Cost Analysis of Endoscopic Mucosal Resection vs Surgery for Large Laterally Spreading Colorectal Lesions

Endoscopic management of large ileocecal valve lesions over an 18-year interval

Background and study aims  Ileocecal valve (ICV) lesions are challenging to remove endoscopically. Patients and methods  This was a retrospective cohort study, performed at an academic tertiary US hospital. Sessile polyps or flat ICV lesions ≥ 20 mm in size referred for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) were included. Successful resection rates, complication rates and recurrence were compared to lesions ≥ 20 mm in size not located on the ICV. Results  During an 18-year interval, there were 118 ICV lesions ≥ 20 mm with mean size 28.6 mm (44.9 % females; mean age 71.6 years), comprising 9.03 % of all referred polyps. Ninety ICV lesions (76.3 %) were resected endoscopically, compared to 91.3 % of non-ICV lesions ( P  < 0.001). However, in the most recent 8 years, successful EMR of ICV lesions increased to 93 %. Conventional adenomas comprised 92.2 % of ICV lesions and 7.8 % were serrated. Delayed hemorrhage and perforation occurred in 3.3 % and 0 % of ICV lesions, respectively, compared to 4.8 % and 0.5 % in the non-ICV group. At first follow-up, rates of residual polyp in the ICV and non-ICV groups were 16.5 % and 13.6 %, respectively ( P  = 0.485). At second follow-up residual rates in the ICV and non-ICV lesion groups were 18.6 % and 6.7 %, respectively ( P  = .005). Conclusions  Large ICV polyps are a common source of tertiary referrals. Over an 18-year experience, risk of EMR for ICV polyps was numerically lower, and risk of recurrence was numerically higher at first follow and significantly higher at second follow-up compared to non-ICV polyps.

Intra-procedural and delayed bleeding after resection of large colorectal lesions: The SCALP study

Background and aim

The safety of endoscopic resection of large colorectal lesions (LCLs) (≥20 mm) is clinically relevant. The aim of the present study was to assess the rate of post-resection adverse events (AEs) in a real-life setting.

Patients and methods

In a prospective, multicentre, observational study, data from consecutive resections of LCLs over a 6-month period were collected in 24 centres. Patients were followed up at 15 days from resection for AEs. The primary endpoint was intra-procedural bleeding according to lesion morphology. Secondary endpoints were delayed bleeding and perforation. Patient and polyp characteristics, and polypectomy techniques were analysed with respect to the bleeding events.

Results

In total, 1504 patients (female/male: 633/871, mean age, 66.1) with 1648 LCLs (29.1% pedunculated and 70.9% non-pedunculated lesions) were included. Overall, 168 (11.2%) patients had post-resection bleeding (8.5 and 2.0% immediate and delayed, respectively), while 15 (1.0%) cases of perforation occurred. Independent predictors of immediate bleeding for pedunculated lesions were bleeding prophylaxis (odds ratio (OR) 0.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13-0.62), simple polypectomy (versus endoscopic mucosal resection, OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17-0.88) and inpatient setting (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.07-5.08), while bleeding prophylaxis (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.30-0.98), academic setting (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12-0.54) and size (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.05) were predictors for those non-pedunculated. Indication for colonoscopy (screening versus diagnostic (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.12-0.86)), antithrombotic therapy (OR 3.12, 95% CI 1.54-6.39) and size (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.12-4.87) independently predicted delayed bleeding.

Conclusions

A low rate of post-resection AEs was observed in a real-life setting, reassuring as to the safety of endoscopic resection of ≥2 cm colorectal lesions. Bleeding prophylaxis reduced the intra-procedural bleeding risk, while antithrombotic therapy increased delayed bleeding.CLINICALTRIAL: (NCT02694120).

Safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neoplasia: a multicenter North American experience

Background and aims  Rectal lesions traditionally represent the first lesions approached during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) training in the West. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of rectal ESD in North America. Methods  This is a multicenter retrospective analysis of rectal ESD between January 2010 and September 2018 in 15 centers. End points included: rates of en bloc resection, R0 resection, adverse events, comparison of pre- and post-ESD histology, and factors associated with failed resection. Results  In total, 171 patients (median age 63 years; 56 % men) underwent rectal ESD (median size 43 mm). En bloc resection was achieved in 141 cases (82.5 %; 95 %CI 76.8-88.2), including 24 of 27 (88.9 %) with prior failed endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). R0 resection rate was 74.9 % (95 %CI 68.4-81.4). Post-ESD bleeding and perforation occurred in 4 (2.3 %) and 7 (4.1 %), respectively. Covert submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC) was identified in 8.6 % of post-ESD specimens. There was one case (1/120; 0.8 %) of recurrence at a median follow-up of 31 weeks; IQR: 19-76 weeks). Older age and higher body mass index (BMI) were predictors of failed R0 resection, whereas submucosal fibrosis was associated with a higher likelihood of both failed en bloc and R0 resection. Conclusion  Rectal ESD in North America is safe and is associated with high en bloc and R0 resection rates. The presence of submucosal fibrosis was the main predictor of failed en bloc and R0 resection. ESD can be considered for select rectal lesions, and serves not only to establish a definitive tissue diagnosis but also to provide curative resection for lesions with covert advanced disease.

A novel technique of endoscopic submucosal dissection for circumferential ileocecal valve adenomas with terminal ileum involvement: the "doughnut resection" (with videos)

BACKGROUND

Ileocecal valve (ICV) lesions are difficult to resect endoscopically and patients are often referred for laparoscopic colectomy. ICV involvement has been shown to be related to technical failure and tumor recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and represents a challenge for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Few publications have focused specifically on endoscopic management of ICV lesions.

METHODS

We developed a novel ESD technique, the "doughnut resection," for circumferential ICV adenomas with terminal ileum involvement. Two circumferential mucosal incisions are performed, one in the ileum and the other in the cecum, followed by submucosal dissection of the disk of tissue between the two incisions around a guiding stent placed across the valve that helps guide the dissection as it crosses the valve orifice. The lesion is removed en bloc in the shape of a "doughnut" with two concentric assessable lateral margins. The underwater ESD technique and a gastroscope were used to facilitate the resection.

RESULTS

Seven patients received the doughnut resection. The median patient age was 67 years. All patients had prior biopsy and three had prior endoscopic resection (1-6 times). The median specimen diameter was 4.5 cm (range 3-8). All resections were en bloc and R0. There was no perforation, delayed bleeding, or other clinically significant adverse events. After a median follow-up of 21 months (range 12-32), there was no tumor recurrence.

CONCLUSION

The "doughnut resection" is a feasible, safe, and effective method to remove circumferential ICV lesions endoscopically even for patients with multiple prior tumor manipulations.

Morbidity and Mortality After Surgery for Nonmalignant Colorectal Polyps: A 10-Year Nationwide Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Rates of surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps are increasing in the United States despite evidence that most polyps can be managed endoscopically. We aimed to determine nationally representative estimates and to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality and morbidity after surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps.

METHODS

Data were analyzed from the National Inpatient Sample for 2005-2014. All discharges for adult patients undergoing surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps were identified. Rates of in-hospital mortality and postoperative wound, infectious, urinary, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, or cardiovascular adverse events were calculated. Multivariable logistic regression using survey-weighted data was used to evaluate covariables associated with postoperative mortality and morbidity.

RESULTS

An estimated 262,843 surgeries for nonmalignant colorectal polyps were analyzed. In-hospital mortality was 0.8% [95% confidence interval: 0.7%-0.9%] and morbidity was 25.3% [95% confidence interval: 24.2%-26.4%]. Postoperative mortality was associated with open surgical technique (vs laparoscopic), older age, black race (vs non-Hispanic white), Medicaid use, and burden of comorbidities. Female sex and private insurance were associated with lower risk. Patients developing a postoperative adverse event had a 106% increase in mean hospital length of stay (10.3 vs 5.0 days; P < 0.0001) and 91% increase in mean hospitalization cost ($77,015.24 vs $40,258.30; P < 0.0001).

DISCUSSION

Surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps is associated with almost 1% mortality and common morbidity. These findings should inform risk vs benefit discussions for clinicians and patients, and although confounding by patient selection cannot be excluded, the risks associated with surgery support consideration of endoscopic resection as a potentially less invasive therapeutic option.

Colorectal cancer

Several decades ago, colorectal cancer was infrequently diagnosed. Nowadays, it is the world's fourth most deadly cancer with almost 900 000 deaths annually. Besides an ageing population and dietary habits of high-income countries, unfavourable risk factors such as obesity, lack of physical exercise, and smoking increase the risk of colorectal cancer. Advancements in pathophysiological understanding have increased the array of treatment options for local and advanced disease leading to individual treatment plans. Treatments include endoscopic and surgical local excision, downstaging preoperative radiotherapy and systemic therapy, extensive surgery for locoregional and metastatic disease, local ablative therapies for metastases, and palliative chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. Although these new treatment options have doubled overall survival for advanced disease to 3 years, survival is still best for those with non-metastasised disease. As the disease only becomes symptomatic at an advanced stage, worldwide organised screening programmes are being implemented, which aim to increase early detection and reduce morbidity and mortality from colorectal cancer.

Surgery Versus Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Large Polyps: Making Sense of When to Use Which Approach

Endoscopic resection for large colorectal lesion is effective and cost-saving than surgery. Piecemeal resections are often effective if applied meticulously but endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) allows meritorious removal of large lesions in one piece. For rectal lesions, transanal endoscopic microsurgery or transanal minimally invasive surgery offers more radical transmural resection but ESD is also effective for removal of complex rectal lesions. Surgical resection with lymph node dissection is the gold standard for invasive cancer; however, the management of low-risk early-stage colorectal cancer is worth debating. Treatment selection for large colorectal lesions is discussed based on lesion factor and treatment outcomes.

How to Perform Wide-Field Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Follow-up Examinations

Wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the primary management option for noninvasive laterally spreading colorectal lesions. It has been proved to be safe, highly effective, efficient, and cost-effective. Careful lesion interrogation before resection is essential because it provides essential information, including the risk of submucosal invasive disease. Adjuvant thermal ablation to the post-EMR defect margin has recently been shown to substantially reduce adenoma recurrence. Adenoma recurrence is predictable using the Sydney EMR Recurrence Tool. Adenoma recurrence can be accurately detected using standardized imaging of the post-EMR scar, and can be effectively treated.

Optimal Management of Malignant Polyps, From Endoscopic Assessment and Resection to Decisions About Surgery

Colorectal cancer is defined clinically as invasion of dysplastic cells into the submucosa. Lesions with submucosal invasion but without invasion into the muscularis propria are generally called malignant polyps. A stepwise approach produces optimal management of malignant polyps (including polypoid and flat/depressed lesions). The first step is to avoid endoscopic resection of non-pedunculated lesions with endoscopic features that predict deep submucosal invasion. Lesions without such features are candidates for endoscopic resection. The second step is to assess candidates for endoscopic resection for features that predict an increased risk of superficial submucosal invasion. Such lesions should be considered for en bloc endoscopic excision if feasible. The third step is giving patients with endoscopically resected malignant polyps good advice regarding whether to undergo adjuvant therapy, usually surgery. We review the endoscopic and histologic criteria that guide clinicians through these steps.

Effect of prophylactic clip placement following endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal lesions on delayed polypectomy bleeding: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of prophylactic clipping for the prevention of delayed polypectomy bleeding (DPB) remains unclear and conclusions from prior meta-analyses are limited due to the inclusion of variety of resection techniques and polyp sizes.

AIM

To conduct a meta-analysis on the effect of clipping on DPB following endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of colorectal lesions ≥ 20 mm.

METHODS

We performed a search of PubMed and the Cochrane library for studies comparing the effect of clipping vs no clipping on DPB following endoscopic resection. The Cochran Q test and I² were used to test for heterogeneity. Pooling was conducted using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies with a total of 7794 polyps were identified, of which data was available on 1701 cases of EMR of lesions ≥ 20 mm. Prophylactic clipping was associated with a lower rate of DPB (1.4%) when compared to no clipping (5.2%) (pooled OR: 0.24, 95%CI: 0.12-0.50, P < 0.001) following EMR of lesions ≥ 20 mm. There was no significant heterogeneity among the studies (I² = 0%, P = 0.67).

CONLUSION

Prophylactic clipping may reduce DPB following EMR of large colorectal lesions. Future trials are needed to further identify risk factors and stratify high risk cases in order to implement a cost-effective preventive strategy.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection vs Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection For Barrett's Esophagus and Colorectal Neoplasia

Endoscopic resection has become the first-line therapy for the management of superficial neoplasia throughout the gastrointestinal tract. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are established yet distinct techniques for the treatment of superficial gastrointestinal neoplasia. EMR is simpler and faster but is limited by its ability to resect large lesions en bloc. Limitations of piecemeal EMR of large lesions include a high rate of recurrence and a less-than-ideal tissue specimen for accurate histologic evaluation. ESD, on the other hand, allows en bloc resection regardless of lesion size, reducing risk for recurrence and facilitating precise histologic staging. However, ESD can take longer than EMR, is technically more complex, and traditionally has been associated with a higher rate of adverse events. Ultimately, the optimal endoscopic technique should be selected based on organ location, type of neoplastic lesion, and local expertise. The role of ESD has expanded in Eastern regions, beyond squamous cell lesions in the esophagus and gastric cancer to include superficial Barrett's esophagus (BE) and colon neoplasia. However, there is controversy in Western regions over use of ESD for BE and colon neoplasia. We discuss the clinical outcomes of EMR and ESD for the treatment of superficial BE and colon neoplasia, focusing on practical considerations for formulating the most appropriate endoscopic resection approach for each patient.

Cost analysis and outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions in an outpatient setting

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), a minimally invasive treatment for early gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, is considered challenging and risky in the colorectum. As such, most patients undergoing ESD are hospitalized due to the perceived increased risk of adverse events. The aim of this study was to compare the costs, safety and efficacy of colorectal-ESD in an outpatient vs inpatient setting in a tertiary level center.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study on consecutive patients admitted for colorectal-ESD. Patients were divided into outpatients (Group-A, same-day discharge), and inpatients (Group-B, admitted for at least one night). Data on overall costs, outcomes and adverse events were assessed for each group.

RESULTS

A total of 136 patients were considered. Fourteen were excluded because ESD was not performed due to intraprocedural suspicion of invasive cancer. Eighty-three patients were treated as outpatients (Group-A, 68%) and 39 (Group-B, 32%) were hospitalized. R0-rate was 90.4% in Group-A and 89.7% in Group-B(P = 0.98). One perforation occurred in Group-A (1.2%) and 2 in Group-B(5.1%, P = 0.2). Mean Length of stay (LOS) was 1 day for outpatients and 3.3 days for inpatients. Management of Group-A as outpatients produced a cost savings of 941€ on average per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient colorectal-ESD is a feasible, cost-effective strategy to manage superficial colorectal tumors with outcomes comparable to inpatient colorectal-ESD. By using proper selection criteria, outpatient ESD could be considered the first-line approach for most patients.

Effect of time of day and daily endoscopic workload on outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection for large sessile colon polyps

Background

Endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colon polyps is challenging.

Objective

To determine if the time of day or daily endoscopic workload play a role in outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection for large non-pedunculated colon polyps greater than 20 mm.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colon polyps. The time of day and endoscopic workload were compared across the following outcomes: the rate of complete resection of the polyp, the rate of referral for surgery, and the rate of residual neoplasia on follow-up.

Results

One hundred and three endoscopic mucosal resection procedures were performed. There were no differences in the rates of complete resection (80.8% vs. 70.0%; P = 0.25), the need for surgery (27.4% vs. 33.3%; P = 0.55), and rate of residual neoplasia (24.5% vs. 50.0%; P = 0.07) when comparing the time of day. Colon polyps greater than 40 mm were less likely to be completely resected versus polyps sized 20-39 mm (56.8% vs. 91.9%; P < 0.001). In cases with no residual neoplasia on follow-up, the mean duration for the index procedure was 45.6 minutes versus 60.7 minutes when there was residual neoplasia (P < 0.01).

Conclusion

The time of day and endoscopic workload does not affect outcomes for endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colon polyps, but the size of large non-pedunculated colon polyps and resection times do.

Management of colorectal laterally spreading tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective and study aims  To evaluate the efficacy and safety of different endoscopic resection techniques for laterally spreading colorectal tumors (LST). Methods  Relevant studies were identified in three electronic databases (PubMed, ISI and Cochrane Central Register). We considered all clinical studies in which colorectal LST were treated with endoscopic resection (endoscopic mucosal resection [EMR] and/or endoscopic submucosal dissection [ESD]) and/or transanal minimally invasive surgery (TEMS). Rates of en-bloc/piecemeal resection, complete endoscopic resection, R0 resection, curative resection, adverse events (AEs) or recurrence, were extracted. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and a meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Results  Forty-nine studies were included. Complete resection was similar between techniques (EMR 99.5 % [95 % CI 98.6 %-100 %] vs. ESD 97.9 % [95 % CI 96.1 - 99.2 %]), being curative in 1685/1895 (13 studies, pooled curative resection 90 %, 95 % CI 86.6 - 92.9 %, I ²  = 79 %) with non-significantly higher curative resection rates with ESD (93.6 %, 95 % CI 91.3 - 95.5 %, vs. 84 % 95 % CI 78.1 - 89.3 % with EMR). ESD was also associated with a significantly higher perforation risk (pooled incidence 5.9 %, 95 % CI 4.3 - 7.9 %, vs. EMR 1.2 %, 95 % CI 0.5 - 2.3 %) while bleeding was significantly more frequent with EMR (9.6 %, 95 % CI 6.5 - 13.2 %; vs. ESD 2.8 %, 95 % CI 1.9 - 4.0 %). Procedure-related mortality was 0.1 %. Recurrence occurred in 5.5 %, more often with EMR (12.6 %, 95 % CI 9.1 - 16.6 % vs. ESD 1.1 %, 95 % CI 0.3 - 2.5 %), with most amenable to successful endoscopic treatment (87.7 %, 95 % CI 81.1 - 93.1 %). Surgery was limited to 2.7 % of the lesions, 0.5 % due to AEs. No data of TEMS were available for LST. Conclusions  EMR and ESD are both effective and safe and are associated with a very low risk of procedure related mortality.

Thermal Ablation of Mucosal Defect Margins Reduces Adenoma Recurrence After Colonic Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) can be prevented by colonoscopy and polypectomy. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is performed to remove large laterally spreading colonic lesions that have a high risk of progression to CRC. Endoscopically invisible micro-adenomas at the margins of the EMR site might contribute to adenoma recurrence, which occurs in 15% to 30% of patients who undergo surveillance. We aimed to determine the efficacy of adjuvant thermal ablation of the EMR mucosal defect margin in reducing polyp recurrence.

METHODS

We performed a prospective study of 390 patients with large laterally spreading colonic lesions (≥ 20 mm, n = 416) referred for EMR at 4 tertiary centers in Australia. After complete lesion excision by EMR, lesions were randomly assigned to thermal ablation of the post-EMR mucosal defect margin (n = 210) or no additional treatment (controls, n = 206). We performed surveillance colonoscopies with standardized photo documentation and biopsies of the scar after 5 to 6 months. Patient, procedure, and lesion characteristics were similar between the groups. The primary endpoint was detection of lesion recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A significantly lower proportion of patients who received thermal ablation of the post-EMR mucosal defect margin had evidence of recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy (10/192, 5.2%) than controls (37/176, 21.0%) (P < .001). The relative risk of recurrence in the thermal ablation group was 0.25 compared with the control group (95% confidence interval 0.13-0.48). Rates of adverse events were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In a multicenter randomized trial, thermal ablation of the post-EMR mucosal defect margin significantly reduced polyp recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy, compared with no additional treatment. Routine implementation of this simple and safe technique could increase the utility of EMR, decrease surveillance burdens, and reduce morbidity and mortality from CRC. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT01789749.

Endoscopic resection techniques for colorectal neoplasia: Current developments

Endoscopic polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are the established treatment standards for colorectal polyps. Current research aims at the reduction of both complication and recurrence rates as well as on shortening procedure times. Cold snare resection is the emerging standard for the treatment of smaller (< 5mm) polyps and is possibly also suitable for the removal of non-cancerous polyps up to 9 mm. The method avoids thermal damage, has reduced procedure times and probably also a lower risk for delayed bleeding. On the other end of the treatment spectrum, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) offers en bloc resection of larger flat or sessile lesions. The technique has obvious advantages in the treatment of high-grade dysplasia and early cancer. Due to its minimal recurrence rate, it may also be an alternative to fractionated EMR of larger flat or sessile lesions. However, ESD is technically demanding and burdened by longer procedure times and higher costs. It should therefore be restricted to lesions suspicious for high-grade dysplasia or early invasive cancer. The latest addition to endoscopic resection techniques is endoscopic full-thickness resection with specifically developed devices for flexible endoscopy. This method is very useful for the treatment of smaller difficult-to-resect lesions, e.g., recurrence with scar formation after previous endoscopic resections.

AGA Institute Clinical Practice Update: Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the United States

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an established endoscopic resection method in Asian countries, which is increasingly practiced in Europe and by early adopters in the United States for removal of early cancers and large lesions from the luminal gastrointestinal tract. The intent of this expert review is to provide an update regarding the clinical practice of ESD with a particular focus on its use in the United States. This review is framed around the 16 best practice advice points agreed upon by the authors, which reflect landmark and recent published articles in this field. This expert review also reflects our experience as advanced endoscopists with extensive experience in performing and teaching others to perform ESD in the United States. Best Practice Advice 1: Endoscopic submucosal dissection should be recognized as a mature endoscopic technique that enables complete removal of lesions that are too large for en bloc endoscopic mucosal resection or are at increased risk of containing cancer. Best Practice Advice 2: The safety and feasibility of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer is well established. The absolute indications for curative endoscopic resection include moderately and well-differentiated, nonulcerated, mucosal lesions that are ≤2 cm in size. Best Practice Advice 3: Other relative (expanded) indications for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection include moderately and well-differentiated superficial cancers that are >2 cm, lesions ≤3 cm with ulceration or that contain early submucosal invasion, and poorly differentiated superficial cancers ≤2 cm in size. The risk of lymph node metastasis when endoscopic submucosal dissection is performed for these indications is higher than when it is performed for absolute indications but remains acceptably low. Best Practice Advice 4: Endoscopic submucosal dissection may be considered in selected patients with Barrett's esophagus with the following features: large or bulky area of nodularity, lesions with a high likelihood of superficial submucosal invasion, recurrent dysplasia, endoscopic mucosal resection specimen showing invasive carcinoma with positive margins, equivocal preprocedural histology, and intramucosal carcinoma. Best Practice Advice 5: Endoscopic submucosal dissection is the primary modality for treatment of squamous cell dysplasia and cancer confined to the superficial esophageal mucosa. Any degree of submucosal invasion caries an increased risk of lymph node metastasis and alternative/additional therapy should be considered. Best Practice Advice 6: Duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection is associated with an increased risk of intraprocedural perforation and delayed adverse events. Duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection should be limited to endoscopists with extensive experience in performing endoscopic submucosal dissection in other locations. It is strongly suggested that endoscopists in the United States refrain from performing duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection during the early phase of their endoscopic submucosal dissection practice. Best Practice Advice 7: All colorectal lesions should be evaluated for suitability for endoscopic resection. Accumulating evidence has shown that the majority of colorectal neoplasms without signs of deep submucosal invasion or advanced cancer can be treated by advanced endoscopic resection techniques. Best Practice Advice 8: Colorectal neoplasms containing dysplasia confined to the mucosa have no risk for lymph node metastasis and endoscopic resection should be considered as the criterion standard. Best Practice Advice 9: Large (>2 cm) colorectal lesions frequently (>43%) require piecemeal removal when endoscopic mucosal resection is used, which is associated with increased (up to 20%) rates of recurrent neoplasia. Endoscopic submucosal dissection enables higher rates of en bloc resection and lower recurrence rates for these lesions. Patients with large complex colorectal polyps should be referred to a high-volume, specialized center for endoscopic removal by endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection. Best Practice Advice 10: Endoscopic resection for colorectal lesions offers significant cost benefit compared with surgery, and case-based endoscopic submucosal dissection selection for high-risk lesions could offer cost savings. Best Practice Advice 11: Endoscopists in the United States embarking on performing endoscopic submucosal dissection should be familiar with currently available endoscopic tissue closure devices. Both clip closure and endoscopic suturing techniques have been shown to be effective in managing intraprocedural perforation. Complete closure of a post-endoscopic submucosal dissection site may be considered in certain circumstances based on patient factors, procedural factors, and the location of the lesion. Best Practice Advice 12: Careful coagulation of exposed blood vessels in the resection site may reduce the risk of delayed bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection. The use of low-voltage coagulation current is recommended for this technique. Best Practice Advice 13: Endoscopists should affix the endoscopic submucosal dissection specimen to a flat surface (eg, pin the specimen to cork board) and immerse it in formalin. An expert gastrointestinal pathologist should evaluate the specimen for margin involvement, degree of differentiation, presence or absence of lymphovascular invasion, depth of submucosal invasion (if present), and tumor budding. Best Practice Advice 14: Acquiring high-level competency in endoscopic submucosal dissection is achievable in the United States. Alternative educational models should be used in the United States because of the limited number of experts and the differing prevalence of gastrointestinal luminal diseases as compared with Asia. Best Practice Advice 15: The endoscopic submucosal dissection educational model most suited for the current environment in the United States is a stepwise approach consisting of didactic self-study, attending training courses with increasing levels of complexity, self-practice on animal models, and observation of live cases performed by experts. Endoscopists should perform their initial endoscopic submucosal dissections on patients with lesions that have well-established indications for endoscopic submucosal dissection and are of the lowest technical complexity. Best Practice Advice 16: Endoscopists in the United States who perform endoluminal resection should educate referring physicians to avoid practices that may induce submucosal fibrosis hampering future endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection. These practices include tattooing in close proximity to or beneath a lesion for marking and partial snare resection of a portion of a lesion for histopathology.

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

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (WF-EMR) for removing large sessile and laterally spreading colorectal lesions (LSLs) >20 mm.

DESIGN

An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision tree model was performed over an 18-month time horizon. The following strategies were compared: WF-EMR, universal ESD (U-ESD) and selective ESD (S-ESD) for lesions highly suspicious for containing submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC), with WF-EMR used for the remainder. Data from a large Western cohort and the literature were used to inform the model. Effectiveness was defined as the number of surgeries avoided per 1000 cases. Incremental costs per surgery avoided are presented. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed.

RESULTS

1723 lesions among 1765 patients were analysed. The prevalence of SMIC and low-risk-SMIC was 8.2% and 3.1%, respectively. Endoscopic lesion assessment for SMIC had a sensitivity and specificity of 34.9% and 98.4%, respectively. S-ESD was the least expensive strategy and was also more effective than WF-EMR by preventing 19 additional surgeries per 1000 cases. 43 ESD procedures would be required in an S-ESD strategy. U-ESD would prevent another 13 surgeries compared with S-ESD, at an incremental cost per surgery avoided of US$210 112. U-ESD was only cost-effective among higher risk rectal lesions.

CONCLUSION

S-ESD is the preferred treatment strategy. However, only 43 ESDs are required per 1000 LSLs. U-ESD cannot be justified beyond high-risk rectal lesions. WF-EMR remains an effective and safe treatment option for most LSLs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02000141.

What is the cost of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)? A medico-economic study

Introduction

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the gold-standard treatment for superficial lesions of the digestive tract. No medico-economic study has been conducted in Europe.

Material and methods

A monocentric study was conducted including all patients undergoing ESD between January 2015 and December 2017. The global cost of hospital stays was measured by microcosting, and revenue was based on the diagnosis-related group (DRG) system. The primary objective was to assess the cost/revenue balance. A medico-economic comparison with surgery was performed as a secondary outcome.

Results

A total of 193 patients were prospectively included. The cost per procedure was €3463.79, subtracted from a €2726.84 revenue, with a deficit of -€736.96 per stay. Presence of comorbidities/complications increasing DRG value was the only predictive factor for a positive budgetary balance in a multivariate analysis (odds ratio 49.21, 95% confidence interval 11.3-214.25, p < 0.0001). In comparison with surgery, ESD was associated with shorter length of stay (11 vs 2 days; p < 0.0001) and lower morbidity (28% vs 14%; p = 0.061), lower cost (€8960 vs €1770; p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

The ESD cost/revenue balance is negative in 80% of cases. Given the benefits of ESD in terms of patient morbidity and financial savings compared with surgery, the implementation of a specific ESD reimbursement is warranted.

Incidence and risk factors of advanced neoplasia after endoscopic mucosal resection of colonic laterally spreading lesions

PURPOSE

To investigate advanced neoplasia (AN) after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of colonic laterally spreading lesions (LSLs).

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients who underwent injection-assisted EMR of colonic LSLs ≥ 10 mm was performed. Primary outcome was overall rate of AN at initial surveillance colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were the rates of residual AN (rAN) at the EMR site and metachronous AN (mAN), and analysis of risk factors for AN, including effect of surveillance guidance.

RESULTS

Three hundred seventy-four patients underwent successful EMR for 388 LSLs. AN occurred in 66/374 (17.6%) patients on initial surveillance colonoscopy at median follow-up of 364.5 days. Two patients had both rAN and mAN, for a total of 68 instances of AN, including 30/374 (8.0%) cases of rAN and 38/374 (10.2%) cases of mAN. On multivariate analysis, use of piecemeal resection was associated with increased likelihood of residual AN (P = 0.003, OR 9.2, 95% CI 2.1-33.3). Twenty-nine out of thirty cases (96.7%) of rAN were successfully endoscopically managed at surveillance colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

AN occurred in 17.6% of all patients at initial surveillance colonoscopy at a median of 1 year after EMR. Roughly half of the instances of AN were metachronous lesions. Our data support a 1-year surveillance interval after EMR of LSLs ≥ 10 mm with careful inspection of the entire colon, not just the prior resection site.

Why attempt en bloc resection of non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas? A systematic review of the prevalence of superficial submucosal invasive cancer after endoscopic submucosal dissection

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) aims to achieve en bloc resection of non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas which might be indicated in cases with superficial submucosal invasive cancers (SMIC), but the procedure is time consuming and complex. The prevalence of such cancers is not known but may determine the clinical necessity for ESD as opposed to the commonly used piecemeal mucosal resection (endoscopic mucosal resection) of colorectal adenomas. The main aim was to assess the prevalence of SMIC SM1 (ie, invasion ≤1000 µm or less than one-third of the submucosa) on colorectal lesions removed by ESD.

DESIGN

A literature review was conducted using electronic databases (up to March 2017) for colorectal ESD series reporting the histology of the dissected lesions.

RESULTS

51 studies with data on 11 260 colorectal dissected lesions were included. Most resected lesions (82.2%; 95% CI 78.8% to 85.3%) were adenomas (low- and high-grade dysplasia, 26.8% and 55.4%, respectively). Overall, 15.7% were submucosal cancers, but only slightly more than half (8.0%; 95% CI 6.1% to 10.3%) had an infiltration depth of ≤1000 µm, providing a number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid one surgery of 12.5. Estimating an oncologically curative (R0; G1/2; L0/V0) resection rate of 75.3% (95% CI 52.2% to 89.4%) for malignant lesions, the prevalence of curative resection lowered to 6% (95% CI 4.2% to 7.2%) with an NNT of 16.7.

CONCLUSION

The low prevalence of SMIC SM1 in lesions selected for ESD as well as the even lower rate of curative resection limits the clinical applicability of endoscopic en bloc resection. This calls for caution over an indiscriminate use of this technique in the resection of colorectal neoplasia.

EMR of laterally spreading lesions around or involving the appendiceal orifice: technique, risk factors for failure, and outcomes of a tertiary referral cohort (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EMR of sessile periappendiceal laterally spreading lesions (PA-LSLs) is technically demanding because of poor endoscopic access to the appendiceal lumen and the thin colonic wall at the base of the cecum. We aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of EMR for PA-LSLs.

METHODS

Consecutive LSLs ≥20 mm and PA-LSLs ≥10 mm detected at 3 academic endoscopy centers from September 2008 until January 2017 were eligible. Prospective patient, procedural, and lesion data were collected. PA-LSLs were compared with LSLs in other colonic locations.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight PA-LSLs were compared with 1721 LSLs. Referral for surgery without an attempt at EMR was more likely with PA-LSLs (28.9% vs 5.1%, P < .001), and those that involved a greater percentage of the appendiceal orifice (AO) were less likely to be attempted (P = .038). Most PA-LSLs (10/11) were not attempted because of deep extension into the appendiceal lumen; 2 of 11 of these surgical specimens contained invasive cancer. Once attempted, complete clearance of visible adenoma (92.6% PA-LSLs vs 97.6% LSLs, P = .14), adverse events, and rates of adenoma recurrence did not vary significantly between PA-LSLs and LSLs. All 7 patients with prior appendicectomy achieved complete adenoma clearance. There were no cases of post-EMR appendicitis. Twenty of 22 PA-LSLs (91%) eligible for surveillance avoided surgery to longest follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

EMR is a safe, effective, and durable treatment for PA-LSLs when specific criteria are fulfilled. If the distal margin of the PA-LSL within the AO cannot be visualized or if more than 50% of the circumference of the orifice is involved, surgery should be considered. (Clinical trial registration number: NTC01368289.).

Advances in CRC Prevention: Screening and Surveillance

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the most commonly diagnosed cancers and causes of death from cancer across the world. CRC can, however, be detected in asymptomatic patients at a curable stage, and several studies have shown lower mortality among patients who undergo screening compared with those who do not. Using colonoscopy in CRC screening also results in the detection of precancerous polyps that can be directly removed during the procedure, thereby reducing the incidence of cancer. In the past decade, convincing evidence has appeared that the effectiveness of colonoscopy as CRC prevention tool is associated with the quality of the procedure. This review aims to provide an up-to-date overview of recent efforts to improve colonoscopy effectiveness by enhancing detection and improving the completeness and safety of resection of colorectal lesions.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: Indications and Application in Western Endoscopy Practice

Endoscopic submucosal dissection was developed in Japan, early in this century, to provide a minimally invasive yet curative treatment for the large numbers of patients with early gastric cancer identified by the national screening program. Previously, the majority of these patients were treated surgically at substantial cost and with significant risk of short- and long-term morbidity. En-bloc excision of these early cancers, most with a limited risk of nodal metastasis, allowed complete staging of the tumor, stratification of the subsequent therapeutic approach, and potential cure. This transformative innovation changed the nature of endoscopic treatment for superficial mucosal neoplasia and, ultimately, for the first time allowed endoscopists to assert that the early cancer had been definitively cured. Subsequently, Western endoscopists have increasingly embraced the therapeutic possibilities offered by endoscopic submucosal dissection, but with some justifiable scientific caution. Here we provide an evidence-based critical appraisal of the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection in advanced endoscopic tissue resection.

Increasing Rates of Surgery for Patients With Nonmalignant Colorectal Polyps in the United States

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Despite the availability of endoscopic therapy, many patients in the United States undergo surgical resection for nonmalignant colorectal polyps. We aimed to quantify and examine trends in the use of surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps in a nationally representative sample.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample for 2000 through 2014. We included all adult patients who underwent elective colectomy or proctectomy and had a diagnosis of either nonmalignant colorectal polyp or colorectal cancer. We compared trends in surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps with surgery for colorectal cancer and calculated age, sex, race, region, and teaching status/bed-size-specific incidence rates of surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps.

RESULTS

From 2000 through 2014, there were 1,230,458 surgeries for nonmalignant colorectal polyps and colorectal cancer in the United States. Among those surgeries, 25% were performed for nonmalignant colorectal polyps. The incidence of surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps has increased significantly, from 5.9 in 2000 to 9.4 in 2014 per 100,000 adults (incidence rate difference, 3.56; 95% confidence interval 3.40-3.72), while the incidence of surgery for colorectal cancer has significantly decreased, from 31.5 to 24.7 surgeries per 100,000 adults (incidence rate difference, -6.80; 95% confidence interval -7.11 to -6.49). The incidence of surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps has been increasing among individuals age 20 to 79, in men and women and including all races and ethnicities.

CONCLUSIONS

In an analysis of a large, nationally representative sample, we found that surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps is common and has significantly increased over the past 14 years.

Recent advances in the management of large and complex colonic polyps

The endoscopic management of large colonic polyps is a rapidly changing field. Rapid evolution in endoscopic techniques and skills has resulted in diminishing the role of surgery in the management of larger and complex polyps. This is resulting in organ preservation for many who otherwise would have undergone surgery. However, it also poses new challenges. This article reviews these new advances and the developments which are overcoming these difficulties.

Management of complex polyps of the colon and rectum

PUPRPOSE

Benign polyps that are technically challenging and unsafe to remove via polypectomy are known as complex polyps. Concerns regarding safety and completeness of resection dictate they undergo advanced endoscopic techniques, such as endoscopic mucosal resection or surgery. We provide a comprehensive overview of complex polyps and current treatment options.

METHODS

A review of the English literature was conducted to identifyarticles describing the management of complex polyps of the colon and rectum.

RESULTS

Endoscopic mucosal resection is the standard of care for the majority of complex polyps. Only polyps that fail endoscopic mucosal resection or are highly suspicious of invasive cancer but which cannot be removed endoscopically warrant surgery.

CONCLUSION

Several factors influence the treatment of a complex polyp; therefore, there cannot be a "one-size-fitsall" approach. Treatment should be tailored to the lesion's characteristics, the risk of adverse events, and the resources available to the treating physician.

Predictors of post-colonoscopy emergency department use

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Unplanned hospital visits within 7 days of colonoscopy were recently proposed as a quality measure. It is unknown whether patient, procedure, or endoscopist characteristics predict post-colonoscopy emergency department (ED) visits. Our aim was to determine the incidence and relatedness of ED visits within 7 days of colonoscopy and to identify predictors of post-colonoscopy ED use.

METHODS

In this retrospective, single-center, cohort study, we evaluated outpatient colonoscopies performed at a tertiary academic medical center or affiliated facility between January 2008 and September 2013. We determined the incidence of ED visits within 7 days of colonoscopy and the relatedness of the ED visit to the procedure. We assessed for independent factors associated with ED use within 7 days using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

We reviewed 50,319 colonoscopies performed on 44,082 individuals (47% male, median age 59 years) by 40 endoscopists. There were 382 (0.76%) ED visits after colonoscopy, of which 68% were related to the procedure. On multivariate analysis, recent ED visit (odds ratio [OR], 16.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.83-21.48; P < .001), EMR (OR, 4.69; 95% CI, 2.82-7.79; P < .001), number of medication classes (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.11-1.26; P < .001), endoscopist adenoma detection rate (ADR) (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.29; P = .029), and white race (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.97; P = .028) were identified as independent variables associated with ED visits after colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased patient complexity, higher endoscopist ADR, and EMR were associated with increased ED use after colonoscopy. Patients at high risk for an unplanned hospital visit within 7 days should be targeted for quality improvement efforts to reduce adverse events and cost.

Morbidity and mortality after surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Despite evidence that most nonmalignant colorectal polyps can be managed endoscopically, a substantial proportion of patients with a nonmalignant colorectal polyp are still sent to surgery. Risks associated with this surgery are not well characterized. We describe 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality and explore risk factors for adverse events in patients undergoing surgical resection for nonmalignant colorectal polyps.

METHODS

We analyzed data collected prospectively as part of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Our analysis included 12,732 patients who underwent elective surgery for a nonmalignant colorectal polyp from 2011 through 2014. We report adverse events within 30 days of the index surgery. Modified Poisson regression was used to estimate risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Thirty-day mortality was .7%. The risk of a major postoperative adverse event was 14%. Within 30 days of resection, 7.8% of patients were readmitted and 3.6% of patients had a second major surgery. The index surgery resulted in a colostomy in 1.8% and ileostomy in .4% of patients. Patients who had surgical resection of a nonmalignant polyp in the rectum or anal canal compared with the colon had a risk ratio of 1.58 (95% confidence interval, 1.09-2.28) for surgical site infection and 6.51 (95% confidence interval, 4.97-8.52) for ostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgery for a nonmalignant colorectal polyp is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. A better understanding of the risks and benefits associated with surgical management of nonmalignant colorectal polyps will better inform discussions regarding the relative merits of management strategies.

Risk stratification of colorectal polyps for predicting residual or recurring adenoma using the Size/Morphology/Site/Access score

Background and Aims

Endoscopic mucosal resection is an effective and safe procedure to manage large non-pedunculated colonic polyps for which residual/recurrent adenoma is the main drawback. Size/Morphology/Site/Access score determines polypectomy difficulty. We aimed to describe residual/recurrent adenoma rate according to Size/Morphology/Site/Access and to select the ize/Morphology/Site/Access cut-off to predict low residual/recurrent adenoma.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of endoscopic mucosal resection for large non-pedunculated colonic polyps performed in a tertiary centre.

Results

Three hundred and sixteen procedures were included. The mean size of lesions was 34.5 ± 17.1 mm, 59.5% were sessile, 60.4% were in the right colon and in 17.7% (n = 56) the access was difficult. Of the lesions, 83.6% were Size/Morphology/Site/Access 3-4. Residual/recurrent adenoma at first and second follow-up was significantly lower in Size/Morphology/Site/Access 2 (1.9% and 0.0%, respectively) when compared to Size/Morphology/Site/Access 3 (18.2%, p = 0.004 and 6.7%, p = 0.049) and Size/Morphology/Site/Access 4 (30.8%, p < 0.001 and 22.7%, p = 0.030). The negative predictive value of Size/Morphology/Site/Access 2 for residual/recurrent adenoma at second follow-up was 86.1%. On multivariate analyses, Size/Morphology/Site/Access 3-4 predicted residual/recurrent adenoma at first (odds ratio 11.96, 95% confidence interval 1.57-91.13) and second follow-up (odds ratio 2.47, 95% confidence interval 1.51-4.22) and had higher cumulative incidence of residual/recurrent adenoma compared to Size/Morphology/Site/Access 2 (p ≤ 0.003).

Conclusion

Use of the Size/Morphology/Site/Access score allows cases to be identified with a low risk of residual/recurrent adenoma.

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

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

Specialist Endoscopists Are Associated with a Decreased Risk of Incomplete Polyp Resection During Endoscopic Mucosal Resection in the Colon

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic experience is known to correlate with outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), particularly complete resection of the polyp tissue. Whether specialist endoscopists can protect against incomplete polypectomy in the setting of known risk factors for incomplete resection (IR) is unknown.

AIMS

We aimed to characterize how specialist endoscopists may help to mitigate the risk of IR of large sessile polyps.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent EMR at the University of Michigan from January 1, 2006, to November 15, 2015. The primary outcome was endoscopist-reported polyp tissue remaining at the end of the initial EMR attempt. Specialist endoscopists were defined as endoscopists who receive tertiary referrals for difficult colonoscopy cases and completed at least 20 EMR colonic polyp resections over the study period.

RESULTS

A total of 257 patients with 269 polyps were included in the study. IR occurred in 40 (16%) cases. IR was associated with polyp size ≥ 40 mm [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.38-7.93], flat/laterally spreading polyps (aOR 2.61, 95% CI 1.24-5.48), and difficulty lifting the polyp (aOR 11.0, 95% CI 2.66-45.3). A specialist endoscopist performing the initial EMR was protective against IR, even in the setting of risk factors for IR (aOR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04-0.41).

CONCLUSIONS

IR is associated with polyp size ≥ 40 mm, flat and/or laterally spreading polyps, and difficulty lifting the polyp. A specialist endoscopist initiating the EMR was protective of IR.

Colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR)

Colonoscopy has the benefit of detecting and treating precancerous adenomatous polyps and thus reduces mortality associated with CRC. Screening colonoscopy is the keystone for prevention of colorectal cancer. Over the last 20 years there has been increased in the management of large colorectal polyps from surgery to endoscopic removal techniques which is less invasive. Traditionally surgical resection was the treatment of choice for many years for larger polyps but colectomy poses significant morbidity of 14-46% and mortality of up to 7%. There are several advantages of endoscopic resection technique over surgery; it is less invasive, less expensive, has rapid recovery, and preserves the normal gut functions. In addition patient satisfaction and efficacy of EMR is higher with minor complications. Thus, this has facilitated the development of advanced resection technique for the treatment of large colorectal polyps called as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).

Recent Advances in Endoscopy

In this narrative review, invited by the Editors of Gastroenterology, we summarize recent advances in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy. We have chosen articles published primarily in the past 2-3 years. Although a thorough literature review was performed for each topic, the nature of the article is subjective and systematic and is based on the authors' experience and expertise regarding articles we believed were most likely to be of high clinical and scientific importance.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document updates the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force of Colorectal Cancer (MSTF), which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. CRC screening tests are ranked in 3 tiers based on performance features, costs, and practical considerations. The first-tier tests are colonoscopy every 10 years and annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as the cornerstones of screening regardless of how screening is offered. Thus, in a sequential approach based on colonoscopy offered first, FIT should be offered to patients who decline colonoscopy. Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as tests of choice when multiple options are presented as alternatives. A risk-stratified approach is also appropriate, with FIT screening in populations with an estimated low prevalence of advanced neoplasia and colonoscopy screening in high prevalence populations. The second-tier tests include CT colonography every 5 years, the FIT-fecal DNA test every 3 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 to 10 years. These tests are appropriate screening tests, but each has disadvantages relative to the tier 1 tests. Because of limited evidence and current obstacles to use, capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is a third-tier test. We suggest that the Septin9 serum assay (Epigenomics, Seattle, Wash) not be used for screening. Screening should begin at age 50 years in average-risk persons, except in African Americans in whom limited evidence supports screening at 45 years. CRC incidence is rising in persons under age 50, and thorough diagnostic evaluation of young persons with suspected colorectal bleeding is recommended. Discontinuation of screening should be considered when persons up to date with screening, who have prior negative screening (particularly colonoscopy), reach age 75 or have <10 years of life expectancy. Persons without prior screening should be considered for screening up to age 85, depending on age and comorbidities. Persons with a family history of CRC or a documented advanced adenoma in a first-degree relative age <60 years or 2 first-degree relatives with these findings at any age are recommended to undergo screening by colonoscopy every 5 years, beginning 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40, whichever is earlier. Persons with a single first-degree relative diagnosed at ≥60 years with CRC or an advanced adenoma can be offered average-risk screening options beginning at age 40 years.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document updates the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force of Colorectal Cancer (MSTF), which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. CRC screening tests are ranked in 3 tiers based on performance features, costs, and practical considerations. The first-tier tests are colonoscopy every 10 years and annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as the cornerstones of screening regardless of how screening is offered. Thus, in a sequential approach based on colonoscopy offered first, FIT should be offered to patients who decline colonoscopy. Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as tests of choice when multiple options are presented as alternatives. A risk-stratified approach is also appropriate, with FIT screening in populations with an estimated low prevalence of advanced neoplasia and colonoscopy screening in high prevalence populations. The second-tier tests include CT colonography every 5 years, the FIT-fecal DNA test every 3 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 to 10 years. These tests are appropriate screening tests, but each has disadvantages relative to the tier 1 tests. Because of limited evidence and current obstacles to use, capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is a third-tier test. We suggest that the Septin9 serum assay (Epigenomics, Seattle, Wash) not be used for screening. Screening should begin at age 50 years in average-risk persons, except in African Americans in whom limited evidence supports screening at 45 years. CRC incidence is rising in persons under age 50, and thorough diagnostic evaluation of young persons with suspected colorectal bleeding is recommended. Discontinuation of screening should be considered when persons up to date with screening, who have prior negative screening (particularly colonoscopy), reach age 75 or have <10 years of life expectancy. Persons without prior screening should be considered for screening up to age 85, depending on age and comorbidities. Persons with a family history of CRC or a documented advanced adenoma in a first-degree relative age <60 years or 2 first-degree relatives with these findings at any age are recommended to undergo screening by colonoscopy every 5 years, beginning 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40, whichever is earlier. Persons with a single first-degree relative diagnosed at ≥60 years with CRC or an advanced adenoma can be offered average-risk screening options beginning at age 40 years.

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection is associated with fewer recurrences and earlier curative resections compared to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND

Studies comparing the efficacy and safety of conventional saline-assisted piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to underwater EMR (UEMR) without submucosal lifting of colorectal polyps are lacking. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of EMR to UEMR of large colorectal polyps.

METHODS

Two hundred eighty-nine colorectal polyps were removed by a single endoscopist from 7/2007 to 2/2015 using EMR or UEMR. 135 polyps (EMR: 62, UEMR: 73) that measured ≥15 mm and had not undergone prior attempted polypectomy were evaluated for rates of complete macroscopic resection and adverse events. 101 of these polyps (EMR: 46, UEMR: 55) had at least 1 follow-up colonoscopy and were studied for rates of recurrence and the number of procedures required to achieve curative resection.

RESULTS

The rate of complete macroscopic resection was higher following UEMR compared to EMR (98.6 vs. 87.1%, p = 0.012). UEMR had a lower recurrence rate at the first follow-up colonoscopy compared to EMR (7.3 vs. 28.3%, OR 5.0 for post-EMR recurrence, 95% CI: [1.5, 16.5], p = 0.008). UEMR required fewer procedures to reach curative resection than EMR (mean of 1.0 vs. 1.3, p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in rates of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

UEMR appears superior to EMR for the removal of large colorectal polyps in terms of rates of complete macroscopic resection and recurrent (or residual) abnormal tissue. Compared to conventional EMR, UEMR may offer increased procedural effectiveness without compromising safety in the removal of large colorectal polyps without prior attempted resection.

Adenoma recurrence after piecemeal colonic EMR is predictable: the Sydney EMR recurrence tool

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EMR is the primary treatment of large laterally spreading lesions (LSLs) in the colon. Residual or recurrent adenoma (RRA) is a major limitation. We aimed to identify a robust method to stratify the risk of RRA.

METHODS

Prospective multicenter data on consecutive LSLs ≥20 mm removed by piecemeal EMR from 8 Australian tertiary-care centers were included (September 2008 until May 2016). A logistic regression model for endoscopically determined recurrence (EDR) was created on a randomly selected half of the cohort to yield the Sydney EMR recurrence tool (SERT), a 4-point score to stratify the incidence of RRA based on characteristics of the index EMR. SERT was validated on the remainder of the cohort.

RESULTS

Analysis was performed on 1178 lesions that underwent first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1) (median 4.9 months, interquartile range [IQR] 4.9-6.2). EDR was detected in 228 of 1178 (19.4%) patients. LSL size ≥40 mm (odds ratio [OR] 2.47; P < .001), bleeding during the procedure (OR 1.78; P = .024), and high-grade dysplasia (OR 1.72; P = .029) were identified as independent predictors of EDR and allocated scores of 2, 1, and 1, respectively to create SERT. Lesions with SERT scores of 0 (SERT = 0) had a negative predictive value of 91.3% for RRA at SC1, and SERT was shown to stratify RRA to specific follow-up intervals by using Kaplan Meier curves (log-rank P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Guidelines recommend SC1 within 6 months of EMR. SERT accurately stratifies the incidence of RRA after EMR. SERT = 0 lesions could safely undergo first surveillance at 18 months, whereas lesions with SERT scores between 1 and 4 (SERT 1-4) require surveillance at 6 and 18 months. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01368289.).