Risk of Covert Submucosal Cancer in Patients With Granular Mixed Laterally Spreading Tumors

Low-power pure-cut hot snare polypectomy for colorectal polyps 10-14 mm in size: a multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Hot snare excision using electrocautery is widely used for large colorectal polyps (>10 mm); however, adverse events occur due to deep thermal injury. Colorectal polyps measuring 10-14 mm rarely include invasive cancer. Therefore, less invasive therapeutic options for this size category are demanding. We have developed hot snare polypectomy with low-power pure-cut current (LPPC HSP), which is expected to contribute to less deep thermal damage and lower risk of adverse events. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LPPC HSP for 10-14 mm colorectal polyps, compared with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).

METHODS

In this multicenter, retrospective, observational study, clinical outcomes of EMR and LPPC HSP for 10-14 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps between January 2021 and March 2022 were compared using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

We identified 203 EMR and 208 LPPC HSP cases. After propensity score matching, the baseline characteristics between the groups were comparable, with 120 pairs. The en bloc and R0 resection rates were not significantly different between EMR and LPPC HSP groups (95.8% vs 97.5%, P = 0.72; 90.0% vs 91.7%, P = 0.82). The rates of delayed bleeding and perforation did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with conventional EMR, LPPC HSP showed a similar resection ability without an increase in adverse events. These results suggest that LPPC HSP is a safe and effective treatment for 10-14 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps.

A simplified algorithm to evaluate the risk of submucosal invasive cancer in large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colonic polyps

BACKGROUND

Recognition of submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC) in large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colonic polyps (LNPCPs) informs selection of the optimal resection strategy. LNPCP location, morphology, and size influence the risk of SMIC; however, currently no meaningful application of this information has simplified the process to make it accessible and broadly applicable. We developed a decision-making algorithm to simplify the identification of LNPCP subtypes with increased risk of potential SMIC.

METHODS

Patients referred for LNPCP resection from September 2008 to November 2022 were enrolled. LNPCPs with SMIC were identified from endoscopic resection specimens, lesion biopsies, or surgical outcomes. Decision tree analysis of lesion characteristics identified in multivariable analysis was used to create a hierarchical classification of SMIC prevalence.

RESULTS

2451 LNPCPs were analyzed: 1289 (52.6%) were flat, 1043 (42.6%) nodular, and 118 (4.8%) depressed. SMIC was confirmed in 273 of the LNPCPs (11.1%). It was associated with depressed and nodular vs. flat morphology (odds ratios [ORs] 35.7 [95%CI 22.6-56.5] and 3.5 [95%CI 2.6-4.9], respectively; P<0.001); rectosigmoid vs. proximal location (OR 3.2 [95%CI 2.5-4.1]; P<0.001); nongranular vs. granular appearance (OR 2.4 [95%CI 1.9-3.1]; P<0.001); and size (OR 1.12 per 10-mm increase [95%CI 1.05-1.19]; P<0.001). Decision tree analysis targeting SMIC identified eight terminal nodes: SMIC prevalence was 62% in depressed LNPCPs, 19% in nodular rectosigmoid LNPCPs, and 20% in nodular proximal colon nongranular LNPCPs.

CONCLUSIONS

This decision-making algorithm simplifies identification of LNPCPs with an increased risk of potential SMIC. When combined with surface optical evaluation, it facilitates accurate lesion characterization and resection choices.

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.

Early Rectal Cancer and Local Excision: A Narrative Review

A rise in the incidence of early rectal cancer consequent to bowel-screening programs around the world and an increase in the incidence in young adults has led to a growing interest in organ-sparing treatment options. The rectum, being the most distal portion of the large intestine, is a fertile ground for local excision techniques performed with endoscopic or surgical techniques. Moreover, the advancement in endoscopic optical evaluation and the better definition of imaging techniques allow for a more precise local staging of early rectal cancer. Although the local treatment of early rectal cancer seems promising, in clinical practice, a significant number of patients who could benefit from local excision techniques undergo total mesorectal excision (TME) as the first approach. All relevant prospective clinical trials were identified through a computer-assisted search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline databases until January 2024. This review is dedicated to endoscopic and surgical local excision in the treatment of early rectal cancer and highlights its possible role in current and future clinical practice, taking into account surgical completion techniques and chemoradiotherapy.

pT1 colorectal cancer: A treatment dilemma

The implementation of population screening programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) has led to a considerable increase in the prevalence pT1-CRC originating on polyps amenable by local treatments. However, a high proportion of patients are referred for unnecessary oncological surgeries without a clear benefit in terms of survival. Selecting the appropriate endoscopic resection technique in the moment of diagnosis becomes crucial to provide the best treatment alternative to each individual polyp and patient. For this, it is imperative to increase the optical diagnostic skill for differentiating pT1-CRCs and decide the appropriate initial therapy. En bloc resection is crucial to obtain an adequate histological specimen that might allow organ preserving therapeutic management. In this review, we address key challenges in T1 CRC management, explore the efficacy and safety of the available diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, and shed light on upcoming advances in the field.

Risk of Residual Neoplasia after a Local-Risk Resection of Colorectal Lesions by Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Multinational Study

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in colorectal lesions is demanding, and a significant rate of non-curative procedures is expected. We aimed to assess the rate of residual lesion after a piecemeal ESD resection, or after an en bloc resection but with positive horizontal margins (local-risk resection-LocRR), for colorectal benign neoplasia. A retrospective multicenter analysis of consecutive colorectal ESDs was performed. Patients with LocRR ESDs for the treatment of benign colorectal lesions with at least one follow-up endoscopy were included. A cohort of en bloc resected lesions, with negative margins, was used as the control. A total of 2255 colorectal ESDs were reviewed; 352 of the ESDs were "non-curative". Among them, 209 were LocRR: 133 high-grade dysplasia and 76 low-grade dysplasia. Ten cases were excluded due to missing data. A total of 146 consecutive curative resections were retrieved for comparison. Compared to the "curative group", LocRRs were observed in lengthier procedures, with larger lesions, and in non-granular LSTs. Recurrence was higher in the LocRR group (16/199, 8% vs. 1/146, 0.7%; p = 0.002). However, statistical significance was lost when considering only en bloc resections with positive horizontal margins (p = 0.068). In conclusion, a higher rate of residual lesion was found after a piecemeal ESD resection, but not after an en bloc resection with positive horizontal margins.

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.

Risk of residual neoplasia after a noncurative colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection for malignant lesions: a multinational study

BACKGROUND : Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in colorectal lesions is technically demanding and a significant rate of noncurative procedures is expected. We aimed to assess the rate of residual lesions after a noncurative ESD for colorectal cancer (CRC) and to establish predictive scores to be applied in the clinical setting. METHODS : Retrospective multicenter analysis of consecutive colorectal ESDs. Patients with noncurative ESDs performed for the treatment of CRC lesions submitted to complementary surgery or with at least one follow-up endoscopy were included. RESULTS : From 2255 colorectal ESDs, 381 (17 %) were noncurative, and 135 of these were performed in CRC lesions. A residual lesion was observed in 24 patients (18 %). Surgery was performed in 96 patients and 76 (79 %) had no residual lesion in the colorectal wall or in the lymph nodes. The residual lesion rate for sm1 cancers was 0 %, and for > sm1 cancers was also 0 % if no other risk factors were present. Independent risk factors for lymph node metastasis were poor differentiation and lymphatic permeation (NC-Lymph score). Risk factors for the presence of a residual lesion in the wall were piecemeal resection, poor differentiation, and positive/indeterminate vertical margin (NC-Wall score). CONCLUSIONS : Lymphatic permeation or poor differentiation warrant surgery owing to their high risk of lymph node metastasis, mainly in > sm1 cancers. In the remaining cases, en bloc and R0 resections resulted in a low risk of residual lesions in the wall. Our scores can be a useful tool for the management of patients who undergo noncurative colorectal ESDs.

Efficacy and safety of cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection for treatment of nonlifting colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND : Suboptimal lifting increases complexity of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for benign colorectal polyps. Cap-assisted EMR (EMR-C) may allow fibrotic polyp tissue to be captured in the snare. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of EMR-C for benign nonlifting colorectal polyps. METHODS : This was a multicenter study, which prospectively registered all EMR-C procedures (2016-2018) for presumed benign nonlifting colorectal polyps. RESULTS : 70 nonlifting polyps with a median size of 25 mm (interquartile range [IQR] 15-40) were treated with EMR-C. Complete polyp removal was achieved in 68 (97.1 %), including 47 (67.1 %) with EMR-C alone. Overall, 66 polyps showed benign histology, and endoscopic follow-up after a median of 6 months (IQR 6-10) showed recurrence in 19.7 %. First (n = 10) and second (n = 2) benign recurrences were all treated endoscopically. Deep mural injury type III-V occurred in 7.4 % and was treated successfully with clips. CONCLUSION : EMR-C may be an alternative therapeutic option for removal of benign nonlifting polyp tissue. Although recurrence still occurs, repeat endoscopic therapy usually leads to complete polyp clearance.

Polypectomy for Large Polyps with Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

Beginning in 1955, when the saline injection was first described to prevent transmural injury during polyp fulguration, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has grown exponentially, both in scope and in practice. Because EMR is an organ-preserving technique even for large polyps, this allows for comparable outcomes to surgery, but substantially improved cost savings and significantly reduced morbidity and mortality. To achieve this, however, one must master the 4 fundamental components that are critical to the success of EMR- time, team, tools, and technique. This article aims to provide a compendium of state of the art updates within the field of endoluminal resection.

Minimally Invasive Endoscopic and Surgical Management of Rectal Neoplasia

Rectal cancer demonstrates a characteristic natural history in which benign rectal neoplasia precedes malignancy. The worldwide burden of rectal cancer is significant, with rectal cancer accounting for one-third of colorectal cancer cases annually. The importance of early detection and successful management is essential in decreasing its clinical burden. Minimally invasive treatment of rectal neoplasia has evolved over the past several decades, which has led to reduced local recurrence rates and improved survival outcomes. The approach to diagnosis, staging, and selection of appropriate treatment modalities is a multidisciplinary effort combining interventional endoscopy, surgery, and radiology tools. This review examines the currently available minimally invasive endoscopic and surgical management options of rectal neoplasia.

Endoscopic Management of Complex Colorectal Polyps: Current Insights and Future Trends

Most colorectal cancers arise from adenomatous polyps and sessile serrated lesions. Screening colonoscopy and therapeutic polypectomy can potentially reduce colorectal cancer burden by early detection and removal of these polyps, thus decreasing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Most endoscopists are skilled in detecting and removing the vast majority of polyps endoscopically during a routine colonoscopy. Polyps can be considered “complex” based on size, location, morphology, underlying scar tissue, which are not amenable to removal by conventional endoscopic polypectomy techniques. They are technically more challenging to resect and carry an increased risk of complications. Most of these polyps were used to be managed by surgical intervention in the past. Rapid advancement in endoscopic resection techniques has led to a decreasing role of surgery in managing these complex polyps. These endoscopic resection techniques do require an expert in the field and advanced equipment to perform the procedure. In this review, we discuss various advanced endoscopic techniques for the management of complex polyps.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: outcomes and predictors of recurrence

Background and study aims  The role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal lesions in Western communities is unclear and its adoption is still limited. The aim of this study is to assess the long-term outcomes of a large cohort of patients treated with colorectal ESD in a tertiary Western center. Patients and methods  A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients treated by ESD for superficial colorectal lesions between February 2011 and November 2019. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes were en-bloc and R0 resection rates, procedural time, adverse events (AEs), and need for surgery. The curative resection rate was assessed for submucosal invasive lesions. Results  A total of 327 consecutive patients, median age 69 years (IQR 60-76); 201 men (61.5 %) were included in the analysis. Of the lesions, 90.8 % were resected in an en-bloc fashion. The rate of R0 resection was 83.1 % (217/261) and 44.0 % (29/66) for standard and hybrid ESD techniques, respectively. Submucosal invasion and piecemeal resection independently predicted R1 resections. A total of 18(5.5 %) intra-procedural AEs (perforation:11, bleeding:7) and 12(3.7 %) post-procedural AEs occurred (perforation:2, bleeding: 10). Eighteen adenoma recurrences per 1,000 person-years (15cases, 5.6 %) were detected after a median follow-up time of 36 months. All recurrences were detected within 12 months. No carcinoma recurrences were observed. R1 resection status and intra-procedural AEs independently predicted recurrences with seven vs 150 recurrences per 1,000 person-years in the R0 vs R1 group, respectively. Conclusions  Colorectal ESD is a safe and effective option for managing superficial colorectal neoplasia in a Western setting, with short and long-terms outcomes comparable to Eastern studies. En-bloc R0 resection and absence of intra-procedural AEs are associated with reduced risk of recurrence.

Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in a Western Center: Analysis of Outcomes and Safety Profile

Introduction

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a well-established endoscopic technique for the treatment of gastrointestinal lesions. Colorectal ESD outcomes are less reported in the Western literature, and Portuguese data are still very scarce. Our aim was to describe our experience on colorectal ESD regarding its outcomes and safety profile.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective evaluation of recorded data on ESDs performed between 2015 and 2020. Only ESDs performed on epithelial neoplastic lesions were selected for further analysis.

Results

Of a total of 167 colorectal ESDs, 153 were included. Technical success was achieved in 147 procedures (96%). The lesions were located in the colon (n = 24) and rectum (n = 123). The en bloc resection rate was 92% and 97%, the R0 resection rate was 83% and 82%, and the curative resection rate was 79% and 78% for the colon and the rectum, respectively. The need for a hybrid technique was the only risk factor for piecemeal or R1 resection. We report a perforation rate of 3.4% and a 4.1% rate of delayed bleeding; all the adverse events were manageable endoscopically, without the need of blood transfusions or surgery. Most of the lesions were laterally spreading tumours of the granular mixed type (70%), and 20% of the lesions were malignant (12% submucosal and 8% intramucosal cancer).

Conclusion

Our series on colorectal ESD reports a very good efficacy and safety profile. This technique can be applied by endoscopists experienced in ESD.

Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: An Update on Best Practice

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a method of en-bloc resection of neoplastic colorectal lesions which is less invasive compared to surgical resection. Lesion stratification, architecture recognition and estimation of depth of invasion are crucial for patient selection. Expert endoscopists have integrated a variety of classification systems including Paris, lateral spreading tumor (LST), narrow band imaging (NBI), international colorectal endoscopic (NICE) and Japanese NBI expert team (JNET) in their day-to-day practice to enhance lesion detection accuracy. Major societies recommend ESD for LST-non granular (NG), Kudo-VI type, large depressed and protruded colonic lesions with shallow submucosal invasion. Chance of submucosal invasion enhances with increased depth as well as tumor location and size. In comparison to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), ESD has a lowerl recurrence rate and higher curative resection rate, making it superior for larger colonic lesions management. Major complications such as bleeding and perforation could be seen in up to 11% and 16% of patients, respectively. In major Western countries, performing ESD is challenging due to limited number of expert providers, lack of insurance coverage, and unique patient characteristics such as higher BMI and higher percentage of previously manipulated lesions.

[Endoscopic diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of polyps of the lower gastrointestinal tract]

BACKGROUND

The endoscopic management of polyps of the lower gastrointestinal tract (l-GIT) has emerged in recent years as a result of numerous technological innovations. However, proven expertise and experience are essential.

OBJECTIVES

Presentation of novel and standard techniques and best-practice recommendations for the characterization and resection of l‑GIT polyps.

METHODS

Recent specialist literature and current guidelines.

RESULTS

High-definition endoscopy should be the standard when performing colonoscopy. The (virtual) chromoendoscopy can improve detection and characterization of polyps, but always requires special expertise and experience of the endoscopist in advanced endoscopic imaging. In this regard, computer-aided-diagnosis (CAD) systems have the potential to support endoscopists in the future. Pedunculated polyps should be removed with a hot snare. Small flat polyps can be resected by cold snare or large forceps. Large, non-pedunculated polyps should be treated in an interdisciplinary approach at a referral center with long-standing experience depending on its malignancy potential. After complete resection of small adenoma without high grade dysplasia, surveillance endoscopy is recommended after 5-10 years. Patients with large adenoma or high grade dysplasia should undergo endoscopy after 3 years and patients with multiple adenoma earlier than 3 years. After incomplete or piecemeal resection or insufficient bowel preparation, near-term endoscopy is recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

Adequate characterization and treatment are essential for the appropriate management of l‑GIT polyps.