.64 min respectively. Acocording to National Institutes of Health classification, 7 (13, 53.85%), 5 (13, 38.46%) ,and 1 (13, 7.69%) objects belonged to the very low, low, and intermediate classification, respectively. Immunohistochemistry results showed a 100% positive rate of CD34, DOG-1, CD117, and Ki67. A mean follow-up of 9.3 ± 2.5 months showed no recurrence or metastasis.

CONCLUSIONS

ESSD is effective and safe surgical procedure for curative removal of gastrointestinal submucosal tumors in the upper gastrointestinal tract, and it can be preferred for patients with no metastasis.

Effect of optical diagnosis training on recognition and treatment of submucosal invasive colorectal cancer in community hospitals: a prospective multicenter intervention study

BACKGROUND

 Recognition of submucosal invasive colorectal cancer (T1 CRC) is difficult, with sensitivities of 35 %-60 % in Western countries. We evaluated the real-life effects of training in the OPTICAL model, a recently developed structured and validated prediction model, in Dutch community hospitals.

METHODS

 In this prospective multicenter study (OPTICAL II), 383 endoscopists from 40 hospitals were invited to follow an e-learning program on the OPTICAL model, to increase sensitivity in detecting T1 CRC in nonpedunculated polyps. Real-life recognition of T1 CRC was then evaluated in 25 hospitals. Endoscopic and pathologic reports of T1 CRCs detected during the next year were collected retrospectively, with endoscopists unaware of this evaluation. Sensitivity for T1 CRC recognition, R0 resection rate, and treatment modality were compared for trained vs. untrained endoscopists.

RESULTS

 1 year after e-learning, 528 nonpedunculated T1 CRCs were recorded for endoscopies performed by 251 endoscopists (118 [47 %] trained). Median T1 CRC size was 20 mm. Lesions were mainly located in the distal colorectum (66 %). Trained endoscopists recognized T1 CRCs more frequently than untrained endoscopists (sensitivity 74 % vs. 62 %; mixed model analysis odds ratio [OR] 2.90, 95 %CI 1.54-5.45). R0 resection rate was higher for T1 CRCs detected by trained endoscopists (69 % vs. 56 %; OR 1.73, 95 %CI 1.03-2.91).

CONCLUSION

 Training in optical recognition of T1 CRCs in community hospitals was associated with increased recognition of T1 CRCs, leading to higher en bloc and R0 resection rates. This may be an important step toward more organ-preserving strategies.

Selection of endoscopic resection technique for large colorectal lesion treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥ 20 mm (LNPCPs) comprise 1% of all colorectal lesions. LNPCPs are more likely to contain advanced histology such as high-grade dysplasia and submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC). Endoscopic resection is the first-line approach for management of these lesions. Endoscopic resection options include endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), cold-snare EMR (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR). This review aimed to critically evaluate current endoscopic resection techniques.

RECENT FINDINGS

Evidence-based selective resection algorithms should inform the most appropriate endoscopic resection technique. Most LNPCPs are removed by conventional EMR but there has been a trend toward C-EMR for endoscopic resection of LNPCPs. More high-quality trials are required to better define the limitations of C-EMR. Advances in our understanding of ESD technique, has clarified its role within the colorectum. More recently, the development of a full thickness resection device (FTRD) has allowed the curative endoscopic resection of select lesions.

SUMMARY

Endoscopic resection should be regarded as the principle approach for all LNPCPs. Underpinned by high-quality research, endoscopic resection has become more nuanced, leading to improved patient outcomes.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for the treatment of rectal lesions involving the dentate line

BACKGROUND

The ideal treatment of epithelial neoplastic rectal lesions involving the dentate line is a controversial issue. Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the most commonly used resection technique, but it is associated with high recurrence rates. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been shown to be safe and effective for the treatment of rectal lesions, but evidence is lacking concerning its application close to the dentate line. The aim of our study is to compare ESD and EMR for the treatment of epithelial rectal lesions involving the dentate line.

METHODS

We identified all cases of endoscopic resections of rectal lesions involving the dentate line performed in two German high-volume centers between 2010 and 2022. Periinterventional and follow-up data were collected and retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

We identified 68 ESDs and 62 EMRs meeting our inclusion criteria. ESD showed a significant advantage in en bloc resection rates (89.7% vs. 9.7%; P = 0.001) and complete resection rates (72.1% vs. 9.7%; P = 0.001). The overall curative resection rate was similar between both groups (ESD: 92.6%, EMR: 83.9%; P = 0.324), whereas in the subgroup of low-risk adenocarcinomas ESD was curative in 100% of the cases vs. 14% in the EMR group (P = 0.002). There was one local recurrence after ESD (1,5%) vs. 16 (25.8%) after EMR (P < 0.0001), and the EMR patients required an average of three further interventions.

CONCLUSION

ESD is superior to EMR for the treatment of epithelial rectal lesions involving the dentate line and should be considered the treatment of choice.

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.

Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2024

1:  ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3:  ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6-9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10-19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5:  ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6:  ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7:  Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9:  ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10:  ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11:  ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.

Endoscopic resection of large anastomotic polyps is safe and effective

BACKGROUND

Large (≥20mm) adenomatous anastomotic polyps (LAAPs) are uncommon. Data pertaining to their prevalence, characteristics, and the efficacy of endoscopic resection (ER) are absent. A safe and effective strategy for ER would reduce morbidity and healthcare costs.

METHODS

Large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps of ≥20mm (LNPCPs) referred for ER were prospectively studied. Multiple data points were recorded including anastomotic location, polyp morphology, resection modality, complications, and technical success.

RESULTS

Over 7 years until November 2022, 2629 lesions were referred. Of these, 10 (0.4%) were LAAPs (median size 35 mm [interquartile range (IQR) 30-40mm]). All LAAPs were removed by piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), most (n=9; 90%) in combination with cold-forceps avulsion with adjuvant snare-tip soft coagulation (CAST). On comparison of the LAAP group with the conventional LNPCP group, CAST was more commonly used (90% vs. 9%; P<0.001) and deep mural injury (DMI) type II was more frequent (40% vs. 11%, P=0.003); however, significant DMI (III-V) did not occur. At 6 month (IQR 5.25-6 months) surveillance, there was no recurrence in any of the 10 cases. There were no serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

LAAPs present unique challenges owing to their location overlying an anastomosis. Despite these challenges they can be safely and effectively managed endoscopically without recurrence at endoscopic follow-up.

Endoscopic En Bloc Versus Piecemeal Resection of Large Nonpedunculated Colonic Adenomas : A Randomized Comparative Trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection of adenomas prevents colorectal cancer, but the optimal technique for larger lesions is controversial. Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has a low adverse event (AE) rate but a variable recurrence rate necessitating early follow-up. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can reduce recurrence but may increase AEs.

OBJECTIVE

To compare ESD and EMR for large colonic adenomas.

DESIGN

Participant-masked, parallel-group, superiority, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03962868).

SETTING

Multicenter study involving 6 French referral centers from November 2019 to February 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with large (≥25 mm) benign colonic lesions referred for resection.

INTERVENTION

The patients were randomly assigned by computer 1:1 (stratification by lesion location and center) to ESD or EMR.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary end point was 6-month local recurrence (neoplastic tissue on endoscopic assessment and scar biopsy). The secondary end points were technical failure, en bloc R0 resection, and cumulative AEs.

RESULTS

In total, 360 patients were randomly assigned to ESD (n = 178) or EMR (n = 182). In the primary analysis set (n = 318 lesions in 318 patients), recurrence occurred after 1 of 161 ESDs (0.6%) and 8 of 157 EMRs (5.1%) (relative risk, 0.12 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.96]). No recurrence occurred in R0-resected cases (90%) after ESD. The AEs occurred more often after ESD than EMR (35.6% vs. 24.5%, respectively; relative risk, 1.4 [CI, 1.0 to 2.0]).

LIMITATION

Procedures were performed under general anesthesia during hospitalization in accordance with the French health system.

CONCLUSION

Compared with EMR, ESD reduces the 6-month recurrence rate, obviating the need for systematic early follow-up colonoscopy at the cost of more AEs.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

French Ministry of Health.

Safety and efficacy of physician-administered balanced-sedation for the endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps

Background and study aims Because of concerns about peri-procedural adverse events (AEs), guidelines recommend anesthetist-managed sedation (AMS) for long and complex endoscopic procedures. The safety and efficacy of physician-administered balanced sedation (PA-BS) for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) ≥20 mm is unknown. Patients and methods We compared PA-BS with AMS in a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients referred for management of LNPCPs (NCT01368289; NCT02000141). A per-patient propensity analysis was performed following a 1:2 nearest-neighbor (Greedy-type) match, based on age, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, and lesion size. The primary outcome was any peri-procedural AE, which included hypotension, hypertension, tachycardia, bradycardia, hypoxia, and new arrhythmia. Secondary outcomes were unplanned admissions, 28-day re-presentation, technical success, and recurrence. Results Between January 2016 and June 2020, 700 patients underwent EMR for LNPCPs, of whom 638 received PA-BS. Among them, the median age was 70 years (interquartile range [IQR] 62-76 years), size 35 mm (IQR 25-45 mm), and duration 35 minutes (IQR 25-60 minutes). Peri-procedural AEs occurred in 149 (23.4%), most commonly bradycardia (116; 18.2%). Only five (0.8%) required an unplanned sedation-related admission due to AEs (2 hypotension, 1 arrhythmia, 1 bradycardia, 1 hypoxia), with a median inpatient stay of 1 day (IQR 1-3 days). After propensity-score matching, there were no differences between PA-BS and AMS in peri-procedural AEs, unplanned admissions, 28-day re-presentation rates, technical success or recurrence. Conclusions Physician-administered balanced sedation for the EMR of LNPCPs is safe. Peri-procedural AEs are infrequent, transient, rarely require admission (<1%), and are experienced in similar frequencies to those receiving anesthetist-managed sedation.

Endoscopic resection-related colorectal strictures: risk factors, management, and long-term outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal strictures related to endoscopic resection (ER) of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) may be problematic. Data on prevalence, risk factors, and management are limited. We report a prospective study of colorectal strictures following ER and describe our approach to management.

METHODS

We analyzed prospectively collected data over 150 months, until June 2021, for patients who underwent ER for LNPCPs ≥ 40 mm. The ER defect size was graded as < 60 %, 60 %-89 %, or ≥ 90 % of the luminal circumference. Strictures were considered "severe" if patients experienced obstructive symptoms, "moderate" if an adult colonoscope could not pass the stenosis, or "mild" if there was resistance on successful passage. Primary outcomes included stricture prevalence, risk factors, and management.

RESULTS

916 LNPCPs ≥ 40 mm in 916 patients were included (median age 69 years, interquartile range 61-76 years, male sex 484 [52.8 %]). The primary resection modality was endoscopic mucosal resection in 859 (93.8 %). Risk of stricture formation with an ER defect ≥ 90 %, 60 %-89 %, and < 60 % was 74.2 % (23/31), 25.0 % (22/88), and 0.8 % (6 /797), respectively. Severe strictures only occurred with ER defects ≥ 90 % (22.6 %, 7/31). Defects < 60 % conferred low risk of only mild strictures (0.8 %, 6/797). Severe strictures required earlier (median 0.9 vs. 4.9 months; P = 0.01) and more frequent (median 3 vs. 2; P = 0.02) balloon dilations than moderate strictures.

CONCLUSION

Most patients with ER defects ≥ 90 % of luminal circumference developed strictures, many of which were severe and required early balloon dilation. There was minimal risk with ER defects < 60 %.

Cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection as a salvage technique for challenging colorectal laterally spreading tumors

BACKGROUND

Cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-c) has emerged as a potential alternative to standard piecemeal wide-field EMR (WF-EMR) for the resection of laterally spreading tumors (LSTs). However, clear indications for this technique are still lacking. Our objective was to investigate the performance of salvage EMR-c after WF-EMR failure in the resection of large colorectal LSTs.

METHODS

The data of consecutive patients undergoing WF-EMR for large colorectal LSTs (2015-2021) were analyzed in this single-center, retrospective, observational study. In the event of a WF-EMR failure, the procedure was switched to EMR-c in the same session. The efficacy of the two techniques was evaluated in terms of complete endoscopic resection, R0 resection, and recurrence rate. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, the data from 81 WF-EMRs were collected. Eighteen cases of WF-EMR failure were switched to EMR-c in the same session and complete endoscopic resection was achieved in 17/18 patients (94.4%). No statistically significant difference was observed between WF-EMR and salvage EMR-c in terms of macroscopic radicality (P = 0.40) and R0 resection (P = 0.12). However, recurrence was more common with EMR-c (44.4% vs. 23.5%; P = 0.05), as were adverse events, particularly intraprocedural bleeding (27.8% vs. 7.9%; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

EMR-c is an effective salvage technique for challenging colorectal LSTs following WF-EMR failure. Due to the elevated risk of adverse events associated with this procedure, careful patient selection, endoscopic expertise, and close follow-up are strongly recommended.

Treatment of adenoma recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection

OBJECTIVE

Residual or recurrent adenoma (RRA) after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) of ≥20 mm is a major limitation. Data on outcomes of the endoscopic treatment of recurrence are scarce, and no evidence-based standard exists. We investigated the efficacy of endoscopic retreatment over time in a large prospective cohort.

DESIGN

Over 139 months, detailed morphological and histological data on consecutive RRA detected after EMR for single LNPCPs at one tertiary endoscopy centre were prospectively recorded during structured surveillance colonoscopy. Endoscopic retreatment was performed on cases with evidence of RRA and was performed predominantly using hot snare resection, cold avulsion forceps with adjuvant snare tip soft coagulation or a combination of the two.

RESULTS

213 (14.6%) patients had RRA (168 (78.9%) at first surveillance and 45 (21.1%) thereafter). RRA was commonly 2.5-5.0 mm (48.0%) and unifocal (78.7%). Of 202 (94.8%) cases which had macroscopic evidence of RRA, 194 (96.0%) underwent successful endoscopic therapy and 161 (83.4%) had a subsequent follow-up colonoscopy. Of the latter, endoscopic therapy of recurrence was successful in 149 (92.5%) of 161 in the per-protocol analysis, and 149 (73.8%) of 202 in the intention-to-treat analysis, with a mean of 1.15 (SD 0.36) retreatment sessions. No adverse events were directly attributable to endoscopic therapy. Further RRA after endoscopic therapy was endoscopically treatable in most cases. Overall, only 9 (4.2%, 95% CI 2.2% to 7.8%) of 213 patients with RRA required surgery.Thus 159 (98.8%, 95% CI 95.1% to 99.8%) of 161 cases with initially successful endoscopic treatment of RRA and follow-up remained surgery-free for a median of 13 months (IQR 25.0) of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

RRA after EMR of LNPCPs can be effectively treated using simple endoscopic techniques with long-term adenoma remission of >90%; only 16% required retreatment. Therefore, more technically complex, morbid and resource-intensive endoscopic or surgical techniques are required only in selected cases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

NCT01368289 and NCT02000141.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection, Endoscopic Mucosal Resection, and Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Management of Rectal and Anorectal Lesions: A Narrative Review

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), and transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) are modern techniques that now play a crucial role in the treatment of colorectal lesions. ESD is a minimally invasive endoscopic procedure that allows for the resection of lesions of any size in a single piece, with clear advantages regarding oncological outcomes and recurrences. However, it is a complex technique, requiring high endoscopic skills, expertise, and specialized training, with higher rates of adverse events expected compared with EMR. EMR is another endoscopic technique used to remove superficial gastrointestinal tumors, particularly those that are limited to the mucosal layer. It is a faster and more accessible procedure, with fewer adverse events, although it only allows for an en-bloc resection of lesions measuring 15-20 mm. TAMIS is a minimally invasive surgical technique used to remove rectal tumors, involving the insertion of a single-port device through the anus, allowing for a better visualization and removal of the tumor with minimal disruption. This article reviews the current applications and evidence regarding these techniques, in search for the most adequate treatment for the removal of lesions in the rectum and anorectal junction, as these locations possess distinct characteristics that demand a more specific approach.

Comparative Cost Analysis Between Endoscopic Resection and Surgery for Submucosal Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

There are few studies analyzing the cost of endoscopic resection and surgical resection in the treatment of submucosal colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to perform a detailed cost analysis of endoscopic resection and surgical resection for submucosal colorectal cancer.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective observational study.

SETTING

This study was conducted at a tertiary academic center.

PATIENTS

Medical records of 484 patients with submucosal colorectal cancer who underwent endoscopic resection or surgical resection between July 2003 and July 2015 were reviewed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The total costs during index admission and follow-up as well as clinical outcomes between the 2 groups were compared in the whole cohort and propensity score-matched cohort.

RESULTS

In the propensity score-matched analysis ( n = 155 in each group), the endoscopic resection and surgical resection groups did not show significant differences in the rates of procedure-related adverse events (6.5% vs 3.9%; p = 0.304) and recurrence (0.6% vs 1.3%; p > 0.99). Readmission was more common in the endoscopic resection group (40.6% vs 11.0%; p < 0.001) because 64 (41.3%) patients underwent additional surgery for endoscopic noncurative resection. The endoscopic resection group had a lower cost during the index admission (1335.6 vs 6698.4 USD; p < 0.001), whereas the surgical resection group had a lower cost during follow-up (2488.7 vs 5035.7 USD; p < 0.001). The total cumulative cost was lower in the endoscopic resection group (6371.3 vs 9187.1 USD; p < 0.001). The same trend was observed in the whole cohort without propensity score matching.

LIMITATIONS

A limitation of this study was the retrospective nature of analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The total cumulative cost for treatment and follow-up for submucosal colorectal cancer was lower in the endoscopic resection group, which had comparable oncologic outcomes as the surgical resection group. Endoscopic resection can be considered a cost-effective option for initial treatment for submucosal colorectal cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B881 .

ANLISIS COMPARATIVO DE COSTOS ENTRE LA RESECCIN ENDOSCPICA Y LA CIRUGA PARA EL CNCER COLORRECTAL SUBMUCOSO

ANTECEDENTES: Existen pocos estudios que analizan el costo de la resección endoscópica y la resección quirúrgica en el tratamiento del cáncer colorrectal submucoso.OBJETIVO: El objetivo fue realizar un análisis detallado de costos tanto de la resección endoscópica y la resección quirúrgica para el cáncer colorrectal submucoso.DISEÑO: Este fue un estudio observacional retrospectivo.AJUSTE: Este estudio se realizó en un centro académico terciario.PACIENTES: Se revisaron las historias clínicas de 484 pacientes con cáncer colorrectal submucoso que fueron sometidos a resección endoscópica o resección quirúrgica entre julio de 2003 y julio de 2015.PRINCIPALES MEDICIONES DE RESULTADOS: Los costos totales durante la admisión índice y el seguimiento, así como los resultados clínicos entre los dos grupos, fueron comparados en toda la cohorte y la cohorte emparejada por puntuación de propensión.RESULTADOS: En el análisis emparejado por puntuación de propensión ( n = 155 en cada grupo), los grupos de resección endoscópica y resección quirúrgica no mostraron diferencias significativas en las tasas de eventos adversos relacionados con el procedimiento (6,5% vs 3,9%, p = 0,304) y recurrencia (0,6% vs 1,3%, p > 0,99). La readmisión fue más común en el grupo de resección endoscópica (40,6% vs 11,0%, p < 0,001) porque 64 (41,3%) pacientes fueron sometidos a una cirugía adicional para lograr la resección en aquellos casos en que la resección endoscópica no fue curativa. El grupo de resección endoscópica tuvo un costo menor durante el ingreso índice (1335.6 vs 6698.4 USD, p < 0.001), mientras que el grupo de resección quirúrgica tuvo un costo menor durante el seguimiento (2488.7 vs 5035.7 USD, p < 0.001). El costo total acumulado fue menor en el grupo de resección endoscópica (6371,3 vs 9187,1 USD, p < 0,001). La misma tendencia se observó en toda la cohorte sin emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión.LIMITACIONES: La naturaleza retrospectiva del análisis.CONCLUSIONES: El costo total acumulado para el tratamiento y seguimiento del cáncer colorrectal submucoso fue menor en el grupo de resección endoscópica, que tuvo resultados oncológicos comparables a los del grupo de resección quirúrgica. La resección endoscópica puede considerarse una opción rentable para el tratamiento inicial del cáncer colorrectal submucoso. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B881 . (Traducción-Dr Osvaldo Gauto ).

A Nationwide Survey of Training Pathways and Practice Trends of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Canada

Background

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become an established standard for endoscopic removal of large gastrointestinal (GI) lesions and early GI malignancies. However, ESD is technically challenging and requires significant health care infrastructure. As such, its adoption in Canada has been relatively slow. The practice of ESD across Canada remains unclear. Our study aimed to provide a descriptive overview of training pathways and practice trends of ESD in Canada.

Methods

Current ESD practitioners across Canada were identified and invited to participate in an anonymous cross-sectional survey.

Results

Twenty-seven ESD practitioners were identified; survey response rate was 74%. Respondents were from 15 different institutions. All practitioners underwent international ESD training of some type. Fifty per cent pursued long-term ESD training programs. Ninety-five per cent attended short-term training courses. Sixty per cent and 40% performed hands-on live human upper and lower GI ESD, respectively, before independent practice. In practice, 70% saw an increase per year in number of procedures performed from 2015 to 2019. Sixty per cent were dissatisfied with their institution’s health care infrastructure to support ESD. Thirty-five per cent perceived their institution as supportive of expanding the practice of ESD.

Conclusions

Several challenges exist to the adoption of ESD in Canada. Training pathways are variable, with no set standards. In practice, practitioners express dissatisfaction with access to necessary infrastructure and feel poorly supported in expanding the practice of ESD. As ESD is increasingly the accepted standard for the treatment of many neoplastic GI lesions, greater collaboration between practitioners and institutions is crucial to standardize training and ensure patient access.

A Rectum-Specific Selective Resection Algorithm Optimizes Oncologic Outcomes for Large Nonpedunculated Rectal Polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are complementary techniques for large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated rectal polyps (LNPRPs). A mechanism for appropriate technique selection has not been described.

METHODS

We evaluated the performance of a selective resection algorithm (SRA) (August 2017 to April 2021) compared with a universal EMR algorithm (UEA) (July 2008 to July 2017) for LNPRPs within a prospective observational study. In the SRA, LNPRPs with features of superficial submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC) (<1000 μm; Kudo pit pattern Vi), or with an increased risk of SMIC (Paris 0-Is or 0-IIa+Is nongranular, 0-IIa+Is granular with a dominant nodule ≥10 mm) underwent ESD. The remaining LNPRPs underwent EMR. Algorithm performance was evaluated by SMIC identified after EMR, curative oncologic resection (R0 resection, superficial SMIC, absence of negative histologic features), technical success, adverse events, and recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 480 LNPRPs were evaluated (290 UEA, 190 SRA). Median lesion size was 40 (interquartile range, 30-60) mm. SMIC was identified in 56 (11.7%) LNPRPs. Significant differences in SMIC after EMR (SRA 1 [1.0%] vs UEA 35 [12.1%]; P = .001) and curative oncologic resection (SRA n = 7 [33.3%] vs UEA n = 2 [5.7%]; P = .010) were identified. No significant differences in technical success or adverse events were identified (all P > .137). Among LNPRPs with SMIC amenable to curative oncologic resection and which underwent ESD, 100% (n = 7 of 7) were cured.

CONCLUSIONS

A rectum-specific SRA optimizes oncologic outcomes for LNPRPs and mitigates the risk of piecemeal resection of cancers.

Development and validation of an artificial intelligence-based system for predicting colorectal cancer invasion depth using multi-modal data

OBJECTIVES

Accurate endoscopic optical prediction of the depth of cancer invasion is critical for guiding an optimal treatment approach of large sessile colorectal polyps but was hindered by insufficient endoscopists expertise and inter-observer variability. We aimed to construct a clinically applicable artificial intelligence (AI) system for the identification of presence of cancer invasion in large sessile colorectal polyps.

METHODS

A deep learning-based colorectal cancer invasion calculation (CCIC) system was constructed. Multi-modal data including clinical information, white light (WL) and image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) were included for training. The system was trained using 339 lesions and tested on 198 lesions across three hospitals. Man-machine contest, reader study and video validation were further conducted to evaluate the performance of CCIC.

RESULTS

The overall accuracy of CCIC system using image and video validation was 90.4% and 89.7%, respectively. In comparison with 14 endoscopists, the accuracy of CCIC was comparable with expert endoscopists but superior to all the participating senior and junior endoscopists in both image and video validation set. With CCIC augmentation, the average accuracy of junior endoscopists improved significantly from 75.4% to 85.3% (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

This deep learning-based CCIC system may play an important role in predicting the depth of cancer invasion in colorectal polyps, thus determining treatment strategies for these large sessile colorectal polyps.

Long-term Outcomes After Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Large Colorectal Epithelial Neoplasms: A Prospective, Multicenter, Cohort Trial From Japan

BACKGROUND & AIMS

To determine the long-term outcomes after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), we conducted a large, multicenter, prospective cohort trial with a 5-year observation period.

METHODS

Between February 2013 and January 2015, we consecutively enrolled 1740 patients with 1814 colorectal epithelial neoplasms ≥20 mm who underwent ESD. Patients with noncurative resection (non-CR) lesions underwent additional radical surgery, as needed. After the initial treatment, intensive 5-year follow-up with planned multiple colonoscopies was conducted to identify metastatic and/or local recurrences. Primary outcomes were overall survival, disease-specific survival, and intestinal preservation rates. The rates of local recurrence and metachronous invasive cancer were evaluated as the secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The 5-year overall survival, disease-specific survival, and intestinal preservation rates were 93.6%, 99.6%, and 88.6%, respectively. Patients with CR lesions had no metastatic occurrence, and patients with non-CR lesions had 4 metastatic occurrences. Kaplan-Meier curves revealed that overall survival and disease-specific survival rates were significantly higher in patients with CR lesions than in those with non-CR lesions (P > .001 and P = .009, respectively). Local recurrence occurred in only 8 lesions (0.5%), which were successfully resected by subsequent endoscopic treatment. Multiple logistic regression analyses revealed that piecemeal resection (hazard ratio, 8.19; 95% CI, 1.47-45.7; P = .02) and margin-positive resection (hazard ratio, 8.06; 95% CI, 1.76-37.0; P = .007) were significant independent predictors of local recurrence after colorectal ESD. Fifteen metachronous invasive cancers (1.0%) were identified during surveillance colonoscopy, most of which required surgical resection.

CONCLUSIONS

A favorable long-term prognosis indicates that ESD can be the standard treatment for large colorectal epithelial neoplasms.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000010136.

Thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins to prevent local recurrence of large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps is characterized by a high risk of recurrence. Thermal ablation of the mucosal defect margins may reduce recurrence in these lesions, but a systematic overview of the current evidence is lacking. Methods  We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane until July 2021, for studies on thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps. Main goal of this meta-analysis was to identify pooled risk difference of recurrence between thermal ablation vs. no adjuvant treatment. Secondary goal was to identify pooled recurrence rate after snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) and argon plasma coagulation (APC). Results  Ten studies on thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins were included, with three studies on argon plasma coagulation, six studies on snare tip soft coagulation and one study comparing both treatment modalities, representing a total of 316 APC cases and 1598 STSC cases. Overall pooled risk difference of recurrence was -0.17 (95 % confidence interval [CI] -0.22 to -0.12) as compared to no adjuvant treatment. Pooled risk difference was -0.16 (95 % CI -0.19 to -0.14) for STSC and -0.26 (95 % CI -0.80 to 0.28) for APC. Pooled recurrence rate was 4 % (95 % CI 2 % to 8 %) for STSC and 9 % (95 % CI 4 % to 19 %) for APC. Conclusions  Thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins significantly reduces recurrence rate in large non-pedunculated colorectal lesions compared to no adjuvant treatment. While no evidence for superiority exists, STSC may be preferred over APC, because this method is the most evidence-based, and cost-effective modality.

Implementing precision medicine in endoscopy practice

In contrast to the "one-size-fits-all" approach, precision medicine focuses on providing health care tailored to individual variabilities. Implementing precision medicine in endoscopy practice involves selecting the appropriate procedures among the endoscopic armamentarium in the diagnosis and management of patients in a logical sequence, jointly considering the pretest probabilities of possible diagnoses, patients' comorbidities and preference, and risk-benefit ratio of the individual procedures given the clinical scenario. The aim of this review is to summarize evidence-supported strategies and measures that may enhance precision medicine in general endoscopy practice.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection or piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection for large superficial colorectal lesions: A cost effectiveness study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic management is preferred to surgical management for large superficial colorectal lesions. However, the optimal endoscopic resection strategy (piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection [pEMR] or endoscopic submucosal dissection [ESD]) is still debated from an economical point of view. To date, in France, there is no Health Insurance reimbursement rate for the hospital stays related to ESD. We searched to estimate the global cost of colorectal ESD and to define the most cost-effectiveness endoscopic strategy.

METHODS

A model was created to compare the cost-effectiveness of ESD and pEMR according to optical diagnosis (Japan NBI Expert Team [JNET], laterally spreading tumour [LST], CONECCT). We distinguished three groups from the same multicentre ESD cohort and compared the medical and economic outcomes: real-life ESD data (Universal-ESD or U-ESD) compared to modelled selective ESD (S-ESD JNET; S-ESD LST; S-ESD CONECCT) and exclusive pEMR strategies (Universal-EMR or U-EMR).

RESULTS

The en-bloc, R0, and curative resection rates were 97.5%, 86.5%, and 82.6%, respectively in the real life French ESD cohort of 833 colorectal lesions. U-ESD was the least-expensive strategy, with a global cost of 2,858,048.17 €, i.e. 3,431.03 €/patient and was also the most effective strategy because it avoided 774 surgeries, which was more than any other strategy. It outperformed S-ESD CONNECT (global cost = 2,951,411.44 €, and 3,543.11 €/patient, 765 surgeries avoided, S-ESD LST (global cost = 3,055,951.53 €, and 3,668.61 €/patient, 749 surgeries avoided), and S-ESD JNET (global cost = 3,547,426.97 € and 4,258.62 €/patient, 704 surgeries avoided) and U-EMR (global cost = 4,060,547.62 € and 4,874.61 €/patient, 620 surgeries avoided). Even though a model which optimized pEMR results (0% technical failure, 0% primary surgery), U-EMR strategy remained the most expansive strategy and the one that avoided the least surgeries.

CONCLUSION

ESD for all LSTs upper than 20 mm is more cost-effective than pEMR, and S-ESD.

Comparison of the morphology and histopathology of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps in the rectum and colon: implications for endoscopic treatment

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The risk of cancer in large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm (LNPCPs) in the rectum relative to the remainder of the colon is unknown. We aimed to describe differences between rectal and colonic LNPCPs to better inform treatment decisions.

METHODS

Patients with LNPCPs referred to tertiary centers for endoscopic resection within a prospective, multicenter, observational cohort were evaluated. Data recorded were participant demographics, LNPCP location, morphology, resection modality, and histopathologic data. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify those variables independently associated with rectal versus nonrectal location in the colon.

RESULTS

Patients with LNPCPs referred for endoscopic resection between July 2008 and July 2021 were included. Rectal LNPCPs (n = 618) were larger (median size, 40 mm vs 30 mm; P < .001) and more likely to be granular (79% vs 50%, P < .001) with a nodular component (53% vs 17%, P < .001) compared with nonrectal LNPCPs (n = 2787). Rectal LNPCPs were more likely to have tubulovillous histopathology (72% vs 47%, P < .001) and contain cancer (15% vs 6%, P < .001). After adjusting for the other features independently associated with location, cancer was more common in the rectum compared with the colon (odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-2.53).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that compared with LNPCPs in the rest of the colon, rectal LNPCPs are more likely to be larger and contain more advanced pathology. These findings have implications for curative endoscopic resection techniques particularly where early cancer is present. (Clinical trial registration numbers: NCT01368289 and NCT02000141.).

Outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasms: Prospective, multicenter, cohort trial

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the gold standard for the treatment of noninvasive large colorectal lesions, despite challenges associated with nonlifting lesions and a high rate of local recurrence. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) offers the possibility of overcoming these EMR limitations. However, a higher risk of complications and longer procedure time prevented its dissemination. As ESD now provides more stable results because of standardized techniques compared with those used earlier, this study aimed to quantify the rates of en bloc and curative resections, as well as ESD complications, in the present situation.

METHODS

A multicenter, large-scale, prospective cohort trial of ESD was conducted at 20 institutions in Japan. Consecutive patients scheduled for ESD were enrolled from February 2013 to January 2015.

RESULTS

ESD was performed for 1883 patients (1965 lesions). The mean procedure time was 80.6 min; en bloc and curative resections were achieved in 1759 (97.0%) and 1640 (90.4%) lesions, respectively, in epithelial lesions ≥20 mm. Intra- and postprocedural perforations occurred in 51 (2.6%) and 12 (0.6%) lesions, respectively, and emergency surgery for adverse events was performed in nine patients (0.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

This trial conducted after the standardization of the ESD technique throughout Japan revealed a higher curability, shorter procedure time, and lower risk of complications than those reported previously. Considering that the target lesions of ESD are more advanced than those of EMR, ESD can be a first-line treatment for large colorectal lesions with acceptable risk and procedure time. (Clinical Trial Registration: UMIN000010136).

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal lesions: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022

ESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based).ESGE does not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection.ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the treatment of choice for most superficial esophageal squamous cell and superficial gastric lesions.For Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated lesions, ESGE suggests the use of ESD for lesions suspicious of submucosal invasion (Paris type 0-Is, 0-IIc), for malignant lesions > 20 mm, and for lesions in scarred/fibrotic areas.ESGE does not recommend routine use of ESD for duodenal or small-bowel lesions.ESGE suggests that ESD should be considered for en bloc resection of colorectal (but particularly rectal) lesions with suspicion of limited submucosal invasion (demarcated depressed area with irregular surface pattern or a large protruding or bulky component, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm) or for lesions that otherwise cannot be completely removed by snare-based techniques.ESGE recommends that an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with histology no more advanced than intramucosal cancer (no more than m2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma), well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion or ulceration, should be considered a very low risk (curative) resection, and no further staging procedure or treatment is generally recommended.ESGE recommends that the following should be considered to be a low risk (curative) resection and no further treatment is generally recommended: an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with superficial submucosal invasion (sm1), that is well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion, of size ≤ 20 mm for an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma or ≤ 30 mm for a stomach lesion or of any size for a BE-related or colorectal lesion, and with no lymphovascular invasion, and no budding grade 2 or 3 for colorectal lesions.ESGE recommends that, after an endoscopically complete resection, if there is a positive horizontal margin or if resection is piecemeal, but there is no submucosal invasion and no other high risk criteria are met, this should be considered a local-risk resection and endoscopic surveillance or re-treatment is recommended rather than surgery or other additional treatment.ESGE recommends that when there is a diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion, or deeper infiltration than sm1, or positive vertical margins, or undifferentiated tumor, or, for colorectal lesions, budding grade 2 or 3, this should be considered a high risk (noncurative) resection, and complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments should be considered on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE recommends scheduled endoscopic surveillance with high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based) with biopsies of only the suspicious areas after a curative ESD.

Advanced Endoscopic Resection Techniques: Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection

Endoscopic resection is first-line therapy in the management of superficial neoplasms throughout the gastrointestinal tract, as well as an increasingly viable therapeutic alternative in the resection of selected small deep lesions throughout the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract. The mainstay of therapy has traditionally been endoscopic snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection. However, recent innovative advancements in therapeutic endoscopy have provided for the ability to resect large superficial lesions and selected subepithelial lesions in en bloc and margin-negative fashion. In this review, we discuss the current state of the art in advanced endoscopic resection techniques including endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic full-thickness resection.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of endoscopic resection for colorectal laterally spreading tumors: Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection

OBJECTIVES

The cost-effectiveness of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (pEMR) for colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) remains unclear. We examined the cost-effectiveness of these procedures for cases of colon/rectal LST-non-granular-type ≥2 cm and LST-granular-mixed-type ≥3 cm.

METHODS

We performed a simulation model analysis using parameters based on clinical data from the National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, and previous literature. The number of recurrences and surgeries and the required costs for 5 years following ESD and pEMR were assessed. Japanese cost data were used in the base-case analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) was performed. The Swedish cost data were used in the scenario analysis.

RESULTS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection yielded a considerably lower number of recurrences and surgeries but required a higher cost than pEMR. The recurrence rates following ESD and pEMR were 0.9-1.3% and 21.1-25.9%, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for an avoided recurrence and surgery for ESD against pEMR were 376,796-476,496 JPY (3575-4521 USD) and 7,335,436-8,187,476 JPY (69,604-77,689 USD), respectively. PSA demonstrated that the probability of ESD being chosen as a more cost-effective option than pEMR was >50% at willingness-to-pay values of ≥400,000-500,000 JPY (3795-4744 USD) for avoiding a recurrence and ≥9,500,000-10,500,000 JPY (90,143-99,631 USD) for avoiding a surgery. In the scenario analysis, the required cost was also lower for ESD.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest potentially favorable cost-effectiveness of ESD, depending on cost settings and the willingness-to-pay value for avoiding recurrence/surgery.

Outcomes of Deep Mural Injury After Endoscopic Resection: An International Cohort of 3717 Large Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Although perforation is the most feared adverse event associated with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), limited data exists concerning its management. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of intra-procedural deep mural injury (DMI) in an international multi-center observational cohort of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs).

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent EMR for a LNPCP ≥20 mm were evaluated. Significant DMI (S-DMI) was defined as Sydney DMI Classification type III (muscularis propria injury, target sign) or type IV/V (perforation without or with contamination, respectively). The primary outcome was successful S-DMI defect closure. Secondary outcomes included technical success (removal of all visible polypoid tissue during index EMR), surgical referral and recurrence at first surveillance colonscopy (SC1).

RESULTS

Between July 2008 to May 2020, 3717 LNPCPs underwent EMR. Median lesion size was 35mm (interquartile range (IQR) 25 to 45mm). Significant DMI was identified in 101 cases (2.7%), with successful defect closure in 98 (97.0%) using a median of 4 through-the-scope clips (TTSCs; IQR 3 to 6 TTSCs). Three (3.0%) patients underwent S-DMI-related urgent surgery. Technical success was achieved in 94 (93.1%) patients, with 46 (45.5%) admitted to hospital (median duration 1 day; IQR 1 to 2 days). Comparing LNPCPs with and without S-DMI, no differences in technical success (94 (93.1%) vs 3316 (91.7%); P = .62) or SC1 recurrence (12 (20.0%) vs 363 (13.6%); P = .15) were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant DMI is readily managed endoscopically and does not appear to affect technical success or recurrence.

Current Endoscopic Resection Techniques for Gastrointestinal Lesions: Endoscopic Mucosal Resection, Submucosal Dissection, and Full-Thickness Resection

Background

Endoscopic resection of dysplastic lesions in early stages of cancer reduces mortality rates and is recommended by many national guidelines throughout the world. Snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are established techniques of polyp removal. The advantages of these methods are their relatively short procedure times and acceptable complication rates. The latter include delayed bleeding in 0.9% and a perforation risk of 0.4-1.3%, depending on the size and location of the resected lesion. EMR is a recent modification of endoscopic resection. A limited number of studies suggest that larger lesions can be removed en bloc with low complication rates and short procedure times. Novel techniques such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are used to enhance en bloc resection rates for larger, flat, or sessile lesions. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is employed for non-lifting lesions or those not easily amenable to resection. Procedures such as ESD or EFTR are emerging standards for lesions inaccessible to EMR techniques.

Summary

Endoscopic treatment is now regarded as first-line therapy for benign lesions.

Key Message

Endoscopic resection of dysplastic lesions or early stages of cancer is recommended. A plethora of different techniques can be used dependent on the lesions.

Optical Evaluation for Predicting Cancer in Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps Is Accurate for Flat Lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The ability of optical evaluation to diagnose submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC) prior to endoscopic resection of large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) is critical to inform therapeutic decisions. Prior studies suggest that it is insufficiently accurate to detect SMIC. It is unknown whether lesion morphology influences optical evaluation performance.

METHODS

LNPCPs ≥20 mm referred for endoscopic resection within a prospective, multicenter, observational cohort were evaluated. Optical evaluation was performed prior to endoscopic resection with the optical prediction of SMIC based on established features (Kudo V pit pattern, depressed morphology, rigidity/fixation, ulceration). Optical evaluation performance outcomes were calculated. Outcomes were reported by dominant morphology: nodular (Paris 0-Is/0-IIa+Is) vs flat (Paris 0-IIa/0-IIb) morphology.

RESULTS

From July 2013 to July 2019, 1583 LNPCPs (median size 35 [interquartile range, 25-50] mm; 855 flat, 728 nodular) were assessed. SMIC was identified in 146 (9.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.9%-10.8%). Overall sensitivity and specificity were 67.1% (95% CI, 59.2%-74.2%) and 95.1% (95% CI, 93.9%-96.1%), respectively. The overall SMIC miss rate was 3.0% (95% CI, 2.3%-4.0%). Significant differences in sensitivity (90.9% vs 52.7%), specificity (96.3% vs 93.7%), and SMIC miss rate (0.6% vs 5.9%) between flat and nodular LNPCPs were identified (all P < .027). Multiple logistic regression identified size ≥40 mm (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; 95% CI, 1.0-3.8), rectosigmoid location (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.7), and nodular morphology (OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 2.8-18.9) as predictors of missed SMIC (all P < .039).

CONCLUSIONS

Optical evaluation performance is dependent on lesion morphology. In the absence of features suggestive of SMIC, flat lesions can be presumed benign and be managed accordingly.

Impact of technical innovations in EMR in the treatment of large nonpedunculated polyps involving the ileocecal valve (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The endoscopic management of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps involving the ileocecal valve (ICV-LNPCPs) remains challenging because of its unique anatomic features, with long-term outcomes inferior to LNPCPs not involving the ICV. We sought to evaluate the impact of technical innovations and advances in the EMR of ICV-LNPCPs.

METHODS

The performance of EMR for ICV-LNPCPs was retrospectively evaluated in a prospective observational cohort of LNPCPs ≥20 mm. Efficacy was measured by clinical success (removal of all polypoid tissue during index EMR and avoidance of surgery) and recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy. Accounting for the adoption of technical innovations, comparisons were made between an historical cohort (September 2008 to April 2016) and contemporary cohort (May 2016 to October 2020). Safety was evaluated by documenting the frequencies of intraprocedural bleeding, delayed bleeding, deep mural injury, and delayed perforation.

RESULTS

Between September 2008 to October 2020, 142 ICV-LNPCPs were referred for EMR. Median ICV-LNPCP size was 35 mm (interquartile range, 25-50 mm). When comparing the contemporary (n = 66) and historical cohorts (n = 76) of ICV-LNPCPs, there were significant differences in clinical success (93.9% vs 77.6%, P = .006) and recurrence (4.6% vs 21.0%, P = .019).

CONCLUSIONS

With technical advances, ICV-LNPCPs can be effectively and safely managed by EMR, independent of lesion complexity. Most patients experience excellent outcomes and avoid surgery.

Double-clip traction for colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection: a multicenter study of 599 consecutive cases (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is particularly challenging and limited to a few expert centers. We recently conducted a pilot study on improvement of colonic ESD with systematic use of a countertraction device (double-clip traction with rubber band [DCT-ESD]).

METHODS

A French prospective multicenter study was conducted between March 2017 and September 2019, including all consecutive cases of naive colonic ESD. Since the first case of DCT-ESD in March 2017, all cases of colonic ESD have been performed using the DCT-ESD strategy in the 3 centers involved in the study.

RESULTS

Five hundred ninety-nine lesions with a mean size of 53 mm were included in this study, resected by 5 operators in 3 centers. The en bloc, R0, and curative resection rates were 95.7%, 83.5%, and 81.1%, respectively. The adverse event rates were 4.9% for perforation and 4.2% for postprocedure bleeding. Between 2017 and 2019, the rates of R0 and curative resections increased significantly from 74.7% in 2017 to 88.4% in 2019 (P = .003) and from 72.6% in 2017 to 86.3% in 2019 (P = .004), respectively. Procedure duration and speed of resection were 62.4 minutes and 39.4 mm²/minute, respectively. No differences were noted between operators.

CONCLUSION

DCT-ESD is a safe and reproducible technique, with results comparable with those of the large Japanese teams with speed of resection twice as high as previously reported studies. The DCT strategy is promising, cheap, and seems to be reproducible. Physicians performing colonic ESD should be aware of this promising tool to improve their results in ESD.

Outcomes of Thermal Ablation of the Mucosal Defect Margin After Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: A Prospective, International, Multicenter Trial of 1000 Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Thermal ablation of the defect margin after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-T) for treating large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) has shown efficacy in a randomized trial, with a 4-fold reduction, in residual or recurrent adenoma (RRA) at first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1). The clinical effectiveness of this treatment, in the real world, remains unknown.

METHODS

We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of EMR-T in an international multicenter prospective trial (NCT02957058). The primary endpoint was the frequency of RRA at SC1. Detailed demographic, procedural, and outcome data were recorded. Exclusion criteria were LNPCPs involving the ileo-caecal valve, the appendiceal orifice, and circumferential LNPCPs.

RESULTS

During 51 months (May 2016-August 2020) 1049 LNPCPs in 1049 patients (median size, 35 mm; interquartile range, 25-45 mm; right colon location, 53.5%) were enrolled. Uniform completeness of EMR-T was achieved in 989 LNPCPs (95.4%). In this study, 755/803 (94.0%) eligible LNPCPs underwent SC1 (median time to SC1, 6 months; interquartile range, 5-7 months). For LNPCPs that underwent complete EMR-T, the frequency of RRA at SC1 was 1.4% (10/707).

CONCLUSIONS

In clinical practice, EMR-T is a simple, inexpensive, and highly effective auxiliary technique that is likely to significantly reduce RRA at first surveillance. It should be universally used for the management of LNPCPs after EMR. https://clinicaltrials.gov; Clinical Trial Number, NCT02957058.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection and its treatment alternatives in difficult-to-treat lesions of the lower gastrointestinal tract: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Objective

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) has shown efficacy and safety in the colorectum. The aim of this analysis was to investigate whether EFTR is cost-effective in comparison with surgical and endoscopic treatment alternatives.

Design

Real data from the study cohort of the prospective, single-arm WALL RESECT study were used. A simulated comparison arm was created based on a survey that included suggested treatment alternatives to EFTR of the respective lesions. Treatment costs and reimbursement were calculated in euro according to the coding rules of 2017 and 2019 (EFTR). R0 resection rate was used as a measure of effectiveness. To assess cost-effectiveness, the average cost-effectiveness ratio (ACER) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were determined. Calculations were made both from the perspective of the care provider as well as of the payer.

Results

The cost per case was €2852.20 for the EFTR group, €1712 for the standard endoscopic resection (SER) group, €8895 for the surgical resection group and €5828 for the pooled alternative treatment to EFTR. From the perspective of the care provider, the ACER (mean cost per R0 resection) was €3708.98 for EFTR, €3115.10 for SER, €8924.05 for surgical treatment and €7169.30 for all pooled and weighted alternatives to EFTR. The ICER (additional cost per R0 resection compared with EFTR) was €5196.47 for SER, €26 533.13 for surgical resection and €67 768.62 for the pooled rate of alternatives. Results from the perspective of the payer were similar.

Conclusion

EFTR is cost-effective in comparison with surgical and endoscopic treatment alternatives in the colorectum.