Management of the colorectal polyp referred for resection: A case-matched comparison of advanced endoscopic surgery and laparoscopic colectomy

Use of Snare Tip Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the Endoluminal Management of Complex Colon Lesions

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for advanced colon lesions is typically performed with specialized and costly endoscopic knives, potentially limiting accessibility and increasing procedural cost. Alternatively, the tip of an endoscopic snare, which is inexpensive and universally available, has demonstrated safe and efficient use in gastric lesions but lacks sufficient data for use in colon lesions.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess patient outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection of advanced colon lesions using the endoscopic snare tip.

DESIGN

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database at a single tertiary care center was conducted.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted at a single tertiary care center.

PATIENTS

Adult patients with colon lesions that were not amenable to snare polypectomy were evaluated for endoscopic submucosal dissection. Snare tip resection was performed in select patients with lesions that were lifted adequately after submucosal injection. Patients who underwent hybrid resections with endoscopic mucosal dissection were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

En bloc resection rates, operative time, perioperative complications, and short-term outcomes, such as length of stay and lesion recurrence on follow-up colonoscopy, were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 121 patients underwent snare tip endoscopic submucosal dissection, with a mean lesion size of 28.8 ± 9.84 mm. Most procedures were performed in the endoscopy suite (81.8%). The en bloc resection rate was 81.8%, with an average procedure time of 37.1 ± 29.8 minutes. There were 2 perforations (1.70%), one of which was managed operatively. Recurrence occurred in 6 patients (7.89%) at the time of follow-up colonoscopy.

LIMITATIONS

This study was retrospective, conducted by 2 skilled endoscopists with experience in endoscopic resection, and had short-term follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Snare tip endoscopic submucosal dissection for advanced colon lesions demonstrates satisfactory short-term outcomes, suggesting its potential as a safe and accessible alternative to specialized knives, thereby possibly enhancing the adoption of endoscopic resection and improving patient accessibility. See Video Abstract .

USO DE LA DISECCIN SUBMUCOSA ENDOSCPICA CON PUNTA DE ASA EN EL TRATAMIENTO ENDOLUMINAL DE LESIONES COMPLEJAS DEL COLON

ANTECEDENTES:La disección submucosa endoscópica para lesiones avanzadas del colon generalmente se realiza con bisturíes endoscópicos especializados y costosos, lo que potencialmente limita la accesibilidad y aumenta el costo del procedimiento. Alternativamente, la punta de asa endoscópica, que es económica y está disponible universalmente, ha demostrado su uso seguro y eficiente en lesiones gástricas, pero carece de datos suficientes para su uso en lesiones de colon.OBJETIVO:Evaluar los resultados de los pacientes después de la disección submucosa endoscópica de lesiones avanzadas del colon utilizando la punta del asa endoscópica.DISEÑO:Revisión retrospectiva de una base de datos mantenida prospectivamente en un único centro de atención terciaria.AJUSTE:Estudio realizado en un único centro de atención terciaria.PACIENTES:Pacientes adultos con lesiones de colon no susceptibles a polipectomía con asa, fueron evaluados para disección submucosa endoscópica. La resección con punta del asa se realizó en pacientes seleccionados con lesiones que se levantaron adecuadamente después de la inyección submucosa. Se excluyeron pacientes sometidos a resecciones híbridas con disección endoscópica de la mucosa.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se evaluaron las tasas de resección en bloque, tiempo operatorio, complicaciones perioperatorias y resultados a corto plazo, como la duración de la estancia hospitalaria y la recurrencia de la lesión en la colonoscopia de seguimiento.RESULTADOS:Un total de 121 pacientes se sometieron a disección submucosa endoscópica con punta de asa, con un tamaño medio de lesión de 28,8 ± 9,84 mm. La mayoría de los procedimientos se realizaron en la sala de endoscopia (81,8%). La tasa de resección en bloque fue del 81,8% con un tiempo medio de procedimiento de 37,1 ± 29,8 min. Hubo dos perforaciones (1,70%), una de las cuales fue manejada quirúrgicamente. La recurrencia se observó en 6 pacientes (7,89%) durante la colonoscopia de seguimiento.LIMITACIONES:Estudio retrospectivo, realizado por dos endoscopistas expertos con experiencia en resección endoscópica y el seguimiento de corto plazo.CONCLUSIONES:La disección submucosa endoscópica con punta de asa para lesiones avanzadas del colon demuestra resultados satisfactorios a corto plazo, lo que sugiere su potencial como una alternativa segura y accesible a los bisturíes especializados, lo que posiblemente mejore la adopción de la resección endoscópica y la accesibilidad del paciente. (Traducción - Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy ).

Resection of Early Colorectal Neoplasms Using Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study

Background: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a reliable method that can replace surgery in the treatment of early colorectal cancer under certain conditions. Aim: The aim of the study was to analyze factors influencing the ESD procedure in early colorectal cancer, with the intention of improving its effectiveness. Patients and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study on 214 patients who underwent ESD procedures for early colorectal cancer from January 2016 to October 2023. Results:En bloc resection was achieved in 197 (92.1%) of ESD procedures, R0 resection in 149 (69.6%), and curative resection in 54 (40.9%). The submucosal invasion was classified as level 1 (SM1) in 96 cases (45.3%), level 2 (SM2) in 61 cases (28.8%), and level 3 (SM3) in 36 cases (17%). R0 resection was achieved more often in the rectum-92 (81.4%), compared to the right-24 (64.9%) and left colon-33 (61.1%), p = 0.009. In rectal tumors, R0 resection was achieved in 51 (98.1%) SM1 invasion, 27 (73%) SM2 invasion, and 13 (65%) SM3 invasion (p < 0.001). Lateral and vertical resection margins were positive in 12 (7.7%) and 52 (25.2%) cases, respectively. Vertical resection margins were statistically more often positive in lesions located in the right colon-11 cases (28.9%) and left colon-21 cases (38.9%), than in rectum-20 cases (17.5%); p = 0.010. Complications were found in 32 (15%) cases of ESD procedure-perforation in 12 cases (5.6%) and delayed bleeding in four cases (1.9%). Procedures performed in the right colon were associated with a significantly higher risk of any complications (30%) and perforations (15%) than those performed in the rectum (10.3% and 2.6%) or the left colon (13.8% and 5.2%; p = 0.016; p = 0.015), respectively. Conclusions: ESD for early colon cancer is a viable strategy due to its effectiveness and low complication rate. The ESD technique performed in the rectum yields the best results; however, in the right colon, it still requires careful attention.

Novel drug delivery systems in colorectal cancer: Advances and future prospects

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is an abnormal proliferation of cells within the colon and rectum, leading to the formation of polyps and disruption of mucosal functions. The disease development is influenced by a combination of factors, including inflammation, exposure to environmental mutagens, genetic alterations, and impairment in signaling pathways. Traditional treatments such as surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy are often used but have limitations, including poor solubility and permeability, treatment resistance, side effects, and post-surgery issues. Novel Drug Delivery Systems (NDDS) have emerged as a superior alternative, offering enhanced drug solubility, precision in targeting cancer cells, and regulated drug release. Thereby addressing the shortcomings of conventional therapies and showing promise for more effective CRC management. The present review sheds light on the pathogenesis, signaling pathways, biomarkers, conventional treatments, need for NDDS, and application of NDDS against CRC. Additionally, clinical trials, ongoing clinical trials, marketed formulations, and patents on CRC are also covered in the present review.

Barriers to Implementation of Advanced Endoscopic Procedures

Advanced endoscopy has been shown to be useful in the diagnosis and treatment of both benign and low-grade malignant colorectal lesions. In fact, advanced endoscopic procedures are being adopted as standard approaches to these lesions in many places around the world; however, their implementation in the United States has not been as widespread. We ascribe the difficulty in implementation to two reasons: (1) lack of advanced endoscopic training and (2) failure in reimbursement models as they relate to endoscopy. In this article, we hope to describe these barriers and inspire colorectal surgeons to try and overcome them. As surgical specialists with a mastery of endoscopic techniques, colorectal surgeons would be able to maximize benefit for their patients and minimize health care costs in the long run.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Up to 15% of colorectal polyps are amenable for conventional polypectomy. Advanced endoscopic resection techniques are introduced for the treatment of those polyps. They provide higher en bloc resection rates compared with conventional techniques, while helping patients to avoid the complications of surgery. Note that 20 mm is considered as the largest size of a polyp that can be resected by polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in an en bloc fashion. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is recommended for polyps larger than 20 mm. Intramucosal carcinomas and carcinomas with limited submucosal invasion can also be resected with ESD. EMR is snare resection of a polyp following submucosal injection and elevation. ESD involves several steps such as marking, submucosal injection, incision, and dissection. Bleeding and perforation are the most common complications following advanced endoscopic procedures, which can be treated with coagulation and endoscopic clipping. En bloc resection rates range from 44.5 to 63% for EMR and from 87.9 to 96% for ESD. Recurrence rates following EMR and ESD are 7.4 to 17% and 0.9 to 2%, respectively. ESD is considered enough for the treatment of invasive carcinomas in the presence of submucosal invasion less than 1000 μm, absence of lymphovascular invasion, well-moderate histological differentiation, low-grade tumor budding, and negative resection margins.

Diagnostic Benefits and Surgical Implications of Methods for Tumor Localization in Sigmoid and Rectum Tumors

(1) Background: In our study, we aimed to determine the accuracy rates of imaging methods for sigmoid, rectosigmoid colon, and rectum cancer. (2) Methods: Patients with tumors located in the rectosigmoid colon, sigmoid colon, and rectum who were operated on were included. Upon admission, we examined the patients' first diagnostic colonoscopies and their preoperative repeat control colonoscopies and computed tomography (CT) report. (3) Results: In this study, 23 patients (57.5%) were male. The overall accuracy rates were 80.0% (32/40) in colonoscopy, 65.0% (26/40) in preoperative CT, and 87.5% (35/40) in retro CT, and the differences among the examination methods were statistically significant (p = 0.049). The sensitivity levels decreased to 50.0% for colonoscopy and preoperative CT and 75.0% for retro CT in rectosigmoid colon tumors. In rectal tumors, the sensitivity levels were 75.0% in colonoscopy, 60.0% in preoperative CT, and 80.0% in retro CT. In two patients, the tumor location was given incorrectly, and postoperative pathological evaluations indicated T3N0 tumors; the initially planned treatment was thus changed to include radiotherapy in addition to chemotherapy in the postoperative period because the tumor was located in the middle rectum. (4) Conclusions: Accuracy in tumor localization in sigmoid, rectosigmoid, and rectum tumors still needs to be improved, which could be accomplished with prospective studies. CT evaluations for cancer localization in this patient group should be re-evaluated by a radiologist.

The role of advanced endoscopy in appendiceal polyp management and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Appendiceal orifice lesions are often managed operatively with limited or oncologic resections. The aim is to report the management of appendiceal orifice mucosal neoplasms using advanced endoscopic interventions.

METHODS

Patients with appendiceal orifice mucosal neoplasms who underwent advanced endoscopic resections between 2011 and 2021 with either endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic mucosal dissection (ESD), hybrid ESD, or combined endoscopic laparoscopic surgery (CELS) were included from a prospectively collected dataset. Patient and lesion details and procedure outcomes are reported.

RESULTS

Out of 1005 lesions resected with advanced endoscopic techniques, 41 patients (4%) underwent appendiceal orifice mucosal neoplasm resection, including 39% by hybrid ESD, 34% by ESD, 15% by EMR, and 12% by CELS. The median age was 65, and 54% were male. The median lesion size was 20 mm. The dissection was completed piecemeal in 49% of patients. Post-procedure, one patient had a complication within 30 days and was admitted with post-polypectomy abdominal pain treated with observation for 2 days with no intervention. Pathology revealed 49% sessile-serrated lesions, 24% tubular adenomas, and 15% tubulovillous adenomas. Patients were followed up for a median of 8 (0-48) months. One patient with a sessile-serrated lesion experienced a recurrence after EMR which was re-resected with EMR.

CONCLUSION

Advanced endoscopic interventions for appendiceal orifice mucosal neoplasms can be performed with a low rate of complications and early recurrence. While conventionally lesions at the appendiceal orifice are often treated with surgical resection, advanced endoscopic interventions are an alternative approach with promising results which allow for cecal preservation.

Post-endoscopic submucosal dissection phlegmonous enteritis: A case report and literature review

Background

This study presents the initial case of phlegmonous enteritis following endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), a rare and potentially fatal complication. Additionally, a comprehensive review of relevant literature is provided.

Case report

A 66-year-old female patient, diagnosed with Hashimoto's thyroiditis and thrombocytopenia, underwent ESD to address a laterally spreading tumor located in the ascending colon. After the procedure, the patient manifested abdominal pain and a high fever, was diagnosed with peritonitis, necessitating an emergency exploratory laparotomy and right hemicolectomy. Subsequent histological examination indicated a significant presence of neutrophil infiltration across all layers of the intestines. The ascites culture yielded the growth of Escherichia coli.

Literature review

A search was conducted in the PubMed database to identify case reports conforming to the definition of phlegmonous enteritis proposed by Rokitansky et al. We retrieved about 30 studies regarding phlegmonous enteritis from 1951 to 2022, with around 39 cases. Among these, only 28 patients had comprehensive medical data available. Subsequently, an examination of the literature was undertaken to explore the pathogenesis, prevention, and treatment of phlegmonous enteritis.

Conclusion

The possibility of phlegmonous enteritis should be taken into consideration in cases of unexplained acute abdomen, particularly in patients with compromised immunity, in order to provide active surgical and antibiotic interventions.

Expanding endoscopic boundaries: Endoscopic resection of large appendiceal orifice polyps with endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

Large appendiceal orifice polyps are traditionally treated surgically. Recently, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) have been utilized as alternative resection techniques.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection techniques for the management of large appendiceal orifice polyps.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study conducted to assess the feasibility and safety of EMR and ESD for large appendiceal orifice polyps. This project was approved by the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Board. Patients who underwent endoscopic resection of appendiceal orifice polyps ≥ 1 cm from 2015 to 2022 at a tertiary referral endoscopy center in the United States were enrolled. The main outcomes of this study included en bloc resection, R0 resection, post resection adverse events, and polyp recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 19 patients were identified. Most patients were female (53%) and Caucasian (95%). The mean age was 63.3 ± 10.8 years, and the average body mass index was 28.8 ± 6.4. The mean polyp size was 25.5 ± 14.2 mm. 74% of polyps were localized to the appendix (at or inside the appendiceal orifice) and the remaining extended into the cecum. 68% of polyps occupied ≥ 50% of the appendiceal orifice circumference. The mean procedure duration was 61.6 ± 37.9 minutes. Polyps were resected via endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and hybrid procedures in 5, 6, and 8 patients, respectively. Final pathology was remarkable for tubular adenoma (n = 10) [one with high grade dysplasia], sessile serrated adenoma (n = 7), and tubulovillous adenoma (n = 2) [two with high grade dysplasia]. En bloc resection was achieved in 84% with an 88% R0 resection rate. Despite the large polyp sizes and challenging procedures, 89% (n = 17) of patients were discharged on the same day as their procedure. Two patients were admitted for post-procedure observation for conservative pain management. Eight patients underwent repeat colonoscopy without evidence of residual or recurrent adenomatous polyps.

CONCLUSION

Our study highlights how endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and hybrid procedures are all appropriate techniques with minimal adverse effects, further validating the utility of endoscopic procedures in the management of large appendiceal polyps.

Is Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Lesions Performed in the Endoscopy Suite Safe and Cost Saving?

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare the outcomes and the cost differences of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures in the endoscopy suite (ES) versus the operating room (OR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The procedures in the OR were compared with procedures performed in the ES for demographics, lesion characteristics, procedure outcome, and procedure charges. The study included 163 procedures in the ES and 73 in the OR.

RESULTS

Both were similar in age, sex, body mass index, and intraprocedural and postoperative 30-day (late) complications. ES cases had significantly greater polyp size, were more commonly right-sided polyps, and had shorter hospital stays, with similar en bloc and margin-negative resection rates. The overall cost ratio of ESD procedures in ES to OR was 0.47 ( P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Colorectal ESD procedures performed in the ES have similar efficacy and safety as those in the OR. Procedures performed in the ES were associated with a shorter length of stay and significant periprocedural cost savings.

Impact of surgical versus endoscopic management of complex nonmalignant polyps in a colorectal cancer screening program

BACKGROUND

When complex nonmalignant polyps are detected in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs, patients may be referred directly to surgery or may first undergo additional endoscopy for attempted endoscopic removal by an expert. We compared the impact of both strategies on screening effectiveness and costs.

METHODS

We used MISCAN-Colon to simulate the Dutch screening program, and projected CRC deaths prevented, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and costs for two scenarios: 1) surgery for all complex nonmalignant polyps; 2) attempted removal by an expert endoscopist first. We made the following assumptions: 3.9 % of screen-detected large nonmalignant polyps were complex; associated surgery mortality was 0.7 %; the rate of successful removal by an expert was 87 %, with 0.11 % mortality.

RESULTS

The screening program was estimated to prevent 11.2 CRC cases (-16.7 %) and 10.1 CRC deaths (-27.1 %), resulting in 32.9 QALYs gained (+ 17.2 %) per 1000 simulated individuals over their lifetimes compared with no screening. The program would also result in 2.1 surgeries for complex nonmalignant polyps with 0.015 associated deaths per 1000 individuals. If, instead, these patients were referred to an expert endoscopist first, only 0.2 patients required surgery, reducing associated deaths by 0.013 at the expense of 0.003 extra colonoscopy deaths. Compared with direct referral to surgery, referral to an expert endoscopist gained 0.2 QALYs and saved €12 500 per 1000 individuals in the target population.

CONCLUSION

Referring patients with complex polyps to an expert endoscopist first reduced some surgery-related deaths while substantially improving cost-effectiveness of the screening program.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal lesions: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022

ESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based).ESGE does not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection.ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the treatment of choice for most superficial esophageal squamous cell and superficial gastric lesions.For Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated lesions, ESGE suggests the use of ESD for lesions suspicious of submucosal invasion (Paris type 0-Is, 0-IIc), for malignant lesions > 20 mm, and for lesions in scarred/fibrotic areas.ESGE does not recommend routine use of ESD for duodenal or small-bowel lesions.ESGE suggests that ESD should be considered for en bloc resection of colorectal (but particularly rectal) lesions with suspicion of limited submucosal invasion (demarcated depressed area with irregular surface pattern or a large protruding or bulky component, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm) or for lesions that otherwise cannot be completely removed by snare-based techniques.ESGE recommends that an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with histology no more advanced than intramucosal cancer (no more than m2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma), well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion or ulceration, should be considered a very low risk (curative) resection, and no further staging procedure or treatment is generally recommended.ESGE recommends that the following should be considered to be a low risk (curative) resection and no further treatment is generally recommended: an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with superficial submucosal invasion (sm1), that is well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion, of size ≤ 20 mm for an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma or ≤ 30 mm for a stomach lesion or of any size for a BE-related or colorectal lesion, and with no lymphovascular invasion, and no budding grade 2 or 3 for colorectal lesions.ESGE recommends that, after an endoscopically complete resection, if there is a positive horizontal margin or if resection is piecemeal, but there is no submucosal invasion and no other high risk criteria are met, this should be considered a local-risk resection and endoscopic surveillance or re-treatment is recommended rather than surgery or other additional treatment.ESGE recommends that when there is a diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion, or deeper infiltration than sm1, or positive vertical margins, or undifferentiated tumor, or, for colorectal lesions, budding grade 2 or 3, this should be considered a high risk (noncurative) resection, and complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments should be considered on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE recommends scheduled endoscopic surveillance with high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based) with biopsies of only the suspicious areas after a curative ESD.

Preoperative Localization in Colonic Surgery (PLoCoS Study): a multicentric experience on behalf of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR)

The aim of this prospective multicentric study was to compare the accurate colonic lesion localization ratio between CT and colonoscopy in comparison with surgery. All consecutive patients from 1st January to 31st December 2019 with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of dysplastic adenoma or adenocarcinoma with planned elective, curative colonic resection who underwent both colonoscopy and CT scans were included. Each patient underwent conventional colonoscopy and CT to stage the tumour, and the localization results of each procedure were registered. CT and colonoscopic localization were compared with surgical localization, adopted as the reference. Our analysis included 745 patients from 23 centres. After comparing the accuracy of colonoscopy and CT (for visible lesions) in localizing colonic lesions, no significant differences were found between the two preoperative tools (510/661 vs 499/661 correctly localized lesions, p = 0.518). Furthermore, after analysing only the patients who underwent complete colonoscopy and had a visible lesion on CT, no significant difference was observed between conventional colonoscopy and CT (331/427 vs 340/427, p = 0.505). Considering the intraoperative localization results as a reference, a comparison between colonoscopy and CT showed that colonoscopy significantly failed to correctly locate the lesions localized in the descending colon (17/32 vs 26/32, p = 0.031). We did not identify an advantage in using CT to localize colonic tumours. In this setting, colonoscopy should be considered the reference to properly localize lesions; however, to better identify lesions in the descending colon, CT could be considered a valuable tool to improve the accuracy of lesion localization.

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 601 Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissections in a Single Western Center: Is Right Colon Location Still a Major Concern?

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), as a minimally invasive procedure for removal of early gastrointestinal neoplasms, is a standard approach in Asian countries. Outcomes of ESD in Western European countries significantly differ, which makes it more difficult to apply this procedure to daily-basis clinical routine. The aim of this study is to analyze the safety and efficiency of colorectal ESD based on a large series of cases performed by a single operator after finishing the learning curve period in a western referral center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively studied 601 patients who underwent ESD procedure for colorectal neoplasm from January 2016 to December 2019 in a tertiary colorectal ESD center in Poland.

RESULTS

The overall en bloc resection was achieved in 88.02%. Complete histologic resection rate (R0) was reported at a level of 86.36%. Lesions located in the right colon were characterized by statistically lower en bloc, R0 resection, and success rate (73.95%, 71.43%, 69.75%, respectively). In 9.82% (n=59) of cases, the ESD procedure-related complications have been observed. Post-ESD bleeding occurred in 23 patients (3.83%) and perforation in 32 patients (5.32%). Twenty-seven patients were treated endoscopically (4.49%) and 5 required surgery (0.83%). Analysis of complications showed that tumors located within the right colon were characterized by the highest perforation rate at 10.92%. Within the rectum there were minimal number of perforations (2.69%), whereas the bleeding rate was 4.48%.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results represent the largest material concerning ESD of colorectal lesions in the West and show that ESD is characterized by a high rate of successful resections with a low risk of complications. Thus, confirming that it is possible to obtain results similar to Asian centers and that colorectal ESD procedures can be implemented in clinical routine in western countries. Nevertheless, ESD in the right colon is still related with high rate of complications, so qualification for the ESD procedure should be very careful and discussed with the patient and should be performed by an experienced endoscopist after the learning curve.

The Application of Core Needle Biopsy Through the Trocar Hole in the Surgical Operation of Endoscopically Unresectable Giant Colon Polyps: A Systematic Review Study

INTRODUCTION

The study aimed to investigate the application of core needle biopsy through the trocar hole during surgery on endoscopically unresectable giant colon polyps.

METHODS

The clinical data of 51 patients with endoscopically unresectable giant colon polyps from May 2016 to May 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The primary observational outcomes were two comparative analyses of pathologic results, using the kappa index: comparison of the pathologic results from the preoperative colonoscopy and the postoperative pathologic results and comparison of the intraoperative pathologic results from core needle biopsy of the intestinal wall and the postoperative pathologic results. The secondary observational outcomes were duration of needle biopsy, operation duration, volume of intraoperative hemorrhage, rate of postoperative wound infection, rate of abdominal cavity infection, length of stay, and number and positivity of lymph node dissections after laparoscopic radical resection of colon cancer.

RESULTS

Poor consistency was found between the preoperative (colonoscopy) and postoperative pathologic results, with kappa = 0.222 (i.e., kappa < 0.4), P < 0.05. However, good consistency was found between the intraoperative (core needle biopsy) and postoperative pathologic results, with kappa = 0.923 (i.e., kappa ≥ 0.75), P < 0.05. The postoperative pathologic results were as follows: 7 cases of adenomatous polyps of the colon, 12 cases of low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, 12 cases of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, and 25 cases of invasive colon cancer. There was no incision infection, no abdominal cavity infection or formation of an abdominal abscess, no anastomotic leakage, and no death for any of the 51 patients. Postoperative complications occurred in two cases (3.92%).

CONCLUSION

Biopsy through the trocar hole during laparoscopic surgery produced highly accurate pathologic results and was a fast, safe, and effective diagnostic method. Pathologic results from intraoperative biopsy could accurately determine the nature of colon polyps and provide a basis for choosing an appropriate surgical scheme.

Overutilization of surgical resection for benign colorectal polyps: analysis from a tertiary care center

Background and study aims  Adequate removal of precancerous polyps is an independent factor in colorectal cancer prevention. Despite advances in polypectomy techniques, there is an increasing rate of surgery for benign polyps. We assessed whether surgical resection is properly utilized for benign colorectal polyps. Patients and methods  We identified 144 patients with surgical resection for benign colorectal polyps. Polyp location, size and the indication for and type of surgery were obtained. For the purposes of this analysis, we assumed that gastroenterologists should assess polyp size accurately, endoscopically resect polyps < 2 cm, and treat incompletely excised polyps on follow-up. Results  A total of 118 patients (82 %) were referred to surgery without attempted endoscopic removal. In 26 (22 %) of 118, the macroscopic polyp size was < 2 cm (23 in right, 3 in the left colon) and 18 (15 %; 14 in the right, four in the left colon) were found to have had size overestimation during endoscopy. Twenty-two (15 %) of 144 underwent surgical resection for incomplete endoscopic resection of adenomas (16 in the right, 6 in the left colon); 12 (54.5 %) had a residual polyp size of < 2 cm (10 in the right colon; 2 in the left colon). In-hospital mortality was 0.7 % and morbidity was 20.1 %. Conclusions  Of the patients, 41 % could have potentially avoided surgical intervention (37 polyps < 2 cm and/or size overestimations precluding endoscopic polypectomy and 22 incomplete resections). When including polyps with size ≥ 2 to < 4 cm, the percentage of patients with avoidable surgery reached 80 %. This confirms the need to develop standardized quality metrics for endoscopic polypectomies and for better overall training of endoscopists performing these procedures. Given the risks of surgery, referral to an experienced gastroenterologist should be considered as a first step.

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.

Effect of implementing a regional referral network on surgical referral rate of benign polyps found during a colorectal cancer screening program: A population-based study

INTRODUCTION

Surgical management is too often performed as the first-line treatment for large, benign colorectal polyps. We report the management of benign lesions detected by organised colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

METHODS

Population-based study in 2012, 2016, and 2017, analyzing the evolution of surgical management of benign polyps of≥2cm diameter discovered in the context of organised CRC screening after the implementation of a regional referral network for the management of superficial colorectal lesions.

RESULTS

A total of 1571 patients underwent colonoscopy following a positive test during the study period, among which 981 colonoscopies yielded at least one lesion. The adenoma detection rate was lower in 2012 (Guaiac test) than in 2016 and 2017 (fecal immunochemical test) (40% vs. 60% vs. 57%, P<0.0001). The surgery rate for benign lesions decreased from 14.6% in 2012 to 7.7% in 2016 and 5% in 2017 (P=0.017). The risk factors for surgery for benign lesions were year 2012 (odds ratio [OR]=3.35, P=0.022), high-grade dysplasia (OR=2.49, P=0.04), in situ carcinoma (OR=5, P=0.003), size≥20mm (OR=17.39, P<0.0001), and private sector (OR=6.6, P=0.0002). The morbidity rate of surgery for benign polyp≥2cm was 20.4% at 1month and its cost was sixfold higher than that of endoscopy.

CONCLUSION

The establishment of a regional referral network for the management of large colorectal polyps reduces the rate of surgical management of such lesions.

Evaluation of a progressive algorithmic approach for the treatment of unresectable colon polyps using colon conservation techniques

BACKGROUND

The majority of endoscopically unresectable colon polyps (EUCP) are treated by segmental colectomy. However, up to 90% of EUCP do not harbor malignancy, making colectomy an unnecessary procedure. To minimize unnecessary segmental colectomy, we established a progressive treatment algorithm utilizing colon conservation techniques (CCT). In our progressive CCT algorithm, patients with EUCP first underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). If unsuccessful, they progressed to combined endo-laparoscopic surgery (CELS) and ultimately to segmental colectomy, if necessary.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients treated by our progressive CCT algorithm from August 2015 to April 2019. Demographic information, polyp characteristics, and clinical outcomes were analyzed. We also compared the outcomes of our CCT algorithm group to 156 patients undergoing segmental colectomy for EUCP at related institutions from August 2015 to August 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 102 EUCP in 97 patients were treated with our progressive CCT algorithm. Of these, 76 of 102 (75.5%) EUCP were removed without requiring segmental colectomy, with 42 EUCP removed via ESD and 34 via CELS. Interval surveillance colonoscopy confirmed that 72 of 97 (74.2%) patients with EUCP treated by CCT completely avoided segmental colectomy. Polyps > 5 cm in size was a significant predictor of CCT failure (OR 3.83, P = 0.03). When compared to an external cohort of patients undergoing segmental colectomy for EUCP, the CCT algorithm was associated with longer operative time, but shorter length of stay, with no difference in postoperative complications. The estimated total healthcare cost of the CCT algorithm was lower than segmental colectomy ($10,956.77 versus $16,692.94), with more dramatic cost savings seen in ESD ($4,492.70) and CELS ($8,507.06).

CONCLUSIONS

An established progressive CCT algorithm can result in high colon conservation rate and decrease associated health care costs compared to segmental colectomy. It is a reasonable treatment strategy for patients with EUCP.

Morbidity and mortality after major large bowel resection of non-malignant polyp among participants in a population-based screening program

Background and aims

Colonoscopy following positive fecal occult blood screening may detect non-malignant polyps deemed to require major large bowel resection. We aimed to estimate the major inpatient morbidity and mortality associated with major resection of non-malignant polyps detected at colonoscopy following positive guaiac fecal occult blood screening in Ontario's population-based colorectal screening program.

Methods

We identified those without a diagnosis of colorectal cancer in the Ontario Cancer Registry ≤24 months following the date of colonoscopy prompted by positive fecal occult blood screening between 2008 and 2017, who underwent a major large bowel resection ≤24 months after the colonoscopy, with a diagnosis code for non-malignant polyp, in the absence of a code for any other large bowel diagnosis. We extracted records of major inpatient complications and readmissions ≤30 days following resection. We computed mortality within 90 days following resection.

Results

For those undergoing colonoscopy ≤6 months following positive guaiac fecal occult blood screening, 420/127,872 (0.03%) underwent major large bowel resection for a non-malignant polyp. In 50/420 (11.9%), the resection included one or more rectosigmoid or rectal polyps, with or without a colonic polyp. There were one or more major inpatient complications or readmissions within 30 days in 117/420 (27.9%). Death occurred within 90 days in 6/420 (1.4%).

Conclusions

Serious inpatient complications and readmissions following major large bowel resection for non-malignant colorectal polyps are common, but mortality ≤90 days following resection is low. These outcomes should be considered as unintended adverse consequences of population-based colorectal screening programs.

Combined endo-laparoscopic surgery for difficult benign colorectal polyps

Prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC) depends largely on the detection and removal of colorectal polyps. Despite the advances in endoscopic techniques, there are still a subgroup of polyps that cannot be treated purely by endoscopic approach, which comprise of about 10-15% of all the polyps. These so-called "difficult colorectal polyps" are polyps with large size, morphology, at difficult location, scarring or due to recurrence, which have historically been managed by surgical segmental resection. In treating benign difficult colorectal polyps, we have to balance the operative risks and morbidities associated with surgical segmental resection. Therefore, combined endoscopic and laparoscopic surgery (CELS) has been developed to remove this subgroup of difficult benign polyps. We review the currently use of CELS for difficult benign colorectal polyps which includes laparoscopy-assisted endoscopic polypectomy (LACP), full-thickness laparo-endoscopic excision (FLEX) and colonoscopy-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection (CAL-WR).

Variation in colectomy rates for benign polyp and colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Removal of pre-cancerous polyps on screening colonoscopy is a mainstay of colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. Complex polyps may require surgical removal with colectomy, an operation with a 17% morbidity and 1.5% mortality rate. Recently, advanced endoscopic techniques have allowed some patients with complex polyps to avoid the morbidity of colectomy. However, the rate of colectomy for benign polyp in the United States is unclear, and variation in this rate across geographic regions has not been studied. We compared regional variation in colectomy rates for CRC versus benign polyp.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective population-based study of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing colectomy for CRC or benign polyp, using the 100% Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files from 2010 to 2015. We used multivariable linear regression to obtain population-based colectomy rates for CRC and benign polyp at the hospital referral region (HRR) level, adjusted for age, sex, and race.

RESULTS

Of 280,815 patients, 157,802 (65.8%) underwent colectomy for CRC compared to 81,937 (34.2%) for benign polyp. Across HRRs, colectomy rates varied 5.8-fold for cancer (0.32-1.84 per 1000 beneficiaries). However, there was a 69-fold variation for benign polyp (0.01-0.69). While the rate of colectomy for CRC was correlated with the rate of colectomy for benign polyp (slope = 0.61, 95% CI 0.48-0.75), HRRs with the lowest or highest rates of colectomy for CRC did not necessarily have similarly low or high rates for benign polyp.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of colectomy for benign polyp is much more variable compared to CRC, suggesting overuse of colectomy for benign polyp in some regions. This variation may stem from provider-level differences, such as endoscopists' referral practice or skill or surgeons' decision to perform colectomy, or from limited access to advanced endoscopists. Interventions to increase endoscopic resection of benign polyps may spare some patients the morbidity and cost of surgery.

What is the cost of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)? A medico-economic study

Introduction

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the gold-standard treatment for superficial lesions of the digestive tract. No medico-economic study has been conducted in Europe.

Material and methods

A monocentric study was conducted including all patients undergoing ESD between January 2015 and December 2017. The global cost of hospital stays was measured by microcosting, and revenue was based on the diagnosis-related group (DRG) system. The primary objective was to assess the cost/revenue balance. A medico-economic comparison with surgery was performed as a secondary outcome.

Results

A total of 193 patients were prospectively included. The cost per procedure was €3463.79, subtracted from a €2726.84 revenue, with a deficit of -€736.96 per stay. Presence of comorbidities/complications increasing DRG value was the only predictive factor for a positive budgetary balance in a multivariate analysis (odds ratio 49.21, 95% confidence interval 11.3-214.25, p < 0.0001). In comparison with surgery, ESD was associated with shorter length of stay (11 vs 2 days; p < 0.0001) and lower morbidity (28% vs 14%; p = 0.061), lower cost (€8960 vs €1770; p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

The ESD cost/revenue balance is negative in 80% of cases. Given the benefits of ESD in terms of patient morbidity and financial savings compared with surgery, the implementation of a specific ESD reimbursement is warranted.