Can magnification endoscopy detect residual adenoma after piecemeal resection of large sessile colorectal lesions to guide subsequent treatment? A prospective single-center study

Incidence of microscopic residual adenoma after complete wide-field endoscopic resection of large colorectal lesions: evidence for a mechanism of recurrence

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EMR of large (≥2 cm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) is associated with high rates of recurrent/residual adenoma, possibly because of microadenoma left at the margin of resection. Data supporting this mechanism are required. We aimed to determine the incidence of residual microadenoma at the defect margin and base after EMR.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational study of patients undergoing EMR of large LNPCPs with the lateral defect margin further resected using the EndoRotor device (Interscope Medical, Inc, Worcester, Mass, USA) after confirming no visible residual adenomatous tissue. Aspects of the defect base were also resected in selected patients. Patients underwent surveillance at 3 to 6 months.

RESULTS

Resection of the normal defect margin was performed in 41 patients and of aspects of the base in 21 patients. Mean lesion size was 43.0 mm (range, 20-130). Microscopic residual lesion was detected in the margin of apparently normal mucosa in 8 cases (19%). In 7 cases this was an adenoma, and in 1 case a serrated lesion was found at the margin of a resected tubular adenoma. Microscopic residual lesion was detected at the base in 5 of 21 cases. Residual/recurrent adenoma was detected in 2 patients. Neither had residual microadenoma at the lateral margin or base detected after the primary resection.

CONCLUSIONS

Microscopic residual adenoma after wide-field EMR was detected in 19% of cases at the apparently normal defect margin and at the resection base in 5 of 21 cases. This study confirms the presence of residual microadenoma after resection of LNPCPs, providing evidence for the mechanism of recurrence.

Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society guidelines for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection

Suitable lesions for endoscopic treatment include not only early colorectal carcinomas but also several types of precarcinomatous adenomas. It is important to establish practical guidelines wherein preoperative diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia and selection of endoscopic treatment procedures are appropriately outlined and to ensure that actual endoscopic treatment is useful and safe in general hospitals when carried out in accordance with guidelines. In cooperation with the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum, the Japanese Society of Coloproctology, and the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society compiled colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection guidelines by using evidence-based methods in 2014. The first edition of these guidelines was published 5 years ago. Accordingly, we have published the second edition of these guidelines based on recent new knowledge and evidence.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

PATIENTS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Endoscopic resection is cost-effective compared with laparoscopic resection in the management of complex colon polyps: an economic analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic resection (ER) is an efficacious treatment for complex colon polyps (CCPs). Many patients are referred for surgical resection because of concerns over procedural safety, incomplete polyp resection, and adenoma recurrence after ER. Efficacy data for both resection strategies are widely available, but a paucity of data exist on the cost-effectiveness of each modality. The aim of this study was to perform an economic analysis comparing ER and laparoscopic resection (LR) strategies in patients with CCP.

METHODS

A decision analysis tree was constructed using decision analysis software. The 2 strategies (ER vs LR) were evaluated in a hypothetical cohort of patients with CCPs. A hybrid Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was used. Patients entered the model after colonoscopic diagnosis at age 50. Under Strategy I, patients underwent ER followed by surveillance colonoscopy at 3 to 6 months and 12 months. Patients with failed ER and residual adenoma at 12 months were referred for LR. Under Strategy II, patients underwent LR as primary treatment. Patients with invasive cancer were excluded. Estimates regarding ER performance characteristics were obtained from a systematic review of published literature. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2012-2013) and the 2012 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project databases were used to determine the costs and loss of utility. We assumed that all procedures were performed with anesthesia support, and patients with adverse events in both strategies required inpatient hospitalization. Baseline estimates and costs were varied by using a sensitivity analysis through the ranges.

RESULTS

LR was found to be more costly and yielded fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with ER. The cost of ER of a CCP was $5570 per patient and yielded 9.640 QALYs. LR of a CCP cost $18,717 per patient and yielded fewer QALYs (9.577). For LR to be more cost-effective, the thresholds of 1-way sensitivity analyses were (1) technical success of ER for complete resection in <75.8% of cases, (2) adverse event rates for ER > 12%, and (3) LR cost of <$14,000.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest that ER is a cost-effective strategy for removal of CCPs. The effectiveness is driven by high technical success and low adverse event rates associated with ER, in addition to the increased cost of LR.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps.

DESIGN

Relevant publications were identified in MEDLINE/EMBASE/Cochrane Central Register for the period 1966-2014. Studies in which ≥20 mm colorectal neoplastic lesions were treated with endoscopic resection were included. Rates of postendoscopic resection surgery due to non-curative resection or adverse events, as well as the rates of complete endoscopic removal, invasive cancer, adverse events, recurrence and mortality, were extracted. Study quality was ascertained according to Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Forest plot was produced based on random effect models. I2 statistic was used to describe the variation across studies due to heterogeneity. Meta-regression analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

50 studies including 6442 patients and 6779 large polyps were included in the analyses. Overall, 503 out of 6442 patients (pooled rate: 8%, 95% CI 7% to 10%, I2=78.6%) underwent surgery due to non-curative endoscopic resection, and 31/6442 (pooled rate: 1%, 95% CI 0.7% to 1.4%, I2=0%) to adverse events. Invasive cancer at histology, non-curative endoscopic resection, synchronous lesions and recurrence accounted for 58%, 28%, 2.2% and 5.9% of all the surgeries, respectively. Endoscopic perforation occurred in 96/6595 (1.5%, 95% CI 1.2% to 1.7%) polyps, while bleeding in 423/6474 (6.5%, 95% CI 5.9% to 7.1%). Overall, 5334 patients entered in surveillance, 502/5836 (8.6%, 95% CI 7.9% to 9.3%) being lost at follow-up. Endoscopic recurrence was detected in 735/5334 patients (13.8%, 95% CI 12.9% to 14.7%), being an invasive cancer in 14/5334 (0.3%, 95% CI 0.1% to 0.4%). Endoscopic treatment was successful in 664/735 cases (90.3%, 95% CI 88.2% to 92.5%). Mortality related with management of large polyps was reported in 5/6278 cases (0.08%, 95% CI 0.01% to 0.15%).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic resection of large polyps appeared to be an extremely effective and safe intervention. However, an adequate endoscopic surveillance is necessary for its long-term efficacy.

Interval Colorectal Cancer After Colonoscopy: Exploring Explanations and Solutions

There is good evidence that colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has been successful at reducing both CRC incidence and death. Colonoscopy, utilized as either a primary screening tool or a follow-up exam when other screening tests are positive, has significantly contributed to these encouraging trends. However, it is well recognized that colonoscopy is not perfectly sensitive for the detection of neoplasia and that CRC can be diagnosed within a short interval following a colonoscopy that did not detect one. The literature surrounding these cases has rapidly expanded over the last decade. Specifically, studies aimed at understanding the frequency of these events and the likely explanations for their occurrence have been performed. This review will highlight current knowledge around the epidemiology of interval post colonoscopy CRC (PCCRC). The common explanations for these cancers including missed lesions, new lesions, and incompletely resected lesions will be reviewed and their contribution to interval PCCRC estimated. Finally, the relationship of these putative explanations to potential opportunities to prevent interval PCCRC will be explored. Current approaches to prevention largely center on consistent adherence to quality colonoscopy standards. Future approaches include advances in technology to better visualize the colon and adequately resect detected neoplasia. Finally, improvement in training as well as development of a culture of continuous quality improvement will be essential to maximize the benefits of colonoscopy in daily clinical practice.

British Society of Gastroenterology/Association of Coloproctologists of Great Britain and Ireland guidelines for the management of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps

These guidelines provide an evidence-based framework for the management of patients with large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs), in addition to identifying key performance indicators (KPIs) that permit the audit of quality outcomes. These are areas not previously covered by British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Guidelines.A National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant BSG guideline development process was used throughout and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to structure the guideline development process. A systematic review of literature was conducted for English language articles up to May 2014 concerning the assessment and management of LNPCPs. Quality of evaluated studies was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) Methodology Checklist System. Proposed recommendation statements were evaluated by each member of the Guideline Development Group (GDG) on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) with >80% agreement required for consensus to be reached. Where consensus was not reached a modified Delphi process was used to re-evaluate and modify proposed statements until consensus was reached or the statement discarded. A round table meeting was subsequently held to finalise recommendations and to evaluate the strength of evidence discussed. The GRADE tool was used to assess the strength of evidence and strength of recommendation for finalised statements.KPIs, a training framework and potential research questions for the management of LNPCPs were also developed. It is hoped that these guidelines will improve the assessment and management of LNPCPs.

Cancer emerging from the recurrence of sessile serrated adenoma/polyp resected endoscopically 5 years ago

Since the serrated neoplastic pathway has been regarded as an important pathway of colorectal carcinogenesis, few reports have been published on clinical cases of cancer derived from sessile serrated adenoma/polyp, especially on recurrence after resected sessile serrated adenoma/polyp. An elderly woman underwent endoscopic mucosal resection of a flat elevated lesion, 30 mm in diameter, in the ascending colon; the histopathological diagnosis at that time was a hyperplastic polyp, now known as sessile serrated adenoma/polyp. Five years later, cancer due to the malignant transformation of the sessile serrated adenoma/polyp was detected at the same site. The endoscopic diagnosis was a deep invasive carcinoma with a remnant sessile serrated adenoma/polyp component. The carcinoma was surgically removed, and the pathological diagnosis was an adenocarcinoma with sessile serrated adenoma/polyp, which invaded the muscularis propria. The surgically removed lesion did not have a B-RAF mutation in either the sessile serrated adenoma/polyp or the carcinoma; moreover, the initial endoscopically resected lesion also did not have a B-RAF mutation. Immunohistochemistry confirmed negative MLH1 protein expression in only the cancer cells. Lynch syndrome was not detected on genomic examination. The lesion was considered to be a cancer derived from sessile serrated adenoma/polyp recurrence after endoscopic resection, because both the surgically and endoscopically resected lesions were detected at the same location and had similar pathological characteristics, with a serrated structure and low-grade atypia. Furthermore, both lesions had a rare diagnosis of a sessile serrated adenoma/polyp without B-RAF mutation. This report highlights the need for the follow-up colonoscopy after endoscopic resection and rethinking our resection procedures to improve treatment.

Practice parameters for early colon cancer management: Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (Società Italiana di Chirurgia Colo-Rettale; SICCR) guidelines

Early colon cancer (ECC) has been defined as a carcinoma with invasion limited to the submucosa regardless of lymph node status and according to the Royal College of Pathologists as TNM stage T1 NX M0. As the potential risk of lymph node metastasis ranges from 6 to 17% and the preoperative assessment of lymph node metastasis is not reliable, the management of ECC is still controversial, varying from endoscopic to radical resection. A meeting on recent advances on the management of colorectal polyps endorsed by the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR) took place in April 2014, in Genoa (Italy). Based on this material the SICCR decided to issue guidelines updating the evidence and to write a position statement paper in order to define the diagnostic and therapeutic strategy for ECC treatment in context of the Italian healthcare system.

JGES guidelines for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become common in recent years. Suitable lesions for endoscopic treatment include not only early colorectal carcinomas but also many types of precarcinomatous adenomas. It is important to establish practical guidelines in which the preoperative diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia and the selection of endoscopic treatment procedures are properly outlined, and to ensure that the actual endoscopic treatment is useful and safe in general hospitals when carried out in accordance with the guidelines. In cooperation with the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum, the Japanese Society of Coloproctology, and the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology, the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society has recently compiled a set of colorectal ESD/endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) guidelines using evidence-based methods. The guidelines focus on the diagnostic and therapeutic strategies and caveat before, during, and after ESD/EMR and, in this regard, exclude the specific procedures, types and proper use of instruments, devices, and drugs. Although eight areas, ranging from indication to pathology, were originally planned for inclusion in these guidelines, evidence was scarce in each area. Therefore, grades of recommendation were determined largely through expert consensus in these areas.

Endoscopic resection for superficial colorectal neoplasia in Italy: a prospective multicentre study

BACKGROUND

Since there are few prospective studies on colorectal endoscopic resection to date, we aimed to prospectively assess safety and efficacy of endoscopic resection in a cohort of Italian patients.

METHODS

Prospective multicentre assessment of resection of sessile polyps or non-polypoid lesions ≥10mm in size or smaller (if depressed). Outcome measures included complete excision, morbidity, mortality, and residual/recurrence at 12 months.

RESULTS

Overall, 1012 resections in 928 patients were analysed (62.4% sessile polyps, 28.8% laterally spreading tumours, 8.7% depressed non-polypoid lesions). Lesions were prevalent in the proximal colon. En bloc resection was possible in 715/1012 cases (70.7%), whereas piecemeal resection was required in 297 (29.3%). Endoscopically complete excision was achieved in 866 cases (85.6%). Adverse events occurred in 83 (8.2%), and no deaths occurred. Independent predictors of 12-month residual/recurrence were the location of the lesion in the proximal colon (OR 2.22 [95% CI 1.16-4.26]; p=0.015) and piecemeal endoscopic resection (OR 2.76 [95% CI 1.56-4.87]; p=0.0005). Limitations of the study were: potential expertise bias, no data on eligible and potentially resectable excluded lesions, high percentage of lesions<20mm, follow-up limited to 1 year.

CONCLUSION

In this registry study the endoscopic resection of colorectal lesions was safe and achieved high rates of long-term endoscopic clearance.

Prevention of interval colorectal cancers: what every clinician needs to know

Colonoscopic screening and surveillance have been very effective tools in the fight against colorectal cancer (CRC). Colonoscopy is more than a cancer screening test; it also can prevent CRC by detecting and removing precancerous lesions. Despite this potential, there has been increasing concern about CRCs that occur after a previous colonoscopy and before the next screening/surveillance examination (interval CRCs). The etiology of interval CRC is thought to be caused mostly by missed or incompletely resected lesions on index colonoscopy with some contribution of rapidly progressive new lesions. If this is true, many interval cancers should be preventable by improving colonoscopy technique. There are a variety of strategies to decrease interval CRC rates including use of a split-dosed bowel preparation, optimizing withdrawal technique, ensuring complete polypectomy, and careful pathologic examination of the tissue removed. Furthermore, there should be an increased emphasis on how endoscopists are trained to cultivate high-quality technique throughout their careers. It is important to inform patients that even high-quality colonoscopy is not perfectly sensitive for the detection of advanced neoplasia. Improving colonoscopy quality can decrease interval CRC rates and further decrease CRC incidence and mortality.