Advanced polypectomy and resection techniques

Current Trends in the Management of a Complex Polyp: Endoscopy versus Surgery

Many colorectal cancers arise from either adenomatous polyps or sessile serrated lesions. However, due to the implementation of screening guidelines at the age of 45 years and the ability to perform therapeutic endoscopic polyp resections, the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer has been decreasing in the United States. Polyps can be distinguished not only by pathology, but characterized by their complexity depending on the size, location, and morphology. Historically, polyps that were endoscopically more challenging to resect were referred for surgical resection. However, due to rapid advancement in endoscopic techniques and availability of tools, many of these complex polyps can be safely and effectively resected endoscopically. In this section, we review the different methods and potential challenges associated with endoscopic resection techniques including endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, or endoscopic full-thickness resection of a complex polyp.

Endoscopic approach to large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps

Large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm (LNPCPs) constitute approximately 1% of all colorectal polyps and present a spectrum of risks, including overt and covert submucosal invasive cancer (T1 colorectal cancer (CRC)). Importantly, a curative resection may be achieved for LNPCPs with superficial T1 CRC (T1a or T1b <1000 µm into submucosa), if an enbloc R0 excision (clear margins) with favourable histology is achieved (ie, absence of high-grade tumour budding, lympho-vascular invasion, and poor differentiation). Thus, while consensus recommendations advocate for endoscopic resection as the primary treatment option for LNPCPs, thorough optical assessment is imperative for selecting the most suitable ER strategy. In this review, we highlight the critical components of optical evaluation that assist in predicting the risk of T1 CRC, including morphology (Paris and LST classifications), surface pit/vascular pattern (JNET and Kudo classifications), and lesion location. Different resection modalities, including endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection are discussed, along with important considerations that may influence the resection strategy of choice, such as access to the LNPCP and submucosal fibrosis.

Impact of margin thermal ablation after endoscopic mucosal resection of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colonic polyps on long-term recurrence

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The efficacy of colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is limited by recurrence and the necessity for conservative surveillance. Margin thermal ablation (MTA) after EMR has reduced the incidence of recurrence at the first surveillance colonoscopy at 6 months (SC1). Whether this effect is durable to second surveillance colonoscopy (SC2) is unknown. We evaluated long-term surveillance outcomes in a cohort of LNPCPs that have undergone MTA.

METHODS

LNPCPs undergoing EMR and MTA from four academic endoscopy centres were prospectively recruited. EMR scars were evaluated at SC1 and in the absence of recurrence, SC2 colonoscopy was conducted in a further 12 months. A historical control arm was generated from LNPCPs that underwent EMR without MTA. The primary outcome was recurrence at SC2 in all LNPCPs with a recurrence-free scar at SC1.

RESULTS

1152 LNPCPs underwent EMR with complete MTA over 90 months until October 2022. 854 LNPCPs underwent SC1 with 29/854 (3.4%) LNPCPs demonstrating recurrence. 472 LNPCPs free of recurrence at SC1 underwent SC2. 260 LNPCPs with complete SC2 follow-up formed the control arm from January 2012 to May 2016. Recurrence at SC2 was significantly less in the MTA arm versus controls (1/472 (0.2%) vs 9/260 (3.5%); p<0.001)).

CONCLUSION

LNPCPs that have undergone successful EMR with MTA and are free of recurrence at SC1 are unlikely to develop recurrence in subsequent surveillance out to 2 years. Provided the colon is cleared of synchronous neoplasia, the next surveillance can be potentially extended to 3-5 years. Such an approach would reduce costs and enhance patient compliance.

Cold versus hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection for large (≥15 mm) flat non-pedunculated colorectal polyps: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Conventional hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (H-EMR) is effective for the management of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colon polyps (LNPCPs) however, electrocautery-related complications may incur significant morbidity. With a superior safety profile, cold snare EMR (C-EMR) of LNPCPs is an attractive alternative however evidence is lacking. We conducted a randomised trial to compare the efficacy and safety of C-EMR to H-EMR.

METHODS

Flat, 15-50 mm adenomatous LNPCPs were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to C-EMR or H-EMR with margin thermal ablation at a single tertiary centre. The primary outcome was endoscopically visible and/or histologically confirmed recurrence at 6 months surveillance colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB), delayed perforation and technical success.

RESULTS

177 LNPCPs in 177 patients were randomised to C-EMR arm (n=87) or H-EMR (n=90). Treatment groups were equivalent for technical success 86/87 (98.9%) C-EMR versus H-EMR 90/90 (100%); p=0.31. Recurrence was significantly greater in C-EMR (16/87, 18.4% vs 1/90, 1.1%; relative risk (RR) 16.6, 95% CI 2.24 to 122; p<0.001).Delayed perforation (1/90 (1.1%) vs 0; p=0.32) only occurred in the H-EMR group. CSPEB was significantly greater in the H-EMR arm (7/90 (7.8%) vs 1/87 (1.1%); RR 6.77, 95% CI 0.85 to 53.9; p=0.034).

CONCLUSION

Compared with H-EMR, C-EMR for flat, adenomatous LNPCPs, demonstrates superior safety with equivalent technical success. However, endoscopic recurrence is significantly greater for cold snare resection and is currently a limitation of the technique.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04138030.

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.

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.

Safety and efficacy of physician-administered balanced-sedation for the endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps

Background and study aims Because of concerns about peri-procedural adverse events (AEs), guidelines recommend anesthetist-managed sedation (AMS) for long and complex endoscopic procedures. The safety and efficacy of physician-administered balanced sedation (PA-BS) for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) ≥20 mm is unknown. Patients and methods We compared PA-BS with AMS in a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients referred for management of LNPCPs (NCT01368289; NCT02000141). A per-patient propensity analysis was performed following a 1:2 nearest-neighbor (Greedy-type) match, based on age, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, and lesion size. The primary outcome was any peri-procedural AE, which included hypotension, hypertension, tachycardia, bradycardia, hypoxia, and new arrhythmia. Secondary outcomes were unplanned admissions, 28-day re-presentation, technical success, and recurrence. Results Between January 2016 and June 2020, 700 patients underwent EMR for LNPCPs, of whom 638 received PA-BS. Among them, the median age was 70 years (interquartile range [IQR] 62-76 years), size 35 mm (IQR 25-45 mm), and duration 35 minutes (IQR 25-60 minutes). Peri-procedural AEs occurred in 149 (23.4%), most commonly bradycardia (116; 18.2%). Only five (0.8%) required an unplanned sedation-related admission due to AEs (2 hypotension, 1 arrhythmia, 1 bradycardia, 1 hypoxia), with a median inpatient stay of 1 day (IQR 1-3 days). After propensity-score matching, there were no differences between PA-BS and AMS in peri-procedural AEs, unplanned admissions, 28-day re-presentation rates, technical success or recurrence. Conclusions Physician-administered balanced sedation for the EMR of LNPCPs is safe. Peri-procedural AEs are infrequent, transient, rarely require admission (<1%), and are experienced in similar frequencies to those receiving anesthetist-managed sedation.

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 %.

Using of endoscopic polypectomy in patients with diagnosed malignant colorectal polyp - The cross-sectional clinical study

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic polypectomy as a therapeutic treatment for malignant alteration of colorectal polyps. In a 5-year research, 89 patients were included, who were tested and treated at the University Clinical Center Kragujevac, Kragujevac, Serbia, with the confirmed presence of malignant alteration polyps of the colon by colonoscopy, which were removed using the method of endoscopic polypectomy and confirmed by the histopathological examination of the entire polyp. After that, the same group of patients was monitored endoscopically within a certain period, controlling polypectomy locations and the occurrence of a possible remnant of the polyp, in the period of up to 2 years of polypectomy. We observed that, with an increasing size of polyps, there is also an increase in the percentage of the complexity of endoscopic resection and the appearance of remnant with histological characteristics of the invasive cancer. The highest percentage of incomplete endoscopic resection and the appearance of remnant with histological characteristics of the invasive cancer were shown at malignant altered polyps in the field of tubulovillous adenoma. Eighteen patients in total underwent the surgical intervention. In conclusion, our data support the high efficacy of endoscopic polypectomy for the removal of the altered malignant polyp.

Curriculum for training in endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the standard of care for the complete removal of large (≥ 10 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs). Increased detection of LNPCPs owing to screening colonoscopy, plus high observed rates of incomplete resection and need for surgery call for a standardized approach to training in EMR. 1 : Trainees in EMR should have achieved basic competence in diagnostic colonoscopy, < 10-mm polypectomy, pedunculated polypectomy, and common methods of gastrointestinal endoscopic hemostasis. The role of formal training courses is emphasized. Training may then commence in vivo under the direct supervision of a trainer. 2 : Endoscopy units training endoscopists in EMR should have specific processes in place to support and facilitate training. 3: A trained EMR practitioner should have mastered theoretical knowledge including how to assess an LNPCP for risk of submucosal invasion, how to interpret the potential difficulty of a particular EMR procedure, how to decide whether to remove a particular LNPCP en bloc or piecemeal, whether the risks of electrosurgical energy can be avoided for a particular LNPCP, the different devices required for EMR, management of adverse events, and interpretation of reports provided by histopathologists. 4: Trained EMR practitioners should be familiar with the patient consent process for EMR. 5: The development of endoscopic non-technical skills (ENTS) and team interaction are important for trainees in EMR. 6: Differences in recommended technique exist between EMR performed with and without electrosurgical energy. Common to both is a standardized technique based upon dynamic injection, controlled and precise snare placement, safety checks prior to the application of tissue transection (cold snare) or electrosurgical energy (hot snare), and interpretation of the post-EMR resection defect. 7: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to manage adverse events associated with EMR including intraprocedural bleeding and perforation, and post-procedural bleeding. Delayed perforation should be avoided by correct interpretation of the post-EMR defect and treatment of deep mural injury. 8: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to communicate EMR procedural findings to patients and provide them with a plan in case of adverse events after discharge and a follow-up plan. 9: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to detect and interrogate a post-endoscopic resection scar for residual or recurrent adenoma and apply treatment if necessary. 10: Prior to independent practice, a minimum of 30 EMR procedures should be performed, culminating in a trainer-guided assessment of competency using a validated assessment tool, taking account of procedural difficulty (e. g. using the SMSA polyp score). 11: Trained practitioners should log their key performance indicators (KPIs) of polypectomy during independent practice. A guide for target KPIs is provided in this document.

Impact of margin ablation after EMR of large nonpedunculated colonic polyps in routine clinical practice

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Owing to its simplicity, effectiveness, and safety, EMR is the preferred treatment for the majority of large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colonic polyps (LNPCPs); however, residual and recurrent adenomas (RRAs) encountered during surveillance constitute a major limitation. Thermal ablation of the post-EMR mucosal defect margin has been shown to be highly efficacious in reducing RRA in a randomized trial setting, but data on effectiveness in clinical practice are scarce. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of this technique for reducing RRAs in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

We analyzed data collected in 3 hospitals in Israel: Prospective data were available in 2 hospitals where margin thermal ablation with snare-tip soft coagulation (STSC) is routinely performed after EMR of LNPCP (TA-EMR). Only retrospective data were available from the third center, which exclusively did not perform STSC (standard EMR] [S-EMR]), during the study period. Surveillance was performed 4 to 6 months after resection. RRA was assessed endoscopically with high-definition white light and optical chromoendoscopy. The primary endpoint was RRA at first surveillance colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Data from 764 patients with 824 LNPCPs were analyzed. The patient and lesion characteristics were similar between the groups. Four hundred sixty-four LNPCPs were treated by TA-EMR and 360 LNPCPs by S-EMR. RRA at first surveillance colonoscopy was detected in 14 (3.6%) of lesions in the TA-EMR group compared with 96 (31.6%) in the S-EMR group (P < .001; RR = .14; 95% CI, .07-.29). Adverse events were comparable between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

TA-EMR leads to a significant reduction in post-EMR recurrence in routine clinical practice.

Effect of pre-resection biopsy on detection of advanced dysplasia in large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection

BACKGROUND : Pre-resection biopsy (PRB) of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs, ≥ 20 mm) is often performed before referral for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). How this affects the EMR procedure is unknown. METHODS : This was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected cohort of patients with LNPCPs referred for EMR between 2013 to 2016 at an Australian tertiary center. Outcomes were differences between PRB and EMR histology, and effects of PRB on the EMR procedure. RESULTS:  Among 586 LNPCPs, lesions that underwent PRB were larger (median 35 vs. 30 mm; P < 0.007), and more commonly morphologically flat or slightly elevated (P = 0.01) compared with lesions without PRB. PRB histology was upstaged in 26.1 %, downstaged in 13.8 %, and unchanged in 60.1 % after EMR. Sensitivity of PRB was 77.2 % (95 %CI 71.1-82.4) for low grade dysplasia (LGD) and 21.2 % (95 %CI 11.5-35.1) for high grade dysplasia (HGD). Where EMR specimen showed HGD, PRB had detected LGD in 76.9 %. Where EMR specimen showed cancer, PRB had detected dysplasia only. PRB was associated with more submucosal fibrosis (P = 0.001) and intraprocedural bleeding (P = 0.03). EMR success or recurrence was not affected. CONCLUSIONS:  Routine PRB of LNPCP did not reliably detect advanced histology and may have affected EMR complexity. PRB should be utilized with caution in guiding endoscopic management of LNPCPs.

The Cytotoxic Effect of Isolated Cannabinoid Extracts on Polypoid Colorectal Tissue

Purified cannabinoids have been shown to prevent proliferation and induce apoptosis in colorectal carcinoma cell lines. To assess the cytotoxic effect of cannabinoid extracts and purified cannabinoids on both colorectal polyps and normal colonic cells, as well as their synergistic interaction. Various blends were tested to identify the optimal synergistic effect. Methods: Biopsies from polyps and healthy colonic tissue were obtained from 22 patients undergoing colonic polypectomies. The toxicity of a variety of cannabinoid extracts and purified cannabinoids at different concentrations was evaluated. The synergistic effect of cannabinoids was calculated based on the cells’ survival. Isolated cannabinoids illustrated different toxic effects on the viability of cells derived from colorectal polyps. THC-d8 and THC-d9 were the most toxic and exhibited persistent toxicity in all the polyps tested. CBD was more toxic to polypoid cells in comparison to normal colonic cells at a concentration of 15 µM. The combinations of the cannabinoids CBDV, THCV, CBDVA, CBCA, and CBGA exhibited a synergistic inhibitory effect on the viability of cells derived from colon polyps of patients. Isolated cannabinoid compounds interacted synergistically against colonic polyps, and some also possessed a differential toxic effect on polyp and adjacent colonic tissue, suggesting possible future therapeutic value.

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.).

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.).

Effect of prophylactic endoscopic clip placement on clinically significant post-endoscopic mucosal resection bleeding in the right colon: a single-centre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a cornerstone in the management of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps. Clinically significant post-EMR bleeding occurs in 7% of cases and is most frequently encountered in the right colon. We aimed to assess the use of prophylactic clip closure in preventing clinically significant post-EMR bleeding within the right colon.

METHODS

We conducted a randomised controlled trial at a tertiary centre in Australia. Patients referred for the EMR of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps in the right colon were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) into the clip or control (no clip) group, using a computerised random-number generator. The primary endpoint was clinically significant post-EMR bleeding, defined as haematochezia necessitating emergency department presentation, hospitalisation, or re-intervention within 14 days post-EMR, which was analysed on the basis of intention-to-treat principles. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02196649, and has been completed.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 4, 2016, and Dec 15, 2020, 231 patients were randomly assigned: 118 to the clip group and 113 to the control group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, clinically significant post-EMR bleeding was less frequent in the clip group than in the control group (four [3·4%] of 118 patients vs 12 [10·6%] of 113; p=0·031; absolute risk reduction 7·2% [95% CI 0·7-13·8]; number needed to treat 13·9). There were no differences between groups in adverse events, including delayed perforation (one [<1%] in the clip group vs one [<1%] in the control group) and post-EMR pain (four [3%] vs six [5%]). No deaths were reported.

INTERPRETATION

Prophylactic clip closure can be performed following the EMR of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps of 20 mm or larger in the right colon to reduce the risk of clinically significant post-EMR bleeding.

FUNDING

None.

Endoscopic Management of Complex Colorectal Polyps: Current Insights and Future Trends

Most colorectal cancers arise from adenomatous polyps and sessile serrated lesions. Screening colonoscopy and therapeutic polypectomy can potentially reduce colorectal cancer burden by early detection and removal of these polyps, thus decreasing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Most endoscopists are skilled in detecting and removing the vast majority of polyps endoscopically during a routine colonoscopy. Polyps can be considered “complex” based on size, location, morphology, underlying scar tissue, which are not amenable to removal by conventional endoscopic polypectomy techniques. They are technically more challenging to resect and carry an increased risk of complications. Most of these polyps were used to be managed by surgical intervention in the past. Rapid advancement in endoscopic resection techniques has led to a decreasing role of surgery in managing these complex polyps. These endoscopic resection techniques do require an expert in the field and advanced equipment to perform the procedure. In this review, we discuss various advanced endoscopic techniques for the management of complex polyps.

Colectomy for polyps is associated with high risk for complications and low risk for malignancy: Time for endoluminal surgery?

BACKGROUND

Colectomy for nonmalignant polyps (NMP) is common in the United States. We aimed to study the rate of colectomies performed for NMP and postoperative outcomes. We hypothesized that the annual colectomy rate for NMP is high despite the rare occurrence of invasive cancer found on final pathology.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the ACS-NSQIP participant user file, colectomy module, from 2013 to 2019. Patients who underwent elective colectomy with a diagnosis of either NMP or colon cancer were included. Patient demographics, comorbidities, colectomy rates and trends over the study period, as well as 30-day postoperative complications and mortality rate were assessed.

RESULTS

67,921 colectomies were performed for the diagnosis of cancer or NMP [14,726 (19%) only NMP]. The postoperative overall morbidity was 21% and mortality was 0.5% (1% for patients older than 70). Only 489 (3.3%) of colectomies performed for NMP had cancer on final pathology. The percentage of colectomies performed for NMP decreased from 22% to 16% over the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Colon resections for NMP are still common and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There is a low incidence of invasive cancer on final pathology. Advanced endoscopic interventions for NMP should be considered whenever possible and appropriate.

Outcomes of thermal ablation of the defect margin after duodenal endoscopic mucosal resection (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Laterally spreading lesions (LSLs) in the duodenum are conventionally treated by EMR. Recurrence is commonly encountered and can be difficult to treat safely due to the unique anatomic characteristics of the duodenum. Auxiliary techniques designed to prevent recurrence have not been described.

METHODS

We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of thermal ablation of the defect margin after EMR (EMR-T) in reducing recurrence at first surveillance endoscopy (SE1, scheduled at 6 months) in a single tertiary referral center. All duodenal LSLs ≥10 mm referred for EMR were eligible. After successful EMR, thermal ablation was performed using snare-tip soft coagulation around the entire circumference of the resection defect. The primary outcome was the frequency of recurrence at SE1. A previous, well-characterized, prospective cohort of duodenal LSLs ≥10 mm treated by conventional EMR was the comparator.

RESULTS

Over 43 months up to October 2019, 54 LSLs underwent EMR-T. One hundred twenty-five LSLs underwent conventional EMR in the comparator group. Patient and lesion characteristics were similar between the groups. Recurrence was significantly lower in the EMR-T group compared with the conventional EMR group (1 of 49 [2.3%] vs 19 of 108 [17.6%]; P = .01). No difference in technical success, EMR-related adverse outcomes, or referral to surgery were identified between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

EMR-T significantly reduces the frequency of recurrence for duodenal LSLs. This technique is safe in the duodenum and has the potential to significantly improve the effectiveness of duodenal EMR. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02306603.).

Pushing the Envelope in Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: Is It Feasible and Safe in Scarred Lesions?

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection is an established advanced polypectomy technique to manage large colorectal polyps.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients who had endoscopic submucosal dissection in the setting of significant scarring attributed to a previous intervention to determine whether this is safe and feasible.

DESIGN

The study used a prospectively maintained database.

SETTINGS

A scarred lesion was defined as a nonlifting polyp with a history of previous attempted removal with endoscopic mucosal resection, snare, or biopsy where there was no suspicion of malignancy.

PATIENTS

All consecutive patients in the previous 14 months were included.

INTERVENTION

Endoscopic submucosal dissection was the study intervention.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Thirty-day morbidity and mortality, readmission, length of stay, and recurrence were measured.

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients had endoscopic submucosal dissection over a 14-month period with a median polyp size of 31.5 mm (range, 20-45 mm). Eleven patients (12%) were confirmed as having significant scar. There were significantly more previous endoscopic mucosal resections in the scarred group (scarred: 63.6% vs nonscarred: 2.5%; p < 0.001). Significantly more of the scarred patients had their endoscopic submucosal dissection in the operating room versus the endoscopy suite (scarred: 82.0% vs nonscarred: 17.5%; p < 0.001). The 30-day morbidity rate was 18.7%. There were no mortalities. There was no difference in 30-day morbidity between scarred and nonscarred lesions (scarred: 9% vs nonscarred: 20%; p = 0.4). There were more day-case procedures in the nonscarred group (nonscarred: 93.7% vs scarred: 36.4%; p < 0.001). There was no malignancy on final pathology in the scarred group. There was no difference in readmission rate between the scarred and nonscarred lesions. The overall follow-up colonoscopy rate was 53%, and there were no polyp recurrences identified.

LIMITATIONS

The study was limited by its small sample size, single institute, surgeon experience, and short follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Not only is endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients who have scarred lesions technically feasible and safe, it avoids a bowel resection in the majority of patients who have exhausted other advanced endoscopy techniques. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B427.

EMPUJAR EL SOBRE EN LA DISECCIN ENDOSCPICA SUBMUCOSA ES FACTIBLE Y SEGURO EN LESIONES CICATRIZADAS

ANTECEDENTES:La disección endoscópica submucosa es una técnica de polipectomía avanzada establecida para tratar pólipos colorrectales grandes.OBJETIVO:Evaluar a pacientes que se sometieron a disección submucosa endoscópica en el contexto de cicatrices significativas debido a una intervención previa para determinar si esto es seguro y factible.DISEÑO:Base de datos mantenida prospectivamente.AJUSTE:Una lesión cicatrizada se definió como un pólipo que no se levanta con antecedentes de intento de extirpación previa con resección endoscópica de la mucosa, lazo o biopsia, donde no había sospecha de malignidad.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes consecutivos en los últimos 14 meses.INTERVENCIÓN:Disección submucosa endoscópica.MEDIDAS DE RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES:Morbilidad y mortalidad a 30 días, reingreso, duración de la estadía, recurrencia.RESULTADOS:Noventa y un pacientes tuvieron disección submucosa endoscópica durante un período de 14 meses con tamaño de pólipo mediana de 31,5 mm (rango, 20 - 45 mm). Se confirmó que once pacientes (12%) tenían una cicatriz significativa. Hubo significativamente más resecciones de mucosa endoscópica previas en el grupo con cicatrices (con cicatrices: 63,6% vs. sin cicatrices: 2,5%, p <0,001). Significativamente más de los pacientes con cicatrices tuvieron su disección submucosa endoscópica en el quirófano en comparación con la sala de endoscopia (con cicatrices: 82% vs. sin cicatrices: 17.5%, p <0.001). La tasa de morbilidad a 30 días fue del 18,7%. No hubo muertes. No hubo diferencia en la morbilidad a 30 días entre las lesiones cicatrizadas y no cicatrizadas (cicatrizadas: 9% frente a no cicatrizadas: 20%, p = 0,4). Hubo más procedimientos ambulatorios en el grupo sin cicatrices (sin cicatrices: 93,7% frente a cicatrices: 36,36%, p <0,001). No hubo malignidad en la patología final en el grupo con cicatrices. No hubo diferencia en la tasa de reingreso entre las lesiones cicatrizadas y no cicatrizadas. La tasa general de colonoscopia de seguimiento fue del 53% y no se identificaron recurrencias de pólipos.LIMITACIONES:Tamaño de muestra pequeño, experiencia de un solo instituto y cirujanos y seguimiento corto.CONCLUSIÓN:La disección endoscópica submucosa en pacientes con lesiones cicatrizadas no solo es técnicamente factible y segura, sino que evita una resección intestinal en la mayoría de los pacientes que han agotado otras técnicas endoscópicas avanzadas. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B427.

Polypectomy Techniques

Polyps in the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract can be premalignant or malignant lesions that can be treated endoscopically in early stages to prevent morbidity and more invasive procedures. This article critically reviews the techniques available and provides recommendations for endoscopic polypectomy.

Advanced Colonic Polypectomy

Advanced colonic polypectomy techniques are endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and they aim at organ preservation with low complication rates. Main goal of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is to accomplish en-bloc resection that will subsequently allow accurate histopathological evaluation. It consists of injection, circumferential incision, and dissection of the lesion. Steps of the procedure are discussed in detail along with technological advancements.

Devices and techniques for endoscopic treatment of residual and fibrotic colorectal polyps (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Residual neoplasia after macroscopically complete EMR of large colon polyps has been reported in 10% to 32% of resections. Often, residual polyps at the site of prior polypectomy are fibrotic and nonlifting, making additional resection challenging.

METHODS

This document reviews devices and methods for the endoscopic treatment of fibrotic and/or residual polyps. In addition, techniques reported to reduce the incidence of residual neoplasia after endoscopic resection are discussed.

RESULTS

Descriptions of technologies and available outcomes data are summarized for argon plasma coagulation ablation, snare-tip coagulation, avulsion techniques, grasp-and-snare technique, EndoRotor endoscopic resection system, endoscopic full-thickness resection device, and salvage endoscopic submucosal dissection.

CONCLUSIONS

Several technologies and techniques discussed in this document may aid in the prevention and/or resection of fibrotic and nonlifting polyps.

Dissection-enabled scaffold-assisted resection (DeSCAR): a novel technique for resection of residual or non-lifting gastrointestinal neoplasia of the colon, expanded experience and follow-up

Background and study aims  Colonic lesions may not be amenable to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) due to previous manipulation, submucosal invasion, or lesion flatness. In 2018, we described Dissection-enabled Scaffold Assisted Resection (DeSCAR) to be safe for the endoscopic resection of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions 1 In this study, we expand our original cohort to describe our expanded experience with patients undergoing DeSCAR and assess the efficacy, safety, and feasibility of DeSCAR for endoscopic resection of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions. Patients and methods  We retrospectively reviewed 57 patients from 2015-2019 who underwent DeSCAR for colonic lesions with incomplete lifting and/or previous manipulation. Cases were reviewed for location, prior manipulation, rates of successful resection, adverse events, and endoscopic follow up to assess for residual lesions. Results  Fifty-seven lesions underwent DeSCAR. Of the patients, 51 % were female, and average patient age was 69 years. Lesions were located in the cecum (n = 16), right colon (n = 27), left colon (n = 10), and rectum (n = 4). Average lesion size was 27.7 mm. Previous manipulation occurred in 54 cases (72 % biopsy, 44 % resection attempt, 18 % intralesional tattoo). The technical success rate for resection of non-lifting lesions was 98 %. There were two delayed bleeding episodes (one required endoscopic intervention) and one small perforation (managed by endoscopic hemoclip closure). Endoscopic follow up was available in 31 patients (54 %) with no residual adenoma in 28 patients (90 % of those surveilled). Conclusions  Our expanded experience with DeSCAR demonstrates high safety, feasibility, and effectiveness for the endoscopic management of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions.

Impact of en bloc resection on long-term outcomes after endoscopic mucosal resection: a matched cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Residual or recurrent adenoma (RRA) is the major limitation of piecemeal EMR (p-EMR) for large colonic laterally spreading lesions (LSLs) ≥20 mm. En bloc EMR (e-EMR) has been shown to achieve low rates of RRA but specific procedural and long-term outcomes are unknown. Our aim was to compare long-term outcomes of size-matched LSLs stratified by whether they were resected e-EMR or p-EMR.

METHODS

Data from a prospective tertiary referral multicenter cohort of large LSLs referred for EMR over a 10-year period were analyzed. Outcomes were compared between sized-matched LSLs (20-25 mm) resected by p-EMR or e-EMR.

RESULTS

Five hundred seventy LSLs met the inclusion criteria of which 259 (45.4%) were resected by e-EMR. The risk of major deep mural injury (DMI) was significantly higher in the e-EMR group (3.5% vs 1.0%, P = .05), whereas rates of other intraprocedural adverse events did not differ significantly. Five of 9 (56%) LSLs, with endoscopic features of submucosal invasion (SMI), resected by e-EMR were saved from surgery. RRA at first surveillance was lower in the e-EMR group (2.0% vs 5.7%, P = .04), but this difference was negated at subsequent surveillance. Rates of surgical referral were not significantly different between the groups at either surveillance interval.

CONCLUSION

When comparing e-EMR against p-EMR for lesions ≤25 mm in size of similar morphology in a large prospective multicenter cohort, e-EMR offered no additional advantage for predicted-benign LSLs. However, it was associated with an increased risk of major DMI. Thus, en bloc resection techniques should be reserved for lesions suspicious for invasive disease. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01368289.).

How to Perform Wide-Field Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Follow-up Examinations

Wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the primary management option for noninvasive laterally spreading colorectal lesions. It has been proved to be safe, highly effective, efficient, and cost-effective. Careful lesion interrogation before resection is essential because it provides essential information, including the risk of submucosal invasive disease. Adjuvant thermal ablation to the post-EMR defect margin has recently been shown to substantially reduce adenoma recurrence. Adenoma recurrence is predictable using the Sydney EMR Recurrence Tool. Adenoma recurrence can be accurately detected using standardized imaging of the post-EMR scar, and can be effectively treated.

Endoscopic Management of Post-Polypectomy Bleeding

Post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) is one of the most common complications of endoscopic polypectomy. There are multiple risk factors related to patient and polyp characteristics that should be considered. In most cases, immediate PPB can be effectively managed endoscopically when recognized and managed promptly. Delayed PPB can manifest in a myriad of ways. In severe delayed PPB, resuscitation for hemodynamic stabilization should be prioritized, followed by endoscopic evaluation and therapy once the patient is stabilized. Future areas of research in PPB include the risks of direct oral anticoagulants and of specific electrosurgical settings for hot-snare polypectomy vs. cold-snare polypectomy, benefits of closure of post-polypectomy mucosal defects using through-the-scope clips, and prospective comparative evaluation of newer hemostasis agents such as hemostatic spray powder and over-the-scope clips.

Safety and efficacy of hot avulsion as an adjunct to EMR (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Excision of all visible neoplastic tissue is the goal of EMR of colorectal laterally spreading tumors. Flat and fibrotic tissue can resist snaring. Ablation of visible polyps is associated with high recurrence rates. Avulsion is a technique to continue resection when snaring fails.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed colonic EMRs of 564 consecutive referred polyps between 2015 and 2017. Hot avulsion was used when snaring was unsuccessful. Polyps treated with and without avulsion were compared.

RESULTS

Hot avulsion was used in 20.9% (n = 112) of all resected lesions. The recurrence rates on follow-up colonoscopy were 17.52% in the avulsion group versus 16.02% in the non-avulsion group (P = .76). Hot avulsion was associated with a trend toward higher rates of delayed hemorrhage (5.35% vs 2.58%; P = .15) and post-coagulation syndrome (1.8% vs 0.47%; P = .15), but polyps treated with any avulsion were larger than those in which no avulsion was used (P < .001). There were an insufficient number of adverse events to perform a multivariable analysis to test the effects of avulsion, size, and location on the risk of overall adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Unlike previous reports of using argon plasma coagulation to treat visible polyps during EMR, hot avulsion of visible/fibrotic neoplasia was associated with similar EMR efficacy compared with cases that did not require hot avulsion. The safety profile of hot avulsion appears acceptable.

Thermal Ablation of Mucosal Defect Margins Reduces Adenoma Recurrence After Colonic Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Colorectal cancer (CRC) can be prevented by colonoscopy and polypectomy. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is performed to remove large laterally spreading colonic lesions that have a high risk of progression to CRC. Endoscopically invisible micro-adenomas at the margins of the EMR site might contribute to adenoma recurrence, which occurs in 15% to 30% of patients who undergo surveillance. We aimed to determine the efficacy of adjuvant thermal ablation of the EMR mucosal defect margin in reducing polyp recurrence.

METHODS

We performed a prospective study of 390 patients with large laterally spreading colonic lesions (≥ 20 mm, n = 416) referred for EMR at 4 tertiary centers in Australia. After complete lesion excision by EMR, lesions were randomly assigned to thermal ablation of the post-EMR mucosal defect margin (n = 210) or no additional treatment (controls, n = 206). We performed surveillance colonoscopies with standardized photo documentation and biopsies of the scar after 5 to 6 months. Patient, procedure, and lesion characteristics were similar between the groups. The primary endpoint was detection of lesion recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy.

RESULTS

A significantly lower proportion of patients who received thermal ablation of the post-EMR mucosal defect margin had evidence of recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy (10/192, 5.2%) than controls (37/176, 21.0%) (P < .001). The relative risk of recurrence in the thermal ablation group was 0.25 compared with the control group (95% confidence interval 0.13-0.48). Rates of adverse events were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In a multicenter randomized trial, thermal ablation of the post-EMR mucosal defect margin significantly reduced polyp recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy, compared with no additional treatment. Routine implementation of this simple and safe technique could increase the utility of EMR, decrease surveillance burdens, and reduce morbidity and mortality from CRC. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT01789749.

Technical Feasibility of a Guidetube for Various Endoscopic Procedures in Human Gastrointestinal Simulators

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Many gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures are difficult and cumbersome owing to the limitation of currently available endoscopic devices. This study aimed to develop an endoscopic guidetube for multipurpose endoscopic procedures and assess its use in a realistic GI endoscopic simulator.

METHODS

The guidetube used is a soft overtube composed of neoprene and is designed to assist various endoscopic procedures on demand. In total, 15 types of procedures were performed in GI simulators. Four procedures were performed in the stomach model and 11 in the colon model. The procedures include repeated endoscopic insertion and foreign body removal in various positions. The mean insertion and procedure time were assessed in each session. All procedures were performed by 5 expert endoscopists.

RESULTS

Endoscopic procedures with the new guidetube were faster and more effective than the conventional endoscopic techniques. The mean insertion time of the endoscope with the guidetube was significantly shorter than that without the guidetube. The guidetube was safely inserted without scratch using low pushing force. Objects of various sizes larger than the endoscopic channel were easily removed by the guidetube-assisted endoscopic procedures.

CONCLUSION

This preliminary study shows that guidetube-assisted endoscopic procedures are faster, easier, safer and cheaper than conventional endoscopic procedures.

Wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for laterally spreading colorectal lesions: a cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (WF-EMR) for removing large sessile and laterally spreading colorectal lesions (LSLs) >20 mm.

DESIGN

An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision tree model was performed over an 18-month time horizon. The following strategies were compared: WF-EMR, universal ESD (U-ESD) and selective ESD (S-ESD) for lesions highly suspicious for containing submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC), with WF-EMR used for the remainder. Data from a large Western cohort and the literature were used to inform the model. Effectiveness was defined as the number of surgeries avoided per 1000 cases. Incremental costs per surgery avoided are presented. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed.

RESULTS

1723 lesions among 1765 patients were analysed. The prevalence of SMIC and low-risk-SMIC was 8.2% and 3.1%, respectively. Endoscopic lesion assessment for SMIC had a sensitivity and specificity of 34.9% and 98.4%, respectively. S-ESD was the least expensive strategy and was also more effective than WF-EMR by preventing 19 additional surgeries per 1000 cases. 43 ESD procedures would be required in an S-ESD strategy. U-ESD would prevent another 13 surgeries compared with S-ESD, at an incremental cost per surgery avoided of US$210 112. U-ESD was only cost-effective among higher risk rectal lesions.

CONCLUSION

S-ESD is the preferred treatment strategy. However, only 43 ESDs are required per 1000 LSLs. U-ESD cannot be justified beyond high-risk rectal lesions. WF-EMR remains an effective and safe treatment option for most LSLs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02000141.

Why attempt en bloc resection of non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas? A systematic review of the prevalence of superficial submucosal invasive cancer after endoscopic submucosal dissection

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) aims to achieve en bloc resection of non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas which might be indicated in cases with superficial submucosal invasive cancers (SMIC), but the procedure is time consuming and complex. The prevalence of such cancers is not known but may determine the clinical necessity for ESD as opposed to the commonly used piecemeal mucosal resection (endoscopic mucosal resection) of colorectal adenomas. The main aim was to assess the prevalence of SMIC SM1 (ie, invasion ≤1000 µm or less than one-third of the submucosa) on colorectal lesions removed by ESD.

DESIGN

A literature review was conducted using electronic databases (up to March 2017) for colorectal ESD series reporting the histology of the dissected lesions.

RESULTS

51 studies with data on 11 260 colorectal dissected lesions were included. Most resected lesions (82.2%; 95% CI 78.8% to 85.3%) were adenomas (low- and high-grade dysplasia, 26.8% and 55.4%, respectively). Overall, 15.7% were submucosal cancers, but only slightly more than half (8.0%; 95% CI 6.1% to 10.3%) had an infiltration depth of ≤1000 µm, providing a number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid one surgery of 12.5. Estimating an oncologically curative (R0; G1/2; L0/V0) resection rate of 75.3% (95% CI 52.2% to 89.4%) for malignant lesions, the prevalence of curative resection lowered to 6% (95% CI 4.2% to 7.2%) with an NNT of 16.7.

CONCLUSION

The low prevalence of SMIC SM1 in lesions selected for ESD as well as the even lower rate of curative resection limits the clinical applicability of endoscopic en bloc resection. This calls for caution over an indiscriminate use of this technique in the resection of colorectal neoplasia.

Sessile Serrated Adenomas: How to Detect, Characterize and Resect

Serrated polyps are important contributors to the burden of colorectal cancers (CRC). These lesions were once considered to have no malignant potential, but currently up to 30% of all CRC are recognized to arise from the serrated neoplasia pathway. The primary premalignant lesions are sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSA/Ps), although traditional serrated adenomas are relatively uncommon. Compared to conventional adenomas, SSA/Ps are morphologically subtle with indistinct borders, may be difficult to detect endoscopically, are more prevalent than previously thought, are associated with synchronous and metachronous advanced neoplasia, and have a higher risk of incomplete resection. Although many lesions remain “dormant,” progressive disease is associated with the development of dysplasia and more rapid progression to CRC. As a result, SSA/Ps are strongly implicated in the development of interval cancers. These factors represent unique challenges that require a meticulous approach to their management. In this review, we summarize the contemporary literature on the characterization, detection and resection of SSA/Ps.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: Indications and Application in Western Endoscopy Practice

Endoscopic submucosal dissection was developed in Japan, early in this century, to provide a minimally invasive yet curative treatment for the large numbers of patients with early gastric cancer identified by the national screening program. Previously, the majority of these patients were treated surgically at substantial cost and with significant risk of short- and long-term morbidity. En-bloc excision of these early cancers, most with a limited risk of nodal metastasis, allowed complete staging of the tumor, stratification of the subsequent therapeutic approach, and potential cure. This transformative innovation changed the nature of endoscopic treatment for superficial mucosal neoplasia and, ultimately, for the first time allowed endoscopists to assert that the early cancer had been definitively cured. Subsequently, Western endoscopists have increasingly embraced the therapeutic possibilities offered by endoscopic submucosal dissection, but with some justifiable scientific caution. Here we provide an evidence-based critical appraisal of the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection in advanced endoscopic tissue resection.

Dissection-enabled scaffold-assisted resection (DeSCAR): a novel technique for resection of residual or non-lifting GI neoplasia of the colon (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

As a result of previous manipulation or submucosal invasion, GI lesions referred for EMR frequently have flat areas of visible tissue that cannot be snared. Current methods for treating residual tissue may lead to incomplete eradication or not allow complete tissue sampling for histologic evaluation. Our aim is to describe dissection-enabled scaffold-assisted resection (DeSCAR), a new technique combining circumferential ESD with EMR for removal of superficial non-lifting or residual "islands" with suspected submucosal involvement/fibrosis.

METHODS

From 2015 to 2017, lesions referred for EMR were retrospectively reviewed. Cases were identified where lifting and/or snaring of the lesion was incomplete and the DeSCAR technique was undertaken. Cases were reviewed for location, previous manipulation, rates of successful hybrid resection, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine lesions underwent DeSCAR because of non-lifting or residual "islands" of tissue. Fifty-two percent of the patients were male and 48% were female; average age was 66 years (standard deviation ±9.9 years). Lesions were located in the cecum (n = 10), right side of the colon (n = 12), left side of the colon (n = 4), and rectum (n = 3). Average size was 31 mm (standard deviation ±20.6 mm). Previous manipulation had occurred in 28 of 29 cases (83% biopsy, 34% resection attempt, 52% tattoo). The technical success rate for resection of non-lifting lesions was 100%. There was one episode of delayed bleeding but no other adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

DeSCAR is a feasible and safe alternative to argon plasma coagulation and avulsion for the endoscopic management of non-lifting or residual GI lesions, providing en bloc resection of tissue for histologic review. Further studies are needed to demonstrate long-term eradication and for comparison with other methods.

Experience in colon sparing surgery in North America: advanced endoscopic approaches for complex colorectal lesions

BACKGROUND

Need for colon sparing interventions for premalignant lesions not amenable to conventional endoscopic excision has stimulated interest in advanced endoscopic approaches. The aim of this study was to report a single institution's experience with these techniques.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of a prospectively collected database of all patients referred between 2011 and 2015 for colorectal resection of benign appearing deemed endoscopically unresectable by conventional endoscopic techniques. Patients were counseled for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with possible combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery (CELS) or alternatively colorectal resection if unable to resect endoscopically or suspicion for cancer. Lesion characteristic, resection rate, complications, and outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

110 patients were analyzed [mean age 64 years, female gender 55 (50%), median body mass index 29.4 kg/m²]. Indications for interventions were large polyp median endoscopic size 3 cm (range 1.5-6.5) and/or difficult location [cecum (34.9%), ascending colon (22.7%), transverse colon (14.5%), hepatic flexure (11.8%), descending colon (6.3%), sigmoid colon (3.6%), rectum (3.6%), and splenic flexure (2.6%)]. Lesion morphology was sessile (N = 98, 93%) and pedunculated (N = 12, 7%). Successful endoscopic resection rate was 88.2% (N = 97): ESD in 69 patients and CELS in 28 patients. Complication rate was 11.8% (13/110) [delayed bleeding (N = 4), perforation (N = 3), organ-space surgical site infection (SSI) (N = 2), superficial SSI (N = 1), and postoperative ileus (N = 3)]. Out of 110 patients, 13 patients (11.8%) required colectomy for technical failure (7 patients) or carcinoma (6 patients). During a median follow-up of 16 months (range 6-41 months), 2 patients had adenoma recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced endoscopic surgery appears to be a safe and effective alternative to colectomy for patients with complex premalignant lesions deemed unresectable with conventional endoscopic techniques.

Specialist Endoscopists Are Associated with a Decreased Risk of Incomplete Polyp Resection During Endoscopic Mucosal Resection in the Colon

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic experience is known to correlate with outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), particularly complete resection of the polyp tissue. Whether specialist endoscopists can protect against incomplete polypectomy in the setting of known risk factors for incomplete resection (IR) is unknown.

AIMS

We aimed to characterize how specialist endoscopists may help to mitigate the risk of IR of large sessile polyps.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent EMR at the University of Michigan from January 1, 2006, to November 15, 2015. The primary outcome was endoscopist-reported polyp tissue remaining at the end of the initial EMR attempt. Specialist endoscopists were defined as endoscopists who receive tertiary referrals for difficult colonoscopy cases and completed at least 20 EMR colonic polyp resections over the study period.

RESULTS

A total of 257 patients with 269 polyps were included in the study. IR occurred in 40 (16%) cases. IR was associated with polyp size ≥ 40 mm [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.38-7.93], flat/laterally spreading polyps (aOR 2.61, 95% CI 1.24-5.48), and difficulty lifting the polyp (aOR 11.0, 95% CI 2.66-45.3). A specialist endoscopist performing the initial EMR was protective against IR, even in the setting of risk factors for IR (aOR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04-0.41).

CONCLUSIONS

IR is associated with polyp size ≥ 40 mm, flat and/or laterally spreading polyps, and difficulty lifting the polyp. A specialist endoscopist initiating the EMR was protective of IR.

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an interventional procedure for en-bloc resection of gastrointestinal lesions. ESD is a challenging and can involve a reasonable degree of risk, therefore case selection is of crucial importance, especially in the colo-rectum. This procedure should be mainly used for dissection of lesions when there is a high suspicion of superficial malignant invasion; several classifications have been proposed in order to better identify lesions suitable for ESD. However, case selection is still an issue, since only about 8-10% of dissected lesions are superficially invading cancer and most of cases involve benign or massively invading cancer. In addition, significant differences have been reported between Asian and Western countries in regard to main outcomes, and therefore measures should be adopted as soon as possible to reduce this discrepancy.

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).

Management of duodenal polyps

Duodenal adenomas are the most common type of polyp arising from the duodenum. These adenomas can occur within and outside of genetic syndromes, and are broadly classified as non-ampullary or ampullary depending on their location. All adenomas have malignant potential and are therefore appropriately treated by endoscopic resection. However, the unique anatomical properties of the duodenum, namely its relatively thin and vascular walls, narrow luminal diameter and relationship to the ampulla and its associated pancreatic and biliary drainage, pose an increased degree of complexity for any endoscopic interventions in this area. This review will discuss the epidemiology of duodenal adenomas, their endoscopic detection and diagnosis, and techniques for safe and effective endoscopic resection of ampullary and non-ampullary lesions.

The Difficult Colorectal Polyp

Difficult colorectal polyps represent lesions that pose a challenge to traditional endoscopic snare polypectomy. These polyps have historically been managed by surgical resection. Currently, several less invasive options are available to avoid colectomy. Repeat colonoscopy and snare polypectomy by an expert endoscopist, endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and combined endoscopic and laparoscopic surgery have been developed to remove difficult polyps without the need for formal surgical resection. Patients with rectal polyps have the advantage of additional transanal minimally invasive techniques to enhance their resectability. Today, most colorectal polyps can be managed without the need for formal surgical resection.

Optimizing Resection of Large Colorectal Polyps

OPINION STATEMENT

Polypectomy reduces the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC). The widespread adoption of CRC screening, more rigorous colonoscopy techniques, and advancements in endoscopic imaging have led to a greater awareness of complex polyps. Whereas surgery was once considered necessary for many large sessile or laterally spreading lesions (LSLs) in the colorectum, the majority can now be removed endoscopically. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an established technique for treatment of colorectal LSLs. When performed by experts, EMR is highly effective and safe and can be completed in an outpatient or day-stay setting. Advancements in EMR effectiveness encompass a better understanding of the factors leading to post-EMR recurrence, protocols to recognize and treat it, and interventions that prevent recurrent or residual adenoma. New techniques for treating intra-procedural bleeding and a novel classification system to identify and inform proactive management of deep mural injury enhance the safety profile of EMR. However, each of these incremental advancements necessitates a meticulous and systematic approach that only committed and properly trained endoscopists can master. While alternative interventions such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) offer potential advantages over EMR, the added procedural complexity, risks, and costs limit the relevance of ESD to a minority of lesions in the colorectum. This article reviews the expanding body of evidence supporting EMR as the first-line treatment of colorectal LSLs ≥20 mm.