Colon Polypectomy with Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection

The Impact of Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection on Colonic Polyp Resection and Factors Influencing Recurrence

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the effectiveness of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the endoscopic resection of colonic polyps and investigate the factors influencing polyp recurrence.

METHODS

A total of 174 patients with colorectal polyps admitted to the Gastroenterology Department during the same period were included in this prospective randomized controlled study. The patients were randomly allocated to the EMR group and ESD group (72 cases in each group) using a random number table. The clinical efficacy, quality of life, adverse reactions, and 1-year postoperative recurrence rate were compared between the 2 groups. In addition, factors influencing polyp recurrence were analyzed.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed between the EMR and ESD groups in terms of clinical efficacy, postoperative quality of life, and postoperative complications. However, the postoperative recurrence rate in the ESD group was significantly lower than that in the EMR group. Multifactorial logistic regression analysis revealed that the number of polyps ≥3, maximum polyp diameter ≥2 cm, and family history of colorectal cancer were independent risk factors for colonic polyp recurrence.

CONCLUSION

ESD and EMR demonstrate similar efficacy and safety in patients with colonic polyps. However, the recurrence rate after ESD is significantly lower than after EMR. Furthermore, multifactorial analysis indicates that a larger polyp diameter, a more significant number of polyps, and a family history of colorectal cancer are independent risk factors for the recurrence of colonic polyps following resection.

Efficacy and safety of salvage endoscopy in the treatment of residual or recurrent colorectal neoplasia after endoscopic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review and meta-analyze the efficacy and safety of salvage endoscopy for residual or recurrence of colorectal tumors after endoscopic resection.

METHODS

Multiple databases including PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched to screen for eligible studies and perform data extraction and pooled analysis.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies on salvage endoscopy for residual or recurrent colorectal cancer after endoscopic resection were included, covering approximately 994 patients. The results of the meta-analysis demonstrated that salvage endoscopic therapy for residual or recurrent colorectal tumors following endoscopic resection achieved an en bloc resection rate of 92% (95% CI 0.85-0.97; I2 = 91%) and an R0 resection rate of 82% (95% CI 0.75-0.87; I2 = 78%). The rates of intraoperative or postoperative bleeding and perforation were 10%/1% and 5%/2%, and the recurrence rate was 2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Salvage endoscopic resection is an effective and safe treatment strategy for residual or recurrent colorectal tumors after endoscopic resection.

Endoscopic powered resection device for residual colonic lesions: the first multicenter, prospective, international clinical study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic resection is standard treatment for adenomatous colorectal lesions. Depending on lesion morphology and resection technique, recurrence can occur. Scarred adenomas are challenging to resect and may require surgical management. This study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of an endoscopic powered resection (EPR) system for scarred adenomatous colorectal lesions.

METHODS

This single-arm, prospective, multicenter study was conducted from January 2018 to January 2021 at 12 sites. Patients with persistent flat or sessile colorectal lesions were enrolled. Primary end points were technical success (the ability of the device to resect the lesion[s] without use of other resection devices without device-related serious adverse events [AEs]) and safety (the occurrence of AEs through 90 days). Secondary end points included endoscopic confirmation of resection completeness, occurrence of colon stenosis, disease persistence, and diagnostic value of resected specimens.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients were in the intention-to-treat/safety analysis population. Primary analysis was performed on 45 per-protocol (PP) patients with 48 lesions. All PP patients were solely treated by using the EPR device. Technical success was achieved in 44 (98%) patients. Three (5%) serious AEs occurred: 2 delayed self-limited bleeds and 1 perforation. Nonserious AEs included 4 (6%) cases of mild intraprocedural bleeding. Completeness of resection and histopathologic diagnosis of tissue specimens were achieved in all patients. Twenty-one (46.7%) patients had disease persistence after the first treatment, and there was no colon stenosis.

CONCLUSIONS

EPR is safe and effective for benign, persistent, large (>20 mm), scarred colorectal adenomas and should be considered as an alternative treatment in lieu of surgery. A persistence rate of 46.7% indicates that >1 treatment is necessary for effective endoscopic treatment. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04203667.).

Weighing the benefits of lymphadenectomy in early-stage colorectal cancer

Recent advancements in endoscopic procedures have resulted in a growing diagnosis of early colorectal cancer (CRC) cases, where classical en bloc lymph node (LN) dissection is not performed and treatment is terminated with the removal of the main cancer lesion by endoscopy without pathologic LN staging. Although many studies report noninferior outcomes of endoscopic resection in comparison to surgical resection, a cautious approach to completing treatment with endoscopic resection alone is recommended because LN metastases may be present even in early-stage CRC. In most countries, including the United States, Europe, and South Korea, the guidelines for additional surgery after endoscopic resection are very similar. If LN metastasis is suspected, even in T1 stage or lower lesions, further surgery is an essential treatment modality, but confirmation of the presence of LN metastasis is perhaps the most difficult part of this process. Another paradoxical recent trend is the expansion of more extensive and complete surgical lymphadenectomy for CRC. The success rate of surgery has improved dramatically over the past decade with the introduction of surgical devices and minimally invasive surgery, and the associated risks have been significantly reduced. While the burden of surgery on patients is understandable, the indications for surgery in early colon cancer need to be carefully reviewed to improve cure rates. In this process, we believe that an integrated decision-making process with surgeons, radiologists, and pathologists, in addition to the opinions of endoscopists, will be an important process to improve the cure rate.