Colonoscopy surveillance after colorectal cancer resection: recommendations of the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer

Incomplete mucosal layer excision during EMR: a potential source of recurrent adenoma (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Residual or recurrent adenoma (RRA) detected during surveillance is the major limitation of EMR. The pathogenesis of RRA is unknown, although thermal ablation of the post-endoscopic resection defect (PED) margin reduces RRA. We aimed to identify a feature within the PED that could be associated with RRA.

METHODS

Between January 2017 and July 2020, detailed prospective procedural data on all EMR procedures performed at a single center were retrospectively analyzed. At the completion of EMR, the PED was systematically examined for features of incomplete mucosal layer excision (IME). This was defined as a demarcated area within the PED bordered by a white electrocautery ring and containing endoscopically identifiable features suggesting incomplete resection of the mucosa including lacy capillaries and/or visible fibers of the muscularis mucosae. Areas of IME were reinjected and re-excised by snare and submitted separately for blinded specialist GI pathologist review.

RESULTS

EMR was performed for 508 large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) (median size, 35 mm). In 10 PEDs (2.0%), an area of IME was identified and excised. Histopathologic examination of areas of suspected IME demonstrated muscularis mucosae in 9 of 10 (90%), residual lamina propria in 9 of 10 (90.0%), and residual adenoma in 5 of 10 (50.0%). No RRA was detected during follow-up after re-excision of IME.

CONCLUSIONS

We report the novel finding of IME within the PED after EMR of LNPCPs. IME may contain microscopic residual adenoma and therefore is a risk for RRA during follow-up. After completion of EMR, the PED should be carefully evaluated. If IME is found, it should be excised. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01368289 and NCT02000141.).

Early-onset Colorectal Cancer Patients Do Not Require Shorter Intervals for Post-surgical Surveillance Colonoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC), diagnosed before age 50, is rising in incidence worldwide. Although post-surgical colonoscopy surveillance strategies exist, appropriate intervals in EO-CRC remain elusive, as long-term surveillance outcomes remain scant. We sought to compare findings of surveillance colonoscopies of EO-CRC with patients with average onset colorectal cancer (AO-CRC) to help define surveillance outcomes in these groups.

METHODS

Single-institution retrospective chart review identified EO-CRC and AO-CRC patients with colonoscopy and no evidence of disease. Surveillance intervals and time to development of advanced neoplasia (CRC and advanced polyps [adenoma/sessile serrated]) were examined. For each group, 3 serial surveillance colonoscopies were evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed utilizing log-ranked Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards.

RESULTS

A total of 1259 patients with CRC were identified, with 612 and 647 patients in the EO-CRC and AO-CRC groups, respectively. Compared with patients with AO-CRC, patients with EO-CRC had a 29% decreased risk of developing advanced neoplasia from time of initial surgery to first surveillance colonoscopy (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.0). Average follow-up time from surgical resection to first surveillance colonoscopy was 12.6 months for both cohorts. Overall surveillance findings differed between cohorts (P = .003), and patients with EO-CRC were found to have less advanced neoplasia compared with their counterparts with AO-CRC (12.4% vs 16.0%, respectively). Subsequent colonoscopies found that, while patients with EO-CRC returned for follow-up surveillance colonoscopy earlier than patients with AO-CRC, the EO-CRC cohort did not have more advanced neoplasia nor non-advanced adenomas.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with EO-CRC do not have an increased risk of advanced neoplasia compared with patients with AO-CRC and therefore do not require more frequent colonoscopy surveillance than current guidelines recommend.

Evaluating the Safety and Quality of Diagnostic Colonoscopies Performed by General Surgeons: A Retrospective Study

Introduction Colonoscopy, which is a challenging procedure and requires adequate time to master the skill, is the procedure of choice to visualize colonic mucosa to rule out many colonic pathologies. There is a dearth of published information from real clinical experiences regarding successful procedures and limitations. The end point of colonoscopy is the visualization of the cecal pole by intubating the cecum. Many Europeans and English health organizations recommend that the procedure should have a completion rate of around or above 90%. Gut preparation is an important determinant for a successful procedure and obviates the need for further invasive and/or expensive procedures such as imaging. The majority of colonoscopies are being performed by gastroenterologists (GI) throughout the world, and the role of a surgeon as an endoscopist is in debate. Before this study, neither a retrospective nor a prospective evaluation of the general surgeon's (GS) endoscopy's quality and safety had been evaluated in our institution. Material and method This retrospective observational study was carried out from 1 January 2022 to 31 August 2022 in the Department of Surgery at Mayo Hospital, Lahore, to evaluate colonoscopy completion rates, reason for failure, and complications in terms of bleeding and perforation. All patients undergoing lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (LGiE), both elective and emergency, were included. Patients under 15 years of age and patients known to be hepatitis B-positive or hepatitis C-positive were excluded from the study. All relevant data were entered into a data sheet. Qualitative variables such as gender, cecal intubation, adjusted cecal intubation, gut preparation, reasons for failed colonoscopy, analgesia use, and complications (bleeding and perforation) were calculated as frequency and percentage. Quantitative data such as age and pain score were reported as mean and standard deviation (SD). Details obtained were tabulated and analyzed via the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 29.0 (IBM SPSS Statistics, Armonk, NY). Results A total of 57 patient data were collected; 35.1% (n=20) were female, and 64.9% (n=37) were males. The cecal intubation rate (CIR) was 49.1% (n=28), and the adjusted rate was 71.9%, excluding incompleteness due to mass obstructing lumen, 8.8% (n=5); planned left colonoscopy, 7% (n=4); sigmoidoscopy, 3.5% (n=2); distal stoma scope, 1.8% (n=1); and colonic stricture, 1.8% (n=1). The prevalent reason for failed colonoscopy was inadequate gut preparation (15.8% {n=9}). Other reasons include patient discomfort, 3.5% (n=2); looping of scope, 7% (n=4); and acute colonic angulation, 1.8% (n=1). No complications were recorded. Conclusion This study shows that colonoscopy can be done by general surgeons safely and effectively with adequate training. High rates of cecal intubation emerge during colonoscopies performed under deep sedation and by skilled colonoscopists. Adequate bowel preparatory regimen is compulsory for quality procedure.

Endoscopic treatment of early colorectal cancer

Early colorectal neoplasia is a localized precancerous lesion of the large intestine associated with negligible risk of lymphatic or systemic dissemination. Early neoplasia consists of adenoma with low- and high-grade dysplasia, intramucosal carcinoma and superficially invasive cancer without other high-risk features. In the majority of cases, early neoplastic lesions are detected by colonoscopy and treated by means of endoscopy resection replacing surgical treatment. Risk of invasive cancer should be stratified during diagnostic colonoscopy using morphological classifications and then, appropriate resection technique (endoscopic polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection or full-thickness resection) is used. Success of endoscopic resection is assessed by histological examination of the resected specimen and in some cases, additional surgical resection with lymphadenectomy should be performed. Colonoscopic surveillance is needed due to the risk of local recurrence and metachronous lesions.

Computed Tomography Colonography Versus Standard Optical Colonoscopy for the Detection of Colorectal Polyp in Patients Who Faced Curative Surgery for Colorectal Cancer: A Diagnostic Performance Study

Data regarding computed tomography colonography, standard optical colonoscopy, and enhanced colonoscopy/histopathology at 1-year after surgery and at 6-month intervals for the next 2 years of 345 patients who faced curative surgery for colorectal cancer were included in this analysis. Computed tomography colonography and standard optical colonoscopy both detected 298 polyps as suspicious. With reference to enhanced colonoscopy/histopathology, sensitivities for the detection of any polyps for computed tomography colonography and standard optical colonoscopy were 0.952 and 0.906, while, accuracies were 0.783 and 0.641, respectively. Computed tomography colonography may be a sensitive and accurate surveillance tool for colorectal cancer patients.

Bowel Preparation for Surveillance Colonoscopy After Colorectal Resection: A New Perspective

Purpose

Inadequate bowel preparation (IBP) is commonly observed during surveillance colonoscopy after colorectal resection. We investigated potential risk factors affecting bowel preparation.

Methods

We studied potential factors affecting bowel preparation quality. The Boston bowel preparation score was used to measure bowel preparation quality. Factors affecting IBP were analyzed, including age, body mass index, time elapsed between surgery and colonoscopy, and amount of bowel preparation drug consumed (conventional-volume vs. low-volume). Odds ratios were calculated for IBP.

Results

This retrospective cohort study included 1,317 patients who underwent colorectal resection due to malignancy. Of these patients, 79% had adequate bowel preparation and 21% had IBP. In multivariate regression analysis, a surveillance colonoscopy within 1 year after surgery and age >80 were used as independent predictors of IBP. IBP rate of the low-volume group was significantly higher than that of the conventional-volume group among patients who underwent a surveillance colonoscopy within 1 year after surgery.

Conclusion

For surveillance colonoscopy after colorectal resection, bowel preparation is affected by factors including colonoscopy timing after surgery and age. We recommend the use of conventional-volume 4-L polyethylene glycol solution when performing a surveillance colonoscopy, especially up to 1 year after surgery.

Standards of diagnostic colonoscopy for early-stage neoplasia: Recommendations by an Asian private group

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In recent years, the incidence of colorectal cancer has been increasing, and it is now becoming the major cause of cancer death in Asian countries. The aim of the present study was to develop Asian expert-based consensus to standardize the preparation, detection and characterization for the diagnosis of early-stage colorectal neoplasia.

METHODS

A professional group was formed by 36 experts of the Asian Novel Bio-Imaging and Intervention Group (ANBI² G) members. Representatives from 12 Asia-Pacific countries participated in the meeting. The group organized three consensus meetings focusing on diagnostic endoscopy for gastrointestinal neoplasia. The Delphi method was used to develop the consensus statements.

RESULTS

Through the three consensus meetings with debating, reviewing the literature and regional data, a consensus was reached at third meeting in 2016. The consensus was reached on a total of 10 statements. Summary of statements is as follows: (i) Adequate bowel preparation for high-quality colonoscopy; (ii) Antispasmodic agents for lesion detection; (iii) Image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) for polyp detection; (iv) Adenoma detection rate for quality indicators; (v) Good documentation of colonoscopy findings; (vi) Complication rates; (vii) Cecal intubation rate; (viii) Cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) for polyp detection; (ix) Macroscopic classification using indigocarmine spray for characterization of colorectal lesions; and (x) IEE and/or magnifying endoscopy for prediction of histology.

CONCLUSION

This consensus provides guidance for carrying out endoscopic diagnosis and characterization for early-stage colorectal neoplasia based on the evidence. This will enhance the quality of endoscopic diagnosis and improve detection of early-stage colorectal neoplasia.

Synchronous colorectal cancer using CT colonography vs. other means: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The objective of our study was to systematically review the evidence about synchronous colorectal cancer diagnosed with or without computed tomography colonography (CTC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two systematic searches were performed (PubMed and EMBASE) for studies reporting the prevalence of synchronous colorectal cancer (CRC): one considering patients who underwent CTC and the another one considering patients who did not undergo CTC. A three-level analysis was performed to determine the prevalence of patients with synchronous CRC in both groups of studies. Heterogeneity was explored for multiple variables. Pooled prevalence and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. A quality assessment (STROBE) was done for the studies.

RESULTS

For CTC studies, among 2645 articles initially found, 21 including 1673 patients, published from 1997 to 2018, met the inclusion criteria. For non-CTC studies, among 6192 articles initially found, 27 including 111,873 patients published from 1974 to 2015 met the inclusion criteria. The pooled synchronous CRC prevalence was 5.7% (95% CI 4.7%-7.1%) for CTC studies, and 3.9% (95% CI 3.3%-4.4%) for non-CTC studies, with a significant difference (p = 0.004). A low heterogeneity was found for the CTC group (I² = 10.3%), whereas a high heterogeneity was found in the non-CTC group of studies (I² = 93.5%), and no significant explanatory variables were found. Of the 22 STROBE items, a mean of 18 (82%) was fulfilled by CTC studies, and a mean of 16 (73%) by non-CTC studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of synchronous CRC was about 4-6%. The introduction of CTC is associated with a significant increase of the prevalence of synchronous CRCs.

Treatment effect of conversion therapy and its correlation with VEGF expression in unresectable rectal cancer with liver metastasis

To investigate the therapeutic effect of conversion therapy and its correlation with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) expression in unresectable rectal cancer with liver metastasis. A total of 116 cases of unresectable rectal cancer patients with liver metastasis were randomly divided into control and observation group, 58 cases in each group, all of these patients were treated by conversion therapy, patients in control were treated by FOLFOXIRI treatment program, and in observation group were treated by FOLFOXIRI program treatment and bevacizumab. Efficacy and adverse reactions were compared between the two groups, the levels of VEGF in portal vein and the expression of VEGF in cancer tissue were compared, after 5 years of follow-up, the prognosis of the two groups were observed. Objective efficiency and conversion rate of observation was significantly higher than the control group, survival rate of postoperative observation was significantly higher than that of control group (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in adverse reactions between the two groups (P>0.05). The positive rate of VEGF in portal vein blood and the expression of VEGF in the observation was significantly lower than that in the control group (P<0.05). The 5-year survival rate of VEGF high expression was significantly lower than that of VEGF low expression group (P<0.05). FOLFOXIRI combined with bevacizumab in patients with unresectable hepatic metastasis of rectal cancer can provide higher conversion rate and hepatectomy opportunities, and reduce VEGF expression in patients with unresectable rectal cancer, which is closely related to VEGF expression, therefore it is beneficial to better local control and to improve long-term survival.

Computed Tomography Colonography vs Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Surveillance After Surgery

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Recommendations for surveillance after curative surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) include a 1-year post-resection abdominal-pelvic computed tomography (CT) scan and optical colonoscopy (OC). CT colonography (CTC), when used in CRC screening, effectively identifies colorectal polyps ≥10 mm and cancers. We performed a prospective study to determine whether CTC, concurrent with CT, could substitute for OC in CRC surveillance.

METHODS

Our study enrolled 231 patients with resected stage 0-III CRC, identified at 5 tertiary care academic centers. Approximately 1 year after surgery, participants underwent outpatient CTC plus CT, followed by same-day OC. CTC results were revealed after endoscopic visualization of sequential colonic segments, which were re-examined for discordant findings. The primary outcome was performance of CTC in the detection of colorectal adenomas and cancers using endoscopy as the reference standard.

RESULTS

Of the 231 participants, 116 (50.2%) had polyps of any size or histology identified by OC, and 15.6% had conventional adenomas and/or serrated polyps ≥6 mm. No intra-luminal cancers were detected. CTC detected patients with polyps of ≥6 mm with 44.0% sensitivity (95% CI, 30.2-57.8) and 93.4% specificity (95% CI, 89.7-97.0). CTC detected polyps ≥10 mm with 76.9% sensitivity (95% CI, 54.0-99.8) and 89.0% specificity (95% CI, 84.8-93.1). Similar values were found when only adenomatous polyps were considered. The negative predictive value of CTC for adenomas ≥6 mm was 90.7% (95% CI, 86.7-94.5) and for adenomas ≥10 mm the negative predictive value was 98.6% (95% CI, 97.0-100).

CONCLUSIONS

In a CRC surveillance population 1 year following resection, CTC was inferior to OC for detecting patients with polyps ≥6 mm. Clinical Trials.gov Registration Number: NCT02143115.

Incidence and predictors of adenoma after surgery for colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

Patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) are at increased risk for developing metachronous premalignant and malignant lesions. However, its real incidence and underlying risk factors are still unclear, and therefore quality measures for colonoscopy under this indication have not been completely established. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of and risk factors for the development of adenomas after surgery for CRC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 535 patients submitted to curative surgery for CRC between January 2008 and December 2011 were selected and their clinical records and surveillance colonoscopies were reviewed.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 62 months, 39.4% of the patients developed adenomas, 17.6% advanced adenomas and 3.4% developed metachronous cancers. Male sex [adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=1.99; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29-3.07] was an independent risk factor for adenomas during follow-up and absence of a high-quality baseline colonoscopy was the only independent risk factor for advanced adenomas (AOR=1.78; 95% CI: 1.03-3.07) and metachronous cancer (AOR=7.05; 95% CI: 1.52-32.66). In patients who had undergone a high-quality colonoscopy at baseline and at the first follow-up, the presence of adenomas (odds ratio=12.30; 95% CI: 2.30-66.25) and advanced adenomas (odds ratio=10.50; 95% CI: 2.20-50.18) in the first follow-up colonoscopy was a risk factor for the development of metachronous advanced adenomas during the subsequent surveillance.

CONCLUSION

Undergoing a high-quality baseline colonoscopy is the most important factor for reducing the incidence of advanced lesions after CRC surgery. All patients remain at high-risk for adenomas and advanced adenomas, but standardized follow-up should be adjusted after the first year of follow-up.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document updates the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force of Colorectal Cancer (MSTF), which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. CRC screening tests are ranked in 3 tiers based on performance features, costs, and practical considerations. The first-tier tests are colonoscopy every 10 years and annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as the cornerstones of screening regardless of how screening is offered. Thus, in a sequential approach based on colonoscopy offered first, FIT should be offered to patients who decline colonoscopy. Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as tests of choice when multiple options are presented as alternatives. A risk-stratified approach is also appropriate, with FIT screening in populations with an estimated low prevalence of advanced neoplasia and colonoscopy screening in high prevalence populations. The second-tier tests include CT colonography every 5 years, the FIT-fecal DNA test every 3 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 to 10 years. These tests are appropriate screening tests, but each has disadvantages relative to the tier 1 tests. Because of limited evidence and current obstacles to use, capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is a third-tier test. We suggest that the Septin9 serum assay (Epigenomics, Seattle, Wash) not be used for screening. Screening should begin at age 50 years in average-risk persons, except in African Americans in whom limited evidence supports screening at 45 years. CRC incidence is rising in persons under age 50, and thorough diagnostic evaluation of young persons with suspected colorectal bleeding is recommended. Discontinuation of screening should be considered when persons up to date with screening, who have prior negative screening (particularly colonoscopy), reach age 75 or have <10 years of life expectancy. Persons without prior screening should be considered for screening up to age 85, depending on age and comorbidities. Persons with a family history of CRC or a documented advanced adenoma in a first-degree relative age <60 years or 2 first-degree relatives with these findings at any age are recommended to undergo screening by colonoscopy every 5 years, beginning 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40, whichever is earlier. Persons with a single first-degree relative diagnosed at ≥60 years with CRC or an advanced adenoma can be offered average-risk screening options beginning at age 40 years.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

This document updates the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force of Colorectal Cancer (MSTF), which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. CRC screening tests are ranked in 3 tiers based on performance features, costs, and practical considerations. The first-tier tests are colonoscopy every 10 years and annual fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as the cornerstones of screening regardless of how screening is offered. Thus, in a sequential approach based on colonoscopy offered first, FIT should be offered to patients who decline colonoscopy. Colonoscopy and FIT are recommended as tests of choice when multiple options are presented as alternatives. A risk-stratified approach is also appropriate, with FIT screening in populations with an estimated low prevalence of advanced neoplasia and colonoscopy screening in high prevalence populations. The second-tier tests include CT colonography every 5 years, the FIT-fecal DNA test every 3 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 to 10 years. These tests are appropriate screening tests, but each has disadvantages relative to the tier 1 tests. Because of limited evidence and current obstacles to use, capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is a third-tier test. We suggest that the Septin9 serum assay (Epigenomics, Seattle, Wash) not be used for screening. Screening should begin at age 50 years in average-risk persons, except in African Americans in whom limited evidence supports screening at 45 years. CRC incidence is rising in persons under age 50, and thorough diagnostic evaluation of young persons with suspected colorectal bleeding is recommended. Discontinuation of screening should be considered when persons up to date with screening, who have prior negative screening (particularly colonoscopy), reach age 75 or have <10 years of life expectancy. Persons without prior screening should be considered for screening up to age 85, depending on age and comorbidities. Persons with a family history of CRC or a documented advanced adenoma in a first-degree relative age <60 years or 2 first-degree relatives with these findings at any age are recommended to undergo screening by colonoscopy every 5 years, beginning 10 years before the age at diagnosis of the youngest affected relative or age 40, whichever is earlier. Persons with a single first-degree relative diagnosed at ≥60 years with CRC or an advanced adenoma can be offered average-risk screening options beginning at age 40 years.