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

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.

Endoscopic Resection of Neoplasia in the Lower GI Tract: A Clinical Algorithm

Background

Colorectal cancer is a highly prevalent malignancy and a significant driver of cancer mortality and health-related expenditure worldwide. Polyp removal reduces the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. In 2024, endoscopists have an array of resection modalities at their disposal. Each technique requires a unique skillset and has individual advantages and limitations. Consequently, resection in the colorectum requires an evidence-based algorithm approach that considers these factors.

Summary

A literature review of endoscopic resection for colonic neoplasia was conducted. Best supporting scientific evidence was summarized for the endoscopic resection of diminutive polyps, large ≥20 mm lesions and polyps containing invasive cancer. Factors including resection modality, complications and lesion selection were explored to inform an algorithm approach to colorectal resection.

Key Messages

Endoscopic resection in the colorectum is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Detailed understanding of polyp size, location, morphology and predicted histology are critical factors that inform appropriate endoscopic resection practice.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Endoscopic resection of large anastomotic polyps is safe and effective

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Use of artificial intelligence in the management of T1 colorectal cancer: a new tool in the arsenal or is deep learning out of its depth?

The field of artificial intelligence is rapidly evolving, and there has been an interest in its use to predict the risk of lymph node metastasis in T1 colorectal cancer. Accurately predicting lymph node invasion may result in fewer patients undergoing unnecessary surgeries; conversely, inadequate assessments will result in suboptimal oncological outcomes. This narrative review aims to summarize the current literature on deep learning for predicting the probability of lymph node metastasis in T1 colorectal cancer, highlighting areas of potential application and barriers that may limit its generalizability and clinical utility.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Endoscopic Management of Large Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps

Large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm (LNPCPs) comprise approximately 1% of all colorectal polyps. LNPCPs more commonly contain high-grade dysplasia, covert and overt cancer. These lesions can be resected using several means, including conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), cold-snare EMR (C-EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). This review aimed to provide a comprehensive, critical and objective analysis of ER techniques. Evidence-based, selective resection algorithms should be used when choosing the most appropriate technique to ensure the safe and effective removal of LNPCPs. Due to its enhanced safety and comparable efficacy, there has been a paradigm shift towards cold-snare polypectomy (CSP) for the removal of small polyps (<10 mm). This technique is now being applied to the management of LNPCPs; however, further research is required to define the optimal LNPCP subtypes to target and the viable upper size limit. Adjuvant techniques, such as thermal ablation of the resection margin, significantly reduce recurrence risk. Bleeding risk can be mitigated using through-the-scope clips to close defects in the right colon. Endoscopic surveillance is important to detect recurrence and synchronous lesions. Recurrence can be readily managed using an endoscopic approach.

The Surface Morphology of Large Nonpedunculated Colonic Polyps Predicts Synchronous Large Lesions

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) may have synchronous LNPCPs in up to 18% of cases. The nature of this relationship has not been investigated. We aimed to examine the relationship between individual LNPCP characteristics and synchronous colonic LNPCPs.

METHODS

Consecutive patients referred for resection of LNPCPs over 130 months until March 2022 were enrolled. Serrated lesions and mixed granularity LNPCPs were excluded from analysis. Patients with multiple LNPCPs resected were identified, and the largest was labelled as dominant. The primary outcome was the identification of individual lesion characteristics associated with the presence of synchronous LNPCPs.

RESULTS

There were 3149 of 3381 patients (93.1%) who had a single LNPCP. In 232 (6.9%) a synchronous lesion was detected. Solitary lesions had a median size of 35 mm with a predominant Paris 0-IIa morphology (42.9%) and right colon location (59.5%). In patients with ≥2 LNPCPs, the dominant lesion had a median size of 40 mm, Paris 0-IIa (47.6%) morphology, and right colon location (65.9%). In this group, 35.8% of dominant LNPCPs were non-granular compared with 18.7% in the solitary LNPCP cohort. Non-granular (NG)-LNPCPs were more likely to demonstrate synchronous disease, with left colon NG-LNPCPs demonstrating greater risk (odds ratio, 4.78; 95% confidence interval, 2.95-7.73) than right colon NG-LNPCPs (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-2.86).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that 6.9% of LNPCPs have synchronous disease, with NG-LNPCPs demonstrating a greater than 4-fold increased risk. With post-colonoscopy interval cancers exceeding 5%, endoscopists must be cognizant of an individual's LNPCP phenotype when examining the colon at both index procedure and surveillance.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, NCT01368289; NCT02000141; NCT02198729.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Oncological outcomes after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps with covert submucosal invasive cancer

OBJECTIVE

Management of covert submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC) discovered after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (pEMR) of large (>20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps is challenging. The residual cancer risk is largely unknown. We sought to evaluate this in a large tertiary referral cohort.

DESIGN

Cases of covert SMIC following pEMR were identified and followed. Oncological outcomes after surgery were divided based on residual intramural cancer, lymph node metastases (LNM) or both. Risk factors for residual intramural cancer and LNM were analysed based on the original pEMR histological variables. Risk parameters were analysed with respect to low and high-risk variables for residual intramural cancer and LNM.

RESULTS

Among 3372 cases of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps, 143 cases of covert SMIC (4.2%) were identified. 109 underwent surgical resection. Histological analysis of pEMR histology was available in 98 of 109 (90%) cases. 62 cases (63%) had no residual malignancy. 36 cases had residual malignancy (residual intramural cancer n=24; LNM n=5; both n=7). All cases of residual intramural cancer could be identified by a R1 histological deep margin. Cases with poor differentiation (PD) and/or lymphovascular invasion (LVI) had a high risk of LNM (12/33), with a very low risk without these criteria (<1%; 0/65). Cases at low risk for LNM with R0 deep margin have a low risk of residual intramural cancer (<1%; 0/35).

CONCLUSION

The majority of cases of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps with covert SMIC following pEMR will have no residual malignancy. The risk of residual malignancy can be ascertained from three key variables: PD, LVI and R1 deep margin.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Incremental benefit of dye-based chromoendoscopy to predict the risk of submucosal invasive cancer in large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Detailed lesion assessment of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs; ≥20 mm) can help predict the risk of submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC). Traditionally this has required the use of dye-based chromoendoscopy (DBC). We sought to assess the accuracy and incremental benefit of DBC in addition to high-definition white-light imaging (HDWLI) and virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE) for the prediction of SMIC within LNPCPs.

METHODS

A prospective observational study of consecutive LNPCPs at a single tertiary referral center was performed. Before resection all lesions were assessed for the presence of a demarcated area (DA), defined as an area of disordered pit or microvascular pattern, by 2 trained endoscopists before and after DBC. Diagnostic performance characteristics were calculated with histology as the reference criterion standard, and overall agreement was calculated using the κ statistic.

RESULTS

Over 39 months to March 2021, 400 consecutive LNPCPs (median lesion size, 35 mm; interquartile range, 25-45) were analyzed. The overall rate of SMIC was 6.5%. Presence of a DA had an accuracy of 91% (95% confidence interval, 87.7-93.5) for SMIC, independent of the use of DBC. The rate of interobserver agreement for presence of a DA using HDWLI + VCE was very high (κ = .96) with no benefit gained by the addition of DBC.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of HDWLI and VCE is likely to be adequate for lesion assessment for the prediction of SMIC among LNPCPs. Further, the absence of a DA is strongly predictive for the absence of SMIC, independent to the use of DBC. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03506321.).

Comparison of precutting endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection for large (20-30 mm) flat colorectal lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The complete and safe removal of large (≥ 20 mm) colorectal lesions is an area of concern. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) effectively removes these lesions compared with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). However, ESD requires advanced techniques, longer procedure time, and high cost. Precutting EMR (EMR-P) is a modified EMR method that overcomes the limitations of EMR. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of EMR-P and ESD in large (20-30 mm) flat colorectal lesions.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of cases in which 20- to 30-mm flat colorectal lesions were resected at Seoul St. Mary's Hospital from January 2014 to December 2019. Propensity score matching was performed to control for possible confounders.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety-nine patients were included in this study. After matching, 90 patients were assigned to each group. There were no significant difference in complete resection rates (92.2% vs 92.2%, P = 1.000), en bloc resection rates (95.6% vs 97.8%, P = 0.682), and mean size of lesions (22.9 ± 3.1 mm vs 23.0 ± 3.1 mm, P = 0.867) between EMR-P and ESD. Procedure time was significantly shorter with EMR-P (11.0 ± 6.5 min vs 37.0 ± 19.3 min, P < 0.001). The adverse events rate was not significantly different between both groups. No local recurrence occurred in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Precutting EMR was not significantly different to ESD in terms of complete resection rate and en bloc resection rate for 20- to 30-mm flat colorectal lesions without fibrosis. Furthermore, EMR-P has shorter procedure time than ESD. EMR-P could be considered one of standard treatments for large flat colorectal lesions.

Management of the colonic polyps referred for surgery: an opportunity for improvement

PURPOSE

To examine local practice for non-malignant polyps and to calculate morbidity and mortality associated with bowel resection for this indication.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted by reviewing our local gastrointestinal pathology database over a five-year period to identify colonic resections performed for benign polyps. Using search terms "polyp" and "adenoma," 272 cases were identified. Exclusion criteria included: cancer diagnosis, emergency surgeries, multiple resections, and subtotal colectomies for polyposis. 106 patients were included in the study. Primary outcome was perioperative mortality. Secondary outcomes included patient morbidity, characteristics of polyps requiring surgery, and the number of patients referred for a second endoscopic opinion prior to proceeding with surgery.

RESULTS

64 male and 42 female patients with a mean age of 65.3 years (± 8.6 years) underwent colon resection for benign polyps. The mean polyp size was 32.7 mm (± 19.5 mm). 30 patients (28.6%) had polyps equal to or less than 2 cm. Most of the polyps described were sessile (n = 55, 51.9%) and located in the right colon (n = 84, 79.3%). Endoscopic resection was attempted in 31 patients (29.2%), and five cases (4.7%) were referred for a second endoscopic opinion prior to proceeding with surgery. Endoscopists incorrectly felt that polyps were malignant in 62 cases (58.5%). Using Clavien-Dindo classification, most patients had no complications n = 36 (34.0%) or minor complications n = 41 (38.7%). Twelve patients (11.3%) had complications that required antibiotics, blood transfusions, or total parental nutrition. Nine patients (8.5%) required surgical or endoscopic management. Six patients (5.7%) required ICU admission. Mortality rate was 1.9% (n = 2).

CONCLUSION

Surgery for benign colonic polyps is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. These findings reveal a gap in endoscopic management of benign colonic polyps.

Indications and outcomes of endoscopic resection for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions: A narrative review

In the last years, endoscopic techniques gained a crucial role in the treatment of colorectal flat lesions. At the same time, the importance of a reliable assessment of such lesions to predict the malignancy and the depth of invasion of the colonic wall emerged. The current unsolved dilemma about the endoscopic excision techniques concerns the necessity of a reliable submucosal invasive cancer assessment system that can stratify the risk of the post-procedural need for surgery. Accordingly, this narrative literature review aims to compare the available diagnostic strategies in predicting malignancy and to give a guide about the best techniques to employ. We performed a literature search using electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library). We collected all articles about endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) registering the outcomes. Moreover, we analyzed all meta-analyses comparing EMR vs ESD outcomes for colorectal sessile or non-polypoid lesions of any size, preoperatively estimated as non-invasive. Seven meta-analysis studies, mainly Eastern, were included in the analysis comparing 124 studies and overall 22954 patients who underwent EMR and ESD procedures. Of these, eighty-two were retrospective, twenty-four perspective, nine case-control, and six cohorts, while three were randomized clinical trials. A total of 18118 EMR and 10379 ESD were completed for a whole of 28497 colorectal sessile or non-polypoid lesions > 5-10 mm in size. In conclusion, it is crucial to enhance the preoperative diagnostic workup, especially in deciding the most suitable endoscopic method for radical resection of flat colorectal lesions at risk of underlying malignancy. Additionally, the ESD necessitates further improvement because of the excessively time-consuming as well as the intraprocedural technical hindrances and related complications. We found a higher rate of en bloc resections and R0 for ESD than EMR for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions. Nevertheless, despite the lower local recurrence rates, ESD had greater perforation rates and needed lengthier procedural times. The prevailing risk for additional surgery in ESD rather than EMR for complications or oncologic reasons is still uncertain.