Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colonic laterally spreading tumors is difficult after target tattooing

Endoscopic management of colorectal polyps: From benign to malignant polyps

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide and the second leading cause of cancer related death in the world. The early detection and removal of CRC precursor lesions has been shown to reduce the incidence of CRC and cancer-related mortality. Endoscopic resection has become the first-line treatment for the removal of most precursor benign colorectal lesions and selected malignant polyps. Detailed lesion assessment is the first critical step in the evaluation and management of colorectal polyps. Polyp size, location and both macro- and micro- features provide important information regarding histological grade and endoscopic resectability. Benign polyps and even malignant polyps with superficial submucosal invasion and favorable histological features can be adequately removed endoscopically. When compared to surgery, endoscopic resection is associated with lower morbidity, mortality, and higher patient quality of life. Conversely, malignant polyps with deep submucosal invasion and/or high risk for lymph node metastasis will require surgery. From a practical standpoint, the most appropriate strategy for each patient will need to be individualized, based not only on polyp- and patient-related characteristics, but also on local resources and expertise availability. In this review, we provide a broad overview and present a potential decision tree algorithm for the evaluation and management of colorectal polyps that can be widely adopted into clinical practice.

Traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection for a previously tattooed colonic laterally spreading tumor

Video 1Traction-assisted colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection using the multiloop method for a previously tattooed laterally spreading tumor in the sigmoid colon.

Lesion Retrieval, Specimen Handling, and Endoscopic Marking in Colonoscopy

Retrieval of lesions after endoscopic polypectomy enables histopathologic analysis and guides future surgical management and endoscopic surveillance intervals. Various techniques and devices have been described with distinct advantages and disadvantages to accomplish retrieval. Appropriate histopathologic analysis depends on lesion handling and preparation. How lesions are handled further depends on size, endoscopic appearance, and removal technique. Endoscopic marking or tattooing is a well-described process that uses dye mediums to leave longstanding marks in the colon. Techniques, dye mediums, and locations within the colon influence tattoo approach.

Safe and Effective Endoscopic Resection of Massive Colorectal Adenomas ≥8 cm in a Tertiary Referral Center

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection of large colorectal lesions is well reported and is the first line of treatment for all noninvasive colorectal neoplasms in many centers, but little is known about the outcomes of endoscopic resection of truly massive colorectal lesions ≥8 cm.

OBJECTIVE

We report on the outcomes of endoscopic resection for massive (≥8 cm) colorectal adenomas and compare the outcomes with resection of large (2.0-7.9 cm) lesions.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective study.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted in a tertiary referral unit for interventional endoscopy.

PATIENTS

A total of 435 endoscopic resections of large colorectal polyps (≥2 cm) were included, of which 96 were ≥8 cm.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcomes included initial successful resection, complications, recurrence, surgery, and hospital admission.

RESULTS

Endoscopic resection was successful for 91 of 96 massive lesions (≥8 cm). Mean size was 10.1 cm (range, 8-16 cm). A total of 75% had previous attempts at resection or heavy manipulation before referral. Thirty two were resected using endoscopic submucosal dissection or hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection and the rest using piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection. No patients required surgery for a perforation. Five patients had postprocedural bleeding. There were 25 recurrences: 2 were treated with transanal endoscopic microsurgery, 2 with right hemicolectomy, and the rest with endoscopic resection. Compared with patients with large lesions, more patients with massive adenomas had complications (19.8% versus 3.3%), required admission (39.6% versus 11.0%), developed recurrence (30.8% versus 9.9%), or required surgery for recurrence (5.0% versus 0.8%).

LIMITATIONS

This was a retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic resection of massive colorectal adenomas ≥8 cm is achievable with few significant complications, and the majority of patients avoid surgery. Systematic assessment is required to appropriately select patients for endoscopic resection, which should be performed in specialist units. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A653.

Successful endoscopic submucosal dissection of colon cancer with severe fibrosis after tattooing

Endoscopic tattooing is often used to facilitate the identification of colorectal lesions before endoscopic treatments. However, tattooing under the lesion can result in technical difficulties because of the dark endoscopic field and submucosal fibrosis. A 65-year-old man with a non-granular-type laterally spreading tumor was referred to our hospital after tattooing with India ink for surgery. However, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was selected for the resection of this lesion because the findings of magnifying endoscopy suggested an intramucosal cancer. Dissection around a dense section was difficult because of the dark endoscopic field and non-lifting as a result of severe fibrosis. We performed ESD using the following strategy: (1) injection with a smaller amount of indigo carmine and (2) cut and dissection from the side of the thinly tattooed area. The lesion was curatively resected en bloc without any complications. This finding suggests that endoscopic tattooing before endoscopic treatment should be performed one or two folds away from the lesion.

Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection of large colonic polyps

Almost all large and complex colorectal polyps can now be resected endoscopically. Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (PEMR) is an established technique with fairly low complication risk and good short-term and medium-term outcomes. Several modifications to the basic injection and snare technique have been developed contributing to safer and more complete resections. Delayed bleeding requiring reintervention is the most troublesome complication in 2-7% of patients, particularly in those with comorbidities and large, right-sided polyps. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become popular in Japan and has theoretical advantages over PEMR in providing a complete, en bloc excision for accurate histological staging and reduced local recurrence. These advantages come at the cost of a more complex, expensive and time-consuming procedure with a higher risk of perforation, particularly early in the procedure learning curve. These factors have contributed to the slow adoption of ESD in the West and the challenge to develop new devices and endoscopic platforms that will make ESD easier and safer. Currently, ESD indications are limited to large rectal lesions, in which procedural complications are easily managed, and for colorectal polyps with a high risk of containing tiny foci of early submucosally invasive cancer, whereby ESD may be curative compared with PEMR.

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.