Adverse events of endoscopic full-thickness resection: results from the German and Dutch nationwide colorectal FTRD registry

Risk of Lymph Node Metastasis in T2 Colon Cancer: A Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Similar to T1 colon cancer (CC), risk stratification may guide T2 CC treatment and reduce unnecessary major surgery. In this study, prediction models were developed that could identify T2 CC patients with a lower risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM) for whom (intensive) follow-up after local treatment could be considered.

METHODS

A nationwide cohort study was performed involving pT2 CC patients who underwent surgery between 2012 and 2020, using data from the Dutch ColoRectal Audit, which were linked to the Nationwide Pathology Databank. Four machine learning models were evaluated to predict LNM.

RESULTS

LNMs were found in 1877/9803 patients (19.1%). Independent risk factors included (younger) age (odds ratio [OR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.979-0.990), left-sided CC (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.4-1.7), poor differentiation (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.4-2.2), and lymphovascular invasion (LVI; OR 4.1, 95% CI 3.6-4.7). A deficient mismatch repair (MMR) status significantly lowered the risk of LNM (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.5). The general linear model demonstrated the highest prediction accuracy, achieving area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of 0.67 and 0.68, with good calibration. In the absence of risk factors, elderly patients (≥74 years of age) had a predicted risk of LNM of 10.7%, yet up to 30% experienced postoperative complications, with mortality rates reaching up to 3.5%. Patients with a deficient MMR status had a predicted risk of LNM of 6.1% if LVI was absent and the tumor was well-differentiated.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of LNM should be weighed against surgical risks. The findings of this study will enable clinicians to make more deliberate considerations about these competing risks before making a shared decision.

The Outcome of Colonoscopy-Assisted Laparoscopic Wedge Resections (CAL-WR) for Colon Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Local excision is gaining acceptance as standard treatment for T1 colon cancer (CC); however, not all patients are eligible for endoscopic resection. Colonoscopy-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection (CAL-WR) is a relatively new technique that could fill the gap between endoscopic resection and major surgery. The aim of this study was to analyze the oncological safety of CAL-WR for CC.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed, including patients that underwent CAL-WR for CC. Exclusion criteria were double tumors, <1 year follow-up, previous other colorectal malignancy, inflammatory bowel disease or synchronous metastases. The primary outcome was disease recurrence and the secondary outcome was overall survival.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients were included; 35 patients were diagnosed with T1 CC. CAL-WR was radical (R0) for all T1 CC in 94.3% and 94.7% for tumors with deep submucosal invasion (sm2-3 Kikuchi). The mean follow-up was 3.3 years (Q1: 2.0; Q3: 4.3) for disease recurrence and 4.2 years (Q1: 2.8; Q3: 5.2) for overall survival. None of the patients with T1 CC had disease recurrence or died due to their malignancy. There were 14 patients with a T2 and 4 patients with a T3 CC, 17/18 patients underwent completion surgery. Three patients with T2 and one with T3 CC developed a locoregional recurrence (peritoneal). One patient with T3 CC developed lung metastases. Two patients with T3 and one with T2 CC died due to their malignancy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that CAL-WR is oncologically safe as treatment for T1 CC. The safety of incidental CAL-WR for >T1 CC, followed by completion surgery, remains unclear. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate these results.

Success and safety of conventional endoscopic resection techniques for previously partially resected colorectal polyps at a tertiary referral center

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Partial resection of colon polyps induces submucosal fibrosis, making subsequent resection attempts more difficult. Some consider that partially resected lesions require specialized techniques such as endoscopic submucosal dissection, full-thickness resection, or surgery. We investigated whether traditional endoscopic resection methods were safe and effective.

METHODS

We report results of endoscopic resection of previously partially resected colorectal polyps by means of conventional resection methods (snare resection with or without injection and/or avulsion) and compare outcomes with lesions without previous partial resection. This is a retrospectively evaluated assessment of a prospectively collected database at a single tertiary academic center.

RESULTS

From August 12, 2019, to May 14, 2024, 1101 referred colorectal lesions underwent conventional resection and at least 1 surveillance colonoscopy. The last follow-up colonoscopy included in the study was performed on July 19, 2024. Out of the 1101 lesions, 220 had previous partial resection by means of snare, hot biopsy forceps, or surgical transanal excision. All of these 220 lesions were successfully resected with the use of conventional methods, and recurrence rates at first follow-up (8.2%) were similar to lesions without previous resection (7.8%; P = .889), as was the perforation rate (0.5% vs 0.3%). Compared with lesions with no previous resection, previously partially resected lesions were more often resected by means of electrocautery (94.1% vs 64.2%; P < .001), and required the cap technique (36.4% v. 17.4%; P < .001) and avulsion (65.5% v 28.8%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

While specialized resection techniques are increasingly advocated to manage fibrotic colorectal lesions, we demonstrate conclusively that experts can successfully and safely manage previously partially resected colorectal lesions with the use of conventional techniques.

Endoscopic Full Thickness Resection Device (FTRD®) for the Management of Gastrointestinal Lesions: Current Evidence and Future Perspectives

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) has emerged as a transformative technique for managing gastrointestinal (GI) lesions, previously deemed unsuitable for endoscopic removal. Unlike conventional endoscopic resection methods, such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), EFTR enables en bloc excision of both intraluminal and subepithelial lesions by resecting all layers of the GI wall, followed by defect closure to prevent complications. The introduction of the full-thickness resection device (FTRD®) has significantly enhanced the feasibility and safety of EFTR, particularly in the colon and upper GI tract, with increasing adoption worldwide. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of FTRD®, focusing on its clinical applications, procedural methodology, and comparative efficacy against other endoscopic resection techniques. The indications and contraindications for EFTR are explored, highlighting its utility in treating non-lifting adenomas, subepithelial tumours, and T1 carcinomas without lymph node involvement. This review synthesizes current clinical data and FTRD® advantages. Despite its strengths, EFTR via FTRD® incorporates challenges such as limitations in lesion size, procedural complexity, and potential adverse events. Strategies for overcoming these challenges, including hybrid techniques and modifications in procedural approach, are examined. The review also emphasizes the need for further research to optimize surveillance strategies and determine the long-term clinical impact of EFTR in GI lesion management. By integrating recent evidence, this paper provides valuable insights into the evolving role of EFTR in therapeutic endoscopy.

Endoscopic mucosal resection with an over-the-scope clip for colorectal tumors (with video)

Background

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection may result in complications or may be unsuitable for tumors that are difficult to treat endoscopically. We investigated the usefulness of a newly developed endoscopic resection technique-EMR with an over-the-scope clip (EMR-O)-for difficult-to-treat lesions.

Method

We retrospectively examined patients who underwent EMR-O for colorectal tumors between September 2017 and January 2024. Patient and lesion characteristics, technical success rates, en bloc resection rates, R0 resection rates, procedure time, histopathology, and the clinical course were evaluated.

Results

EMR-O was performed for 18 patients. Indications for EMR-O included residual or recurrent lesions (seven patients; 38.9%), diverticulum lesions (five patients; 27.8%), appendiceal orifice lesions (three patients; 16.7%), T1 cancers (two patients; 11.1%), and subepithelial tumors (one patient; 5.5%). The median lesion size was 11 mm. The rates of technical success, en bloc resection, and R0 resection were 100%, 86.7%, and 86.7%. The median procedure time was 10 min. The only adverse event was diverticulitis (one patient; 5.5%). Intraoperative and delayed perforation and bleeding were not observed. The pathological resection depths were full-thickness for three patients (16.7%), muscularis resection for four patients (22.2%), and deep submucosal resection for 11 patients (61.1%).

Conclusion

Although EMR-O is limited by the target lesion size, it shortens the procedure time, prevents perforation, and avoids the need for surgery. EMR-O may be a minimally invasive treatment option for small lesions that are difficult to treat endoscopically.

Meta-Analysis of Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection Versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Complex Colorectal Lesions

BACKGROUND

Studies evaluating endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for complex colorectal lesions have shown variable results. We conducted a meta-analysis of the available data.

METHODS

Online databases were searched for studies comparing EFTR versus ESD for complex colorectal lesions. The outcomes of interest were resection rates, procedure time (min), and complications. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) along with 95% CI were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 4 studies with 530 patients (n=215 EFTR, n=315 ESD) were included. The mean follow-up duration was 5 months. The mean age of the patients was 68 years and 64% were men. The EFTR and ESD groups had similar rates of en bloc resection (OR: 1.73, 95% CI: 0.60-4.97, P =0.31) and R0 resection (OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 0.55-4.14, P =0.42). The EFTR group had significantly reduced procedure time (SMD -1.87, 95% CI: -3.13 to -0.61, P =0.004), total complications (OR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.13-0.44, P <0.00001), perforation (OR: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.03-0.39, P =0.0005) and postresection electrocoagulation syndrome (OR: 0.06, 95% CI: 0.01-0.48, P =0.008). Delayed bleeding was similar in the 2 groups (OR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.30-2.12, P =0.66). Residual/recurrent lesions were significantly higher in the EFTR group (OR: 4.67, 95% CI: 1.39-15.66, P =0.01).

DISCUSSION

This meta-analysis of small studies with high heterogeneity showed that EFTR and ESD have comparable resection rates for complex colorectal lesions. EFTR is faster and has fewer complications, but it increases residual or recurrent lesions.

Endoscopic management of colonic perforations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We will review the current management of colonic perforations, with particular emphasis on iatrogenic perforations caused by colonoscopy, the leading etiology. We will focus on recently developed endoscopic techniques and technologies that obviate morbid emergency surgery (the standard management approach in years past).

RECENT FINDINGS

Colonic perforations are rare but potentially fatal complications of both diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy resulting in death in approximately 5% of cases with the mortality increasing with delay in diagnosis and treatment. As novel endoscopic techniques and tools have flourished in recent years, our approach to management of these perforations has evolved. With the availability of newer tools such as over the scope clips, enhanced through the scope clips and novel endoscopic suturing devices, colonic perforations can be managed effectively in many or most patients without the morbidity of surgical interventions.

SUMMARY

With expanding use of colonoscopy, inadvertent outcomes such as perforations are bound to increase as well. Early diagnosis permits minimally invasive, nonsurgical, endoscopic management in most cases if the expertise and tools are available. Centers with high colonoscopy volumes including therapeutic procedures would be well served to invest in the requisite technologies and expertise.

Technical failure during colorectal endoscopic full-thickness resection: the "through thick and thin" study

BACKGROUND

 Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is an effective and safe technique for nonlifting colorectal lesions. Technical issues or failures with the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) system are reported, but there are no detailed data. The aim of our study was to quantify and classify FTRD technical failures.

METHODS

 We performed a retrospective study involving 17 Italian centers with experience in advanced resection techniques and the required devices. Each center shared and classified all prospectively collected consecutive failures during colorectal EFTR using the FTRD from 2018 to 2022. The primary outcome was the technical failure rate and their classification; secondary outcomes included subsequent management, clinical success, and complications.

RESULTS

 Included lesions were mainly recurrent (52 %), with a mean (SD) dimension of 18.4 (7.5) mm. Among 750 EFTRs, failures occurred in 77 patients (35 women; mean [SD] age 69.4 [8.9] years). A classification was proposed: type I, snare noncutting (53 %); type II, clip misdeployment (31 %); and type III, cap misplacement (16 %). Among endoscopic treatments completed, rescue endoscopic mucosal resection was performed in 57 patients (74 %), allowing en bloc and R0 resection in 71 % and 64 %, respectively. The overall adverse event rate was 27.3 %. Pooled estimates for the rates of failure, complications, and rescue endoscopic therapy were similar for low and high volume centers (P = 0.08, P = 0.70, and P = 0.71, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

 Colorectal EFTR with the FTRD is a challenging technique with a non-negligible rate of technical failure and complications. Experience in rescue resection techniques and multidisciplinary management are mandatory in this setting.

Colorectal Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection: A Portuguese Multicenter Experience Based on a Retrospective Cohort

Introduction: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a minimally invasive endoscopic technique that allows the resection of complex colorectal lesions, such as non-lifting, peri-appendicular, peri-diverticula, and subepithelial lesions. Published data suggest that EFTR has a technical success and R0 resection rates of 89 and 79%, respectively, and an adverse event rate of 12%. This study summarizes the EFTR experience in nine Portuguese centers with regard to its efficacy and safety. Methods: This was a multicenter uncontrolled retrospective study, including 129 colorectal EFTRs between March 2017 and September 2023. The main outcomes were procedural and technical success, R0 resection, curative resection, adverse events, and recurrence rate. Results: 129 EFTR procedures were conducted, with a technical success rate of 88.4% (114/129). Most lesions were in the right colon, with a median resection size of 25 [10–45] mm. R0 and curative resection rates were 75.9% (85/112) and 58.0% (65/112), respectively. Adverse events occurred in 13.2% (17/129) of patients, mostly due to immediate perforation, appendicitis, or delayed bleeding, needing surgery in 5.4% (7/129). Local recurrence occurred in 5.4% (5/92) of resections. Conclusion: This real-life multicenter study highlights the utility of colorectal EFTR for management of complex and carefully chosen lesions, with an acceptable adverse events rate and need for surgery.

Selection of endoscopic resection technique for large colorectal lesion treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥ 20 mm (LNPCPs) comprise 1% of all colorectal lesions. LNPCPs are more likely to contain advanced histology such as high-grade dysplasia and submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC). Endoscopic resection is the first-line approach for management of these lesions. Endoscopic resection options include endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), cold-snare EMR (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR). This review aimed to critically evaluate current endoscopic resection techniques.

RECENT FINDINGS

Evidence-based selective resection algorithms should inform the most appropriate endoscopic resection technique. Most LNPCPs are removed by conventional EMR but there has been a trend toward C-EMR for endoscopic resection of LNPCPs. More high-quality trials are required to better define the limitations of C-EMR. Advances in our understanding of ESD technique, has clarified its role within the colorectum. More recently, the development of a full thickness resection device (FTRD) has allowed the curative endoscopic resection of select lesions.

SUMMARY

Endoscopic resection should be regarded as the principle approach for all LNPCPs. Underpinned by high-quality research, endoscopic resection has become more nuanced, leading to improved patient outcomes.

Combined endoscopic mucosal resection and full-thickness resection for large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Combined endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with endoscopic Full thickness resection (EFTR) is an emerging technique that has been developed to target colorectal polyps larger than 2 cm. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate this technique for the resection of large colorectal lesions.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases from inception through August 2023, to identify studies that reported on hybrid FTR. A random-effects model was employed to calculate the overall pooled technical success, macroscopic complete resection, free vertical margins resection rate, adverse events, and recurrence on follow up.

RESULTS

A total of 8 Study arms with 244 patients (30% women) were included in the analysis. The pooled technical success rate was 97% (95% CI 88%-100%, I2 = 79.93%). The pooled rate of macroscopic complete resection was achieved in 95% (95% CI 90%-99%, I2 = 49.98) with a free vertical margins resection rate 88% (95% CI, 78%-96%, I2 = 63.32). The overall adverse events rate was 2% (95% CI 0%-5%, I2 = 11.64) and recurrence rate of 6% (95% CI 2%-12%, I2=20.32).

CONCLUSION

Combined EMR with EFTR is effective and safe for resecting large, and complex colorectal adenomas, offering a good alternative for high surgical risk patients. Regional heterogeneity was observed, indicating that outcomes may be impacted by differences in operator expertise and industry training certification across regions. Comparative studies that directly compare combined EMR with EFTR against alternative methods such as ESD and surgical resection are needed.

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.

Colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection for colonic neoplasms: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The current literature describes a variety of techniques detailed under the name of combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery (CELS) procedures. This systematic review of literature assessed the outcomes of colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic-wedge resection (CAL-WR) in particular to evaluate its feasibility to remove colonic lesions that do not qualify for endoscopic resection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane) were searched for studies evaluating CAL-WR for the treatment of colonic lesions. Studies with missing full text, language other than English, systematic reviews, and studies with fewer than ten patients were excluded. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Out of 68 results, duplicate studies (n = 27) as well as studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria (n = 32) were removed. Nine studies were included, encompassing 326 patients who underwent a CAL-WR of the colon. The technical success rate varied from 93 to 100%, with an R0 resection rate of 91-100%. Morbidity ranged from 6% to 20%. The quality of the included studies was rated as low to moderate and contained heterogeneous terminology, methodology, and outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient high-quality data and substantial variation in outcome measures to draw firm conclusions regarding the value of CAL-WR. Although CAL-WR is a promising local resection technique for endoscopically unremovable neoplasms of the colon, further investigation of this technique in well-designed prospective, multicenter studies with predefined outcome measures is required.Trial registration: A protocol for this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO with the number CRD42023407966.

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.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of a solitary ovarian carcinoma colorectal metastasis

A woman in her 70s with a medical history of recurrent ovarian carcinoma was referred to the gastroenterologist because of rectal blood loss. Colonoscopy revealed a spontaneously bleeding lesion, which was not a typical colorectal carcinoma by optical diagnosis. Biopsies confirmed the diagnosis of recurrence of the former ovarian carcinoma. The patient was not eligible for surgical resection due to former abdominal surgery and she declined chemotherapy due to severe side effects earlier. After a multidisciplinary team consultation, she was treated with endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR). This is a minimally invasive resection technique for removal of challenging colorectal lesions. The patient has recovered well and 2 years after the metastasis resection with eFTR there still have been no signs of recurrent malignancy.

Management of non-curative endoscopic resection of T1 colon cancer

Endoscopic resection techniques enable en-bloc resection of T1 colon cancers. A complete removal of T1 colon cancer can be considered curative when histologic examination of the specimens shows none of the high-risk factors for lymph nodes metastases. Criteria predicting lymph nodes metastases include deep submucosal invasion, poor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, and high-grade tumor budding. In these cases, complete (R0), local endoscopic resection is considered sufficient as negligible risk of lymph nodes metastases does not outweigh morbidity and mortality associated with surgical resection. Challenges arise when endoscopic resection is incomplete (RX/R1) or high-risk histological features are present. The risk of lymph node metastasis in T1 CRC ranges from 1% to 36.4%, depending on histologic risk factors. Presence of any risk factor labels the patient "high risk," warranting oncologic surgery with mesocolic lymphadenectomy. However, even if 70%-80% of T1-CRC patients are classified as high-risk, more than 90% are without lymph node involvement after oncological surgery. Surgical overtreatment in T1 CRC is a challenge, requiring a balance between oncologic safety and minimizing morbidity/mortality. This narrative review explores the landscape of managing non-curative T1 colon cancer, focusing on the choice between advanced endoscopic resection techniques and surgical interventions. We discuss surveillance strategies and shared decision-making, emphasizing the importance of a multidisciplinary approach.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection for the Management of Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Lesions: Commentary

DESCRIPTION

Subepithelial lesions of the gastrointestinal tract are not encountered uncommonly during routine endoscopy. There has been remarkable progress in the development of endoscopic options for the resection of subepithelial lesions, including full-thickness resection. The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Clinical Practice Update (CPU) is to describe the various techniques for endoscopic full-thickness resection and to facilitate their appropriate application in the management of subepithelial lesions.

METHODS

This CPU was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection vs. endoscopic submucosal dissection of residual/recurrent colonic lesions on scars: a retrospective Italian and Japanese comparative study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic treatment of recurrent/residual colonic lesions on scars is a challenging procedure. In this setting, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is considered the first choice, despite a significant rate of complications. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) has been shown to be well-tolerated and effective for these lesions. The aim of this study is to conduct a comparison of outcomes for resection of such lesions between ESD and eFTR in an Italian and a Japanese referral center.

METHODS

From January 2018 to July 2020, we retrospectively enrolled patients with residual/recurrent colonic lesions, 20 treated by eFTR in Italy and 43 treated by ESD in Japan. The primary outcome was to compare the two techniques in terms of en-bloc and R0-resection rates, whereas complications, time of procedure, and outcomes at 3-month follow-up were evaluated as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

R0 resection rate was not significantly different between the two groups [18/20 (90%) and 41/43 (95%); P= 0.66]. En-bloc resection was 100% in both groups. No significant difference was found in the procedure time (54 min vs. 61 min; P= 0.9). There was a higher perforation rate in the ESD group [11/43 (26%) vs. 0/20 (0%); P= 0.01]. At the 3-month follow-up, two lesions relapsed in the eFTR cohort and none in the ESD cohort (P= 0.1).

CONCLUSION

eFTR is a safer, as effective and equally time-consuming technique compared with ESD for the treatment of residual/recurrent colonic lesions on scars and could become an alternative therapeutic option for such lesions.

Colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection versus segmental colon resection for benign colonic polyps: a comparative cost analysis

AIM

The colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection (CAL-WR) is proven to be an effective and safe alternative to a segmental colon resection (SCR) for large or complex benign colonic polyps that are not eligible for endoscopic removal. This analysis aimed to evaluate the costs of CAL-WR and compare them to the costs of an SCR.

METHOD

A single-centre 90-day 'in-hospital' comparative cost analysis was performed on patients undergoing CAL-WR or SCR for complex benign polyps between 2016 and 2020. The CAL-WR group consisted of 44 patients who participated in a prospective multicentre study (LIMERIC study). Inclusion criteria were (1) endoscopically unresectable benign polyps; (2) residual or recurrence after previous polypectomy; or (3) irradically resected low risk pT1 colon carcinoma. The comparison group, which was retrospectively identified, included 32 patients who underwent an elective SCR in the same period.

RESULTS

Colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection was associated with significantly fewer complications (7% in the CAL-WR group vs. 45% in the SCR group, P < 0.001), shorter operation time (50 min in the CAL-WR group vs. 119 min in the SCR group, P < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (median length of stay 2 days in the CAL-WR group vs. 4 days in the SCR group, P < 0.001) and less use of surgical resources (reduction in costs of 32% per patient), resulting in a cost savings of €2372 (£2099 GBP) per patient (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Given the clinical and financial benefits, CAL-WR should be recommended for complex benign polyps that are not eligible for endoscopic resection before major surgery is considered.

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.

Efficacy and safety of combined EMR and endoscopic full-thickness resection (hybrid EFTR) for large nonlifting colorectal adenomas

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) with a full-thickness resection device (FTRD) has become the standard technique for selected nonlifting colorectal adenomas, but tumor size is the major limitation. However, large lesions might be approached in combination with EMR. Herein, we report the largest single-center experience to date of combined EMR and EFTR (hybrid EFTR) in patients with large (≥25 mm) nonlifting colorectal adenomas not amenable to EMR or EFTR alone.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent hybrid EFTR of large (≥25 mm) nonlifting colorectal adenomas. Outcomes of technical success (successful advancement of the FTRD with consecutive successful clip deployment and snare resection), macroscopic complete resection, adverse events, and endoscopic follow-up were evaluated.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients with nonlifting colorectal adenomas were included. Mean lesion size was 36.5 mm (range, 25-60 mm), and 66.6% were located in the right side of the colon. Technical success was 100% with macroscopic complete resection in 97.3%. Mean procedure time was 83.6 minutes. Adverse events occurred in 6.7%, leading to surgical therapy in 1.3%. Histology revealed T1 carcinoma in 16%. Endoscopic follow-up was available in 93.3% (mean follow-up time, 8.1 months; range, 3-36) and showed no signs of residual or recurrent adenoma in 88.6%. Recurrence (11.4%) was treated endoscopically.

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid EFTR is safe and effective for advanced colorectal adenoma that cannot be approached by EMR or EFTR alone. Hybrid EFTR expands the indication of EFTR substantially in selected patients.

[Interventional endoscopy in gastroenterology]

Essential innovations in interventional endoscopy have significantly broadened the treatment armamentarium in gastroenterology. The treatment and complication management of intraepithelial neoplasms and early forms of cancer are increasingly being primarily addressed endoscopically. In cases of endoluminal lesions with no risk of lymph node or distant metastases, endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection have become established as standards. For broad-based adenomas, coagulation of the resection margins should be performed in the case of a piecemeal resection. Submucosal lesions can be reached and resected by tunneling techniques. Peroral endoscopic myotomy in cases of achalasia is a new treatment option for hypertensive and hypercontractile motility disorders. In addition, endoscopic myotomy for gastroparesis has shown very promising results. In this article, new resection techniques and so-called third space endoscopy are presented and critically discussed.