Outcome and risk of recurrence for endoscopic resection of colonic superficial neoplastic lesions over 2 cm in diameter

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Efficacy and safety of a novel submucosal injection solution for endoscopic resection in porcine models

OBJECTIVE

A submucosal injection is usually required to improve the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). This study aimed to evaluate the performance of 3.3% sodium carboxymethyl starch (Na-CMS) solution, a novel submucosal injection solution, for ESD and EMR.

METHODS

Na-CMS, normal saline (NS) and two commercially available agents (sigMAVisc and Eleview) were injected into the esophageal submucosa of randomly grouped pigs. The level of submucosal elevation was examined. Subsequently, ESD or EMR procedures using 3.3% Na-CMS or NS as submucosal injections were performed in the gastrointestinal tract of the pigs.

RESULTS

Submucosal elevation was significantly higher and more sustained in the 3.3% Na-CMS group than in the controls (P < 0.05). The volume required for ESD or EMR was significantly lower in the 3.3% Na-CMS group than in the NS group (ESD: 12.21 ± 4.09 mL vs 28.25 ± 8.02 mL, P < 0.001; EMR: 3.99 ± 1.98 mL vs 7.15 ± 3.67 mL, P = 0.001). The ESD resection time was significantly shorter in the 3.3% Na-CMS group than in the NS group (16.58 ± 7.30 min vs 25.29 ± 11.89 min, P = 0.004). Hemorrhage after ESD in the 3.3% Na-CMS group was less severe than that in the NS group (P = 0.006).

CONCLUSION

3.3% Na-CMS is an effective, safe and low-cost submucosal injection solution and holds promise as preferable agent for submucosal injection in ESD and EMR procedures.

Improving assessment and management of large non-pedunculated colorectal lesions in a Western center over 10 years: lessons learned and clinical impact

Background and study aims  Outcomes of endoscopic assessment and management of large colorectal (CR) non-pedunculated lesions (LNPLs) are still under evaluation, especially in Western settings. We analyzed the clinical impact of changes in LNPL management over the last decade in a European center. Patients and methods  All consecutive LNPLs ≥ 20 mm endoscopically assessed (2008-2019) were retrospectively included. Lesion, patient, and resection characteristics were compared among clinically relevant subgroups. Multivariate logistic regression (for predictors of submucosal invasion [SMI] and recurrence), Kaplan-Meier curves and ROC curves (for temporal cut-offs in trends analyses) were used. Results  A total of 395 LNPLs were included (30 mm [range 20-40]; SMI = 9.6 %; primary endoscopic resection [ER] = 88.4 %). Pseudo-depression and JNET classification independently predicted SMI beyond single morphologies/location. After complete ER, involvement of ileocecal valve/dentate line, piece-meal resection and high-grade dysplasia independently predicted recurrence. Rates of 5-year recurrence-free, surgery-free and cancer-free survival were 77.5 %, 98.6 % and 100 %, respectively, with 93.8 % recurrences endoscopically managed and no death attributable to ER or CR cancer (versus 3.4 % primary surgery mortality). ROC curves identified the period ≥ 2015 (following Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection [ESD] introduction and education on pre-resective lesion assessment) as associated with improved lesions' characterization, increased en-bloc resection of SMI lesions (87.5 % vs 37.5 %; p = 0.0455), reduced primary surgery (7.5 % vs 16.7 %; p = 0.0072), surgical referral of benign lesions (5.1 % vs 14.8 %; p = 0.0019), and recurrences. Conclusions  ESD introduction and educational interventions allowed ER of more complex lesions, offset by increased complementary surgery for complications or intrinsic histological risk. Nevertheless, overall, they have reduced surgery demand and increased appropriateness and safety of LNPL management in our center.

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection without submucosal injection (UEMR) for large colorectal polyps: A community-based series

BACKGROUND

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection without submucosal injection (UEMR) is an appealing therapy for large colorectal polyps. However, this technique is not practiced widely and there are limited data evaluating UEMR in community settings.

METHODS

The study comprised patients undergoing UEMR of large (≥20 mm) sessile colorectal lesions at a community-based center. Residual neoplasia was assessed via follow-up colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Among 264 lesions (diameter 38 ± 18 mm; range 20-110 mm) 99% were successfully resected with UEMR. Two lesions involving the cecum/IC valve required multiple sessions. There were no cases of perforation or post-polypectomy syndrome. Delayed bleeding occurred in 1.6%, all managed conservatively. Residual neoplasia was present in 5.7% and was amenable to UEMR.

CONCLUSION

This large community-based series demonstrated high efficacy and safety of UEMR for large sessile colorectal lesions. The results support UEMR as first-line therapy for these lesions.

SUMMARY

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection without submucosal injection (UEMR) is a recently developed method that has advantages over conventional EMR for treatment of large colorectal lesions. However, UEMR is not practiced widely and there are limited data evaluating this technique in everyday practice. This large community-based series demonstrated high efficacy and safety of UEMR for large sessile colorectal lesions.

Long-term follow-up after EMR of large colorectal lesions: metachronous lesions, predictors and surveillance timing

Background: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the first-line approach to large colorectal sessile lesions. These patients have been associated with high rates of metachronous lesions (ML), but long-term follow-up (LtFU) data are lacking. We aimed at evaluating the efficacy of an LtFU protocol and analyse the development and risk factors for ML.Methods: A prospectively collected database was analysed. Seventy-six patients submitted to EMR of large colorectal sessile lesions between 2007 and 2013 complied with a specific endoscopic surveillance, consisting of two protocols - initial follow-up (iFU) and LtFU. iFU intended to inspect the mucosectomy scars twice (at 3-6 and 12 months) and remove synchronous lesions (SL). Protocol examinations of LtFU were carried out at the first- and fourth-year post-iFU, aiming to remove ML. Statistical analysis included variables related to patient, index lesion, SL and ML characteristics.Results: Rates of ML were 39.5% and 20.4% at the first- and fourth-year of LtFU, and respectively 11.8% and 3.7% of them were advanced ML. All ML were endoscopically resectable. At univariate analysis, male gender (OR: 2.91; p=.029), the presence of SL (OR 3.86, p=.010) and advanced SL (OR 4.25, p=.006) were risk factors for ML. At multivariate analysis, male gender (p=.031) and advanced SL (p=.006) were significant predictors of ML development.Conclusions: We confirmed the increased risk of ML in patients with large colorectal lesions. A significant number of advanced ML was removed at the first LtFU colonoscopy, probably it should be carried out earlier than currently recommended.

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.

Endoscopic resection of large colorectal adenomas - clinical experience of a tertiary referral centre

AIM

Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality. Adenomatous polyps are typically resected endoscopically to prevent cancer while giant and complex polyps are managed surgically. No criteria clearly define the indications for surgical vs endoscopic resection. Our aim was to evaluate factors associated with the short-term efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection of large (≥ 20 mm) and giant (≥ 40 mm) adenomas.

METHOD

Consecutive cases with colonic adenomas larger than 20 mm resected endoscopically were included. Endoscopic, clinical and histological details of polyps were recorded as well as the need for surgical resection.

RESULT

A total of 351 resections were included. The average adenoma diameter was 30.34 ± 10.66 mm. Surgery was recommended in 21 (5.98%) cases. In a multivariate analysis for efficacy, two variables were independent risk factors for surgery: adenoma size [OR 1.08 (95% CI: 1.04-1.12)] and caecal location [5.97(1.60-22.33)]. Postpolypectomy complications were documented in 85 (24.2%) cases: bleeding 69 (19.7%), perforations 8(2.3%) and significant discomfort 15(4.3%). Twenty-one patients (6.0%) developed serious complications requiring further hospitalization. In multivariate analysis for safety, independent risk factors for postpolypectomy complications included adenoma size [1.04 (1.06-1.01)], polyp morphology [sessile 2.55 (1.45-4.51), flat 2.40 (1.04-5.52)] and submucosal adrenaline injection [1.87 (1.11-3.20)]. Increments of 1 mm in adenoma diameter beyond 20 mm increased the need for surgery by 8% and the risk of complications by 4%.

CONCLUSION

Resection of large or giant adenomas is generally a safe procedure. Although adenoma size and morphology are significant predictors of efficacy and safety, each case should be individually evaluated in a specialist unit for feasibility of endoscopic resection.

Polypectomy for complete endoscopic resection of small colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Small colorectal polyps are encountered frequently and may be incompletely removed during colonoscopy. The optimal technique for removal of small colorectal polyps is uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare the incomplete resection rate (IRR) by using EMR or cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for the removal of small adenomatous polyps.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized controlled study from a tertiary-care referral center. A total of 358 patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria (polyp sized 6-9 mm) were randomized to the EMR (n =179) and CSP (n =179) groups, and their polyps were treated with conventional EMR or CSP, respectively. After polypectomy, an additional 5 forceps biopsies were performed at the base and margins of polypectomy sites to assess the presence of residual polyp tissue. The EMR and CSP samples were compared to assess the IRR.

RESULTS

Among a total of 525 polyps, 415 (79.0%) were adenomatous polyps, and 41 (16.4%) were advanced adenomas. The overall IRR for adenomatous polyps was significantly higher in the CSP group compared with the EMR group (18/212, 8.5% vs 3/203, 1.5%; P = .001). Logistic regression analysis revealed that the CSP procedure was a stronger risk factor for the IRR (odds ratio [OR] 6.924; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.098-24.393; P = .003). In addition, piecemeal resection was the most important risk factor for the IRR (OR 28.696; 95% CI, 3.620-227.497; P = .001). The mean procedure time for polypectomy was not significantly different between the EMR and CSP groups (5.5 ± 2.7 vs 4.7 ± 3.4 minutes; P = .410). None of these patients presented with delayed bleeding. There were no severe adverse events related to the biopsies.

CONCLUSIONS

EMR was significantly superior to CSP for achieving complete endoscopic resection of small colorectal polyps. Patients with piecemeal resection of polyps had a higher risk for incomplete resection. (Clinical trial registration number: Hongwei-1102-12.).

Adenoma recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection: propensity score analysis of old and new colonoscopes and Sydney recurrence tool implementation

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Risk factors for colorectal adenoma recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) have been well documented. We assessed the efficacy of the newer 190 colonoscope versus the standard 180 colonoscope for complete resection of lateral spreading lesions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 A single-center, retrospective study of patients who underwent EMR with Olympus 180 or 190 colonoscopes from January 1, 2010 to September 30, 2016. We included patients with lesions ≥ 20 mm and surveillance colonoscopy (SC1) after index EMR. A propensity score approach with inverse probability weighting was used to control for potential confounders. A secondary aim was to identify risk factors for recurrence and assess the applicability of the Sydney EMR recurrence tool (SERT) by grading each lesion of our cohort and analyzing associations with recurrence.

RESULTS

 Two hundred ninety-one lesions met inclusion criteria for the study. Odds ratio (OR) for recurrence with the 190 colonoscope was 1.06 ( P  = .85). Adenoma size ( P  = .02) and use of argon plasma coagulation (APC; P  < .001) were risk factors for recurrence. Lesions with SERT scores > 0 had a higher recurrence risk during follow-up (32 % vs 21 %; OR 1.71; P  = .05). Lesions with SERT scores = 0 reached a plateau for recurrence at 12 and 18 months in Kaplan-Meier curves.

CONCLUSIONS

 The use of 190 colonoscopes did not measurably affect adenoma recurrence at SC1. Recurrence was associated with adenoma size, complementary APC for resection, and SERT scores > 0. Lesions with SERT scores = 0 that remain negative for recurrence at 18 months may return to routine surveillance.

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).

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of large distal non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas (MATILDA-trial): rationale and design of a multicenter randomized clinical trial

Background

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is currently the most used technique for resection of large distal colorectal polyps. However, in large lesions EMR can often only be performed in a piecemeal fashion resulting in relatively low radical (R0)-resection rates and high recurrence rates. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a newer procedure that is more difficult resulting in a longer procedural time, but is promising due to the high en-bloc resection rates and the very low recurrence rates. We aim to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness of ESD against EMR on both short (i.e. 6 months) and long-term (i.e. 36 months). We hypothesize that in the short-run ESD is more time consuming resulting in higher healthcare costs, but is (cost-) effective on the long-term due to lower patients burden, a higher number of R0-resections and lower recurrence rates with less need for repeated procedures.

Methods

This is a multicenter randomized clinical trial in patients with a non-pedunculated polyp larger than 20 mm in the rectum, sigmoid, or descending colon suspected to be an adenoma by means of endoscopic assessment. Primary endpoint is recurrence rate at follow-up colonoscopy at 6 months. Secondary endpoints are R0-resection rate, perceived burden and quality of life, healthcare resources utilization and costs, surgical referral rate, complication rate and recurrence rate at 36 months. Quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) will be estimated taking an area under the curve approach and using EQ-5D-indexes. Healthcare costs will be calculated by multiplying used healthcare services with unit prices. The cost-effectiveness of ESD against EMR will be expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) showing additional costs per recurrence free patient and as ICER showing additional costs per QALY.

Discussion

If this trial confirms ESD to be favorable on the long-term, the burden of extra colonoscopies and repeated procedures can be prevented for future patients.

Trial registration

NCT02657044 (Clinicaltrials.gov), registered January 8, 2016.