Endoscopic scar assessment after colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection scars: when is biopsy necessary (EMR Scar Assessment Project for Endoscope (ESCAPE) trial)

Optical assessment of scars after endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal polyps in a multicenter, community hospital setting: is routine biopsy still necessary?

BACKGROUND

 Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) is succeeded by a 6-month surveillance endoscopy to evaluate the post-EMR scar for recurrence. Data from expert centers suggest that routine tattoo placement and scar biopsies can be omitted, but data from community hospitals are lacking.

METHODS

 The agreement between optical assessment and histological confirmation by routine biopsies was evaluated in a post-hoc analysis of the STAR-LNPCP study (NTR7477), containing prospective data on 6-month post-EMR scar assessments in 30 Dutch community hospitals (October 2019 to May 2022). A standardized protocol was followed for documentation of optical characteristics, imaging, and biopsy of the post-EMR scar. RESULTS : In 1277 post-EMR scar assessments, identification of the scar was achieved in 1215/1277 (95 %). Tattoo placement did not influence scar identification. Scar biopsy was performed in 1050/1215 cases (86 %). Recurrences were seen in 200/1050 cases (19 %). There was good agreement between optical assessment of recurrence and histological confirmation (Cohen's kappa 0.78 [95 %CI 0.73-0.83]). The negative and positive predictive values were 98 % (95 %CI 97 %-99 %) and 74 % (95 %CI 68 %-80 %), respectively. A higher false-positive rate was seen after prior use of clips (11 % vs. 5 %; P = 0.02). Dedicated endoscopists identified the scar more often (96 % vs. 88 %; P < 0.001), and showed a lower optical recurrence miss rate (1 % vs. 3 %; P = 0.11) compared with nondedicated endoscopists. CONCLUSION : Based on this multicenter community hospital study, routine tattoo placement and scar biopsies of the post-EMR scar can be omitted. Assessment of post-EMR scars by dedicated endoscopists is advised.

General Versus Interventional Gastroenterologists: A Comparative Analysis of Follow-Up Outcomes After Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Colorectal Polyps

Introduction Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents a major global health burden, significantly impacting mortality rates and healthcare systems worldwide. CRC screening through colonoscopy enables early detection and removal of precancerous polyps. While standard polypectomy suffices for small polyps, larger ones require endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Though post-EMR surveillance is crucial for preventing recurrence, it remains unclear whether follow-up by general gastroenterologists yields comparable outcomes to surveillance by interventional specialists. This distinction carries significant implications for resource allocation, particularly given the limited availability of interventional gastroenterologists whose expertise is needed for other complex procedures. Our study examines this unexplored question by comparing post-EMR surveillance outcomes between these provider groups. Methods We conducted a retrospective study at the Saint Louis Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System of patients presenting for follow-up of colorectal polyp EMR between January 2019 and December 2022. Pre-defined variables extracted from the electronic medical record system were then analyzed to discern significant differences between general and interventional gastroenterologists' outcomes. The primary outcome includes the rate of biopsy of scars after EMR between both groups. Additional outcomes include the number of polyps detected, detection of residual tissue at the EMR site, EMR site recurrence requiring polypectomy and mode of polypectomy, recommended surveillance interval suggested by the endoscopist, and the pathology of the EMR site biopsy. Results A total of 59 (N = 59) patients (median age: 67, mean age: 66.5 ± 6.6 years) met the inclusion criteria of our study. General gastroenterologists were more likely to biopsy the EMR site compared to interventional gastroenterologists (65% vs. 40%, p = 0.047). There was no difference in overall pathology detected when comparing general and interventional gastroenterologists (p = 0.074). While no EMR site biopsies were obtained in 16 patients (27.1%), there were no differences in the pathology of patients undergoing biopsy of the scar. Additionally, no significant differences were found in the Boston Bowel Preparation Score, number of polyps detected, detection of residual tissue at the EMR site, EMR site recurrence requiring polypectomy, or recommended surveillance interval. Conclusion Our study provides evidence that the outcomes of post-EMR follow-up are largely comparable between general and interventional gastroenterologists. Although general gastroenterologists exhibit higher rates of EMR site biopsy, the associated pathology shows no significant difference.

Cold Versus Hot Snare Endoscopic Resection of Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: Randomized Controlled German CHRONICLE Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is standard therapy for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm. It has been suggested recently that polyp resection without current (cold resection) may be superior to the standard technique using cutting/coagulation current (hot resection) by reducing adverse events (AEs), but evidence from a randomized trial is missing.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled multicentric trial involving 19 centers, nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm were randomly assigned to cold or hot EMR. The primary outcome was major AE (eg, perforation or postendoscopic bleeding). Among secondary outcomes, major AE subcategories, postpolypectomy syndrome, and residual adenoma were most relevant.

RESULTS

Between 2021 and 2023, there were 396 polyps in 363 patients (48.2% were female) enrolled for the intention-to-treat analysis. Major AEs occurred in 1.0% of the cold group and in 7.9% of the hot group (P = .001; odds ratio [OR], 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03-0.54). Rates for perforation and postendoscopic bleeding were significantly lower in the cold group, with 0% vs 3.9% (P = .007) and 1.0% vs 4.4% (P = .040). Postpolypectomy syndrome occurred with similar frequency (3.1% vs 4.4%; P = .490). After cold resection, residual adenoma was found more frequently, with 23.7% vs 13.8% (P = .020; OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.12-3.38). In multivariable analysis, lesion diameter of ≥4 cm was an independent predictor both for major AEs (OR, 3.37) and residual adenoma (OR, 2.47) and high-grade dysplasia/cancer for residual adenoma (OR, 2.92).

CONCLUSIONS

Cold resection of large, nonpedunculated colorectal polyps appears to be considerably safer than hot EMR; however, at the cost of a higher residual adenoma rate. Further studies have to confirm to what extent polyp size and histology can determine an individualized approach. German Clinical Trials Registry (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien), Number DRKS00025170.

Linked-color imaging versus high definition white-light endoscopy for evaluation of post-polypectomy scars of nonpedunculated lesions: LCI-Scar study

BACKGROUND

Detection and treatment of recurrence after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps are crucial for avoidance of post-colonoscopy cancer. Linked-color imaging (LCI) has demonstrated improved polyp detection but has never been assessed for evaluation of post-polypectomy scars. Our aim was to compare sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) between LCI and white-light endoscopy (WLE) for detection of post-polypectomy recurrence.

METHODS

Patients undergoing surveillance colonoscopy after resection of lesions ≥15 mm were included in this prospective, single-center, randomized, crossover study. Each post-polypectomy scar underwent two examinations, one with LCI and the other with WLE, performed by two blinded endoscopists. Blue-light imaging (BLI) was then applied. A diagnosis of recurrence with a level of confidence was made for each modality and histopathology was the gold standard.

RESULTS

129 patients with 173 scars were included. Baseline patient, lesion, and procedural characteristics were similar in both arms. Recurrence was detected in 56/173 (32.4%), with 27/56 (48.2%) adenomas and 29/56 (51.8%) serrated lesions. LCI had greater sensitivity (96.4% [95%CI 87.8%-99.5%]) versus WLE (89.3% [95%CI 78.1%-95.9%]) and greater NPV (98.1% [95%CI 93.4%-99.8%] versus 94.6% [95%CI 88.7%-98.0%]). Paired concordance between modalities was 96.0%. In discordant cases, LCI identified four true-positive cases not detected by WLE and reclassified one false-positive of WLE. WLE reclassified two false positives of LCI without any increase in recurrence detection.

CONCLUSIONS

LCI was highly accurate and had greater ability than WLE to rule out recurrence on post-polypectomy scars after resection of large polyps.

Snare Tip Soft Coagulation vs Argon Plasma Coagulation vs No Margin Treatment After Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyp Resection: a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Thermal treatment of the defect margin after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions reduces the recurrence rate. Both snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) and argon plasma coagulation (APC) have been used for thermal margin treatment, but there are few data directly comparing STSC with APC for this indication.

METHODS

We performed a randomized 3-arm trial in 9 US centers comparing STSC with APC with no margin treatment (control) of defects after EMR of colorectal nonpedunculated lesions ≥15 mm. The primary end point was the presence of residual lesion at first follow-up.

RESULTS

There were 384 patients and 414 lesions randomized, and 308 patients (80.2%) with 328 lesions completed ≥1 follow-up. The proportion of lesions with residual polyp at first follow-up was 4.6% with STSC, 9.3% with APC, and 21.4% with control subjects (no margin treatment). The odds of residual polyp at first follow-up were lower for STSC and APC when compared with control subjects (P = .001 and P = .01, respectively). The difference in odds was not significant between STSC and APC. STSC took less time to apply than APC (median, 3.35 vs 4.08 minutes; P = .019). Adverse event rates were low, with no difference between arms.

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized trial STSC and APC were each superior to no thermal margin treatment after EMR. STSC was faster to apply than APC. Because STSC also results in lower cost and plastic waste than APC (APC requires an additional device), our study supports STSC as the preferred thermal margin treatment after colorectal EMR. (Clinicaltrials.gov, Number NCT03654209.).

Treatment of adenoma recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection

OBJECTIVE

Residual or recurrent adenoma (RRA) after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) of ≥20 mm is a major limitation. Data on outcomes of the endoscopic treatment of recurrence are scarce, and no evidence-based standard exists. We investigated the efficacy of endoscopic retreatment over time in a large prospective cohort.

DESIGN

Over 139 months, detailed morphological and histological data on consecutive RRA detected after EMR for single LNPCPs at one tertiary endoscopy centre were prospectively recorded during structured surveillance colonoscopy. Endoscopic retreatment was performed on cases with evidence of RRA and was performed predominantly using hot snare resection, cold avulsion forceps with adjuvant snare tip soft coagulation or a combination of the two.

RESULTS

213 (14.6%) patients had RRA (168 (78.9%) at first surveillance and 45 (21.1%) thereafter). RRA was commonly 2.5-5.0 mm (48.0%) and unifocal (78.7%). Of 202 (94.8%) cases which had macroscopic evidence of RRA, 194 (96.0%) underwent successful endoscopic therapy and 161 (83.4%) had a subsequent follow-up colonoscopy. Of the latter, endoscopic therapy of recurrence was successful in 149 (92.5%) of 161 in the per-protocol analysis, and 149 (73.8%) of 202 in the intention-to-treat analysis, with a mean of 1.15 (SD 0.36) retreatment sessions. No adverse events were directly attributable to endoscopic therapy. Further RRA after endoscopic therapy was endoscopically treatable in most cases. Overall, only 9 (4.2%, 95% CI 2.2% to 7.8%) of 213 patients with RRA required surgery.Thus 159 (98.8%, 95% CI 95.1% to 99.8%) of 161 cases with initially successful endoscopic treatment of RRA and follow-up remained surgery-free for a median of 13 months (IQR 25.0) of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

RRA after EMR of LNPCPs can be effectively treated using simple endoscopic techniques with long-term adenoma remission of >90%; only 16% required retreatment. Therefore, more technically complex, morbid and resource-intensive endoscopic or surgical techniques are required only in selected cases.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

NCT01368289 and NCT02000141.

Pilot study on a new endoscopic platform for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Background

The endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technically demanding and time-consuming procedure, with an increased risk of adverse events compared to standard endoscopic resection techniques. The main difficulties are related to the instability of the operating field and to the loss of traction. We aimed to evaluate in a pilot trial a new endoscopic platform [tissue retractor system (TRS); ORISE, Boston scientific Co., Marlborough, MA, USA], designed to stabilize the intraluminal space, and to provide tissue retraction and counter traction.

Method

We prospectively enrolled all consecutive patients who underwent an ESD for sigmoid/rectal lesions. The primary outcome was the rate of technical feasibility. Further technical aspects such as en-bloc and R0 resection rate, number of graspers used, circumferential incision time, TRS assemblage time, submucosal dissection time, and submucosal dissection speed were provided. Clinical outcomes (recurrence rate and adverse events) were recorded as well.

Results

In all, 10 patients (M/F 4/6, age: 70.4 ± 11.0 years old) were enrolled. Eight out of 10 lesions were located in the rectum. Average lesion size was 31.2 ± 2.7 mm, and mean lesion area was 1628.88 ± 205.3 mm². The two sigmoid lesions were removed through standard ESD, because the platform assemblage failed after several attempts. All rectal lesions were removed in an en-bloc fashion. R0 resection was achieved in 7/8 (87.5%) patients in an average procedure time of 60.5 ± 23.3 min. None of the patients developed neither intraprocedural nor postprocedural adverse events.

Conclusion

TRS-assisted ESD is a feasible option when used in the rectum, with promising result in terms of efficacy and safety outcomes. Nevertheless, our pilot study underlines few technical limitations of the present platform that need to be overcome before the system could be widely and routinely used.

Can white-light endoscopy or narrow-band imaging avoid biopsy of colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection scars? A multicenter randomized single-blind crossover trial

BACKGROUND : Current guidelines suggest that routine biopsy of post-endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) scars can be abandoned, provided that a standardized imaging protocol with virtual chromoendoscopy is used. However, few studies have examined the accuracy of advanced endoscopic imaging, such as narrow-band imaging (NBI) vs. white-light endoscopy (WLE) for prediction of histological recurrence. We aimed to assess whether NBI accuracy is superior to that of WLE and whether one or both techniques can replace biopsies. METHODS : The study was a multicenter, randomized, pathologist-blind, crossover trial, with consecutive patients undergoing first colonoscopy after EMR of lesions ≥ 20 mm. Computer-generated randomization and opaque envelope concealed allocation. Patients were randomly assigned to scar examination with NBI followed by WLE (NBI + WLE), or WLE followed by NBI (WLE + NBI). Histology was the reference method, with biopsies being performed for all tissues. RESULTS : The study included 203 scars (103 in the NBI + WLE group, 100 in the WLE + NBI group). Recurrence was confirmed histologically in 29.6 % of the scars. The diagnostic accuracy of NBI was not statistically different from that of WLE (95 % [95 %CI 92 %-98 %] vs. 94 % [95 %CI 90 %-97 %]; P = 0.48). The negative predictive values (NPVs) were 96 % (95 %CI 93 %-99 %) for NBI and 93 % (95 %CI 89 %-97 %) for WLE (P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS : The accuracy of NBI for the diagnosis of recurrence was not superior to that of WLE. Endoscopic assessment of EMR scars with WLE and NBI achieved an NPV that would allow routine biopsy to be avoided in cases of negative optical diagnosis.

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.

Tip-in EMR as an alternative to endoscopic submucosal dissection for 20- to 30-mm nonpedunculated colorectal neoplasms

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Tip-in EMR, which includes anchoring the snare tip, has recently shown a favorable en-bloc and R0 resection rate for colorectal neoplasms. Thus, Tip-in EMR may be an alternative to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to compare clinical outcomes between Tip-in EMR and ESD for large colorectal neoplasms.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated consecutive patients who underwent Tip-in EMR or ESD for 20- to 30-mm nonpedunculated colorectal neoplasms at a Japanese tertiary cancer center between January 2014 and December 2019. Baseline characteristics, treatment results, and long-term outcomes were analyzed using 1:1 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Seven hundred nine lesions were evaluated. The Tip-in EMR group included 1 lesion with a nonlifting sign but no lesions with fold convergence. After propensity score matching, each group included 140 lesions. The ESD group showed significantly higher en-bloc resection rates (99.3% vs 85.0%) and R0 resection rates (90.7% vs 62.9%). Procedure time was significantly shorter in the Tip-in EMR group (8 minutes vs 60 minutes). The Tip-in EMR and ESD groups did not differ significantly with respect to local recurrence rate (2.1% vs 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Tip-in EMR is comparable with ESD with respect to the local recurrence rate but has a shorter procedure time, despite the lower en-bloc and R0 resection rates for 20- to 30-mm nonpedunculated colorectal neoplasms without fold convergence or nonlifting sign. Thus, Tip-in EMR could be a feasible alternative to ESD in these lesions.

Post-EMR for colorectal polyps, thermal ablation of defects reduces adenoma recurrence: A meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Adenoma recurrence is one of the key limitations of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), which occurs in 15 % to 30 % of cases during first surveillance colonoscopy. The main hypothesis behind adenoma recurrence is leftover micro-adenomas at the margins of post-EMR defects. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the efficacy of snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) at the margins of mucosal defects to reduce adenoma recurrence and bleeding complications. Methods  Electronic databases such as PubMed and the Cochrane library were used for systematic literature search. Studies with polyps only resected by piecemeal EMR and active treatment: with STSC, comparator: non-STSC were included. A random effects model was used to calculate the summary of risk ratio and 95 % confidence intervals. The main outcome of the study was to compare the effect of STSC versus non-STSC with respect to adenoma recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy after thermal ablation of post-EMR defects. Results  Five studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The total number patients who completed first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1) in the STSC group was 534 and in the non-STSC group was 514. The pooled adenoma recurrence rate was 6 % (37 of 534 cases) in the STSC arm and 22 % (115 of 514 cases) in the non-STSC arm, (odds ratio [OR] 0.26, 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.16-0.41, P  = 0.001). The pooled delayed post-EMR bleeding rate 19 % (67 of 343) in the STSC arm and 22 % (78 of 341) in the non-STSC arm (OR 0.82, 95 %CI, 0.57-1.18). Conclusions  Thermal ablation of post-EMR defects significantly reduces adenoma recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy.

Margin marking before colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection and its impact on neoplasia recurrence (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Ablation of resection margins after EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps decreases recurrence. Margin marking before EMR (EMR-MM) may represent an alternative method to achieve a healthy resection margin. We aimed to determine the efficacy of EMR-MM in reducing neoplasia recurrence.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center historical control study of EMR cases (EMR-MM vs conventional EMR) for nonpedunculated polyps ≥20 mm between 2016 and 2021. For EMR-MM, cautery marks were placed along the lateral margins of the polyp with the snare tip. EMR was then performed to include resection of the healthy mucosa containing the marks. We compared recurrence at surveillance colonoscopy after EMR-MM versus historical control subjects. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with recurrence.

RESULTS

Two hundred ten patients with 210 polyps (median size, 30 mm; interquartile range: 25-40) underwent EMR-MM (n = 74) or conventional EMR (n = 136). Patient and lesion characteristics were similar between the groups. At a median follow-up of 6 months, the recurrence rate was lower with EMR-MM (6/74; 8%) compared with historical control subjects (39/136; 29%) (P < .001). EMR-MM was not associated with an increased rate of adverse events. On multivariable analysis, EMR-MM remained the strongest predictor of recurrence (odds ratio, .20; 95% confidence interval, .13-.64; P = .003) aside from polyp size (odds ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-6.01; P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-center historical control study, EMR-MM of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps reduced the recurrence risk by 80% when compared with conventional EMR. This simple technique may provide an alternative to margin ablation.

Endoscopic management of difficult laterally spreading tumors in colorectum

Due to the advent of the screening programs for colorectal cancer and the era of quality assurance colonoscopy the number the polyps that can be considered difficult, including large (> 20 mm) laterally spreading tumors (LSTs), has increased in the last decade. All LSTs should be assessed carefully, looking for suspicious areas of submucosal invasion (SMI), such as nodules or depressed areas, describing the morphology according to the Paris classification, the pit pattern, and vascular pattern. The simplest, most appropriate and safest endoscopic treatment with curative intent should be selected. For LST-granular homogeneous type, piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection should be the first option due to its biological low risk of SMI. LST-nongranular pseudodepressed type has an increased risk of SMI, and en bloc resection should be mandatory. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection is useful in situations where submucosal injection alters the operative field, e.g., for the resection of scar lesions, with no lifting, adjacent tattoo, incomplete resection attempts, lesions into a colonic diverticulum, in ileocecal valve and lesions with intra-appendicular involvement. Endoscopic full thickness resection is very useful for the treatment of difficult to resect lesions of less than 20 up to 25 mm. Among the indications, we highlight the treatment of polyps with suspected malignancy because the acquired tissue allows an exact histologic risk stratification to assign patients individually to the best treatment and avoid surgery for low-risk lesions. Endoscopic submucosal dissection is the only endoscopic procedure that allows completes en bloc resection regardless of the size of the lesion. It should therefore be indicated in the treatment of lesions with risk of SMI.

Incidence of microscopic residual adenoma after complete wide-field endoscopic resection of large colorectal lesions: evidence for a mechanism of recurrence

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EMR of large (≥2 cm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) is associated with high rates of recurrent/residual adenoma, possibly because of microadenoma left at the margin of resection. Data supporting this mechanism are required. We aimed to determine the incidence of residual microadenoma at the defect margin and base after EMR.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective observational study of patients undergoing EMR of large LNPCPs with the lateral defect margin further resected using the EndoRotor device (Interscope Medical, Inc, Worcester, Mass, USA) after confirming no visible residual adenomatous tissue. Aspects of the defect base were also resected in selected patients. Patients underwent surveillance at 3 to 6 months.

RESULTS

Resection of the normal defect margin was performed in 41 patients and of aspects of the base in 21 patients. Mean lesion size was 43.0 mm (range, 20-130). Microscopic residual lesion was detected in the margin of apparently normal mucosa in 8 cases (19%). In 7 cases this was an adenoma, and in 1 case a serrated lesion was found at the margin of a resected tubular adenoma. Microscopic residual lesion was detected at the base in 5 of 21 cases. Residual/recurrent adenoma was detected in 2 patients. Neither had residual microadenoma at the lateral margin or base detected after the primary resection.

CONCLUSIONS

Microscopic residual adenoma after wide-field EMR was detected in 19% of cases at the apparently normal defect margin and at the resection base in 5 of 21 cases. This study confirms the presence of residual microadenoma after resection of LNPCPs, providing evidence for the mechanism of recurrence.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Colonic Mucosal Neoplasia and Evaluation of Long-Term Recurrence: A Single-Center Experience of 500 Cases

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an alternative to surgery for the treatment of large laterally spreading lesions. Residual or recurrent adenoma is a major limitation. This study aimed to quantify early and late recurrences and to assess its associated risk factors.

METHODS

The study was a single-center, multiendoscopist, longitudinal study conducted between January 1, 2013 and April 26, 2017. A total of 480 patients with 500 polyps who underwent an endoscopic resection were included. Surveillance colonoscopy (SC) was performed at 4 to 6 months (SC1) and 16 to 18 months (SC2).

RESULTS

At SC1, early recurrence was noted in 77 of 354 (21.8%) lesions; 76 (98.7%) were treated endoscopically. The remaining 277 of 354 (78.2%) lesions had no recurrence at SC1; only 41 lesions (15%) were followed up at SC2. Recurrence at SC2 was found in 4 lesions (9.8%), all of which were treated endoscopically. Lesion size >40 mm was associated with recurrence. Recurrence at both SC1 and SC2 was successfully treated endoscopically in 78 of 81 lesions (96.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

EMR is an effective, minimally invasive technique for the treatment of large laterally spreading lesions. Although recurrence is a concern, its risk is low (21.8% on SC1 and 9.8% on SC2) and was managed endoscopically in 96.3% cases on follow-up endoscopy.

Long-term outcomes and surveillance timing of patients with large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps with histologically incomplete resection in endoscopic resection

BACKGROUND

Histologically incomplete resection of large colorectal polyps is frequently encountered; however, the long-term outcomes or surveillance timing is not well known. We evaluated the incidence rate and time of recurrence of these cases during a long-term follow-up.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent endoscopic resection for large (≥10 mm in size) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps at a tertiary academic hospital. Patients who had positive or indeterminate lateral margin in the histology and underwent completed surveillance colonoscopy first at 3-12 months and finally at ≥2 years after initial resection were included.

RESULTS

Of 169 polyps (148 patients), 37 (21.9%) and 132 (78.1%) polyps had positive and indeterminate lateral margins, respectively. The median time intervals of the first and last surveillance from the initial resection were 6 (3-12) and 48 (24-114) months, respectively. The recurrence rate was 9.5% (16/169) during follow-up, and the mean time to recurrence was 31.9 months. Thirteen (81.3%) polyps recurred after ≥12 months. Most (14/16, 87.5%) recurrent polyps were benign, and 2 cases had advanced cancer. The only factor that was significantly associated with recurrence in the univariate and multivariate analyses was ≥3 piecemeal resections (odds ratio in the multivariate analysis, 16.92; 95% CI, 1.19-241.81; p = 0.037).

CONCLUSION

During the long-term follow-up, the only factor that was significantly associated with recurrence was ≥3 piecemeal resections, and most recurrences occurred after ≥12 months. Thus, a histologically incomplete resection with ≤2 piecemeal resections and no findings of suspected submucosal cancer may be considered as complete resection, and these patients may undergo first surveillance colonoscopy after 1-2 years.

NBI utility in oncologic surgery: An organ by organ review

The main aims of the oncologic surgeon should be an early tumor diagnosis, complete surgical resection, and a careful post-treatment follow-up to ensure a prompt diagnosis of recurrence. Radiologic and endoscopic methods have been traditionally used for these purposes, but their accuracy might sometimes be suboptimal. Technological improvements could help the clinician during the diagnostic and therapeutic management of tumors. Narrow band imaging (NBI) belongs to optical image techniques, and uses light characteristics to enhance tissue vascularization. Because neoangiogenesis is a fundamental step during carcinogenesis, NBI could be useful in the diagnostic and therapeutic workup of tumors. Since its introduction in 2001, NBI use has rapidly spread in different oncologic specialties with clear advantages. There is an active interest in this topic as demonstrated by the thriving literature. It is unavoidable for clinicians to gain in-depth knowledge about the application of NBI to their specific field, losing the overall view on the topic. However, by looking at other fields of application, clinicians could find ideas to improve NBI use in their own specialty. The aim of this review is to summarize the existing literature on NBI use in oncology, with the aim of providing the state of the art: we present an overview on NBI fields of application, results, and possible future improvements in the different specialties.

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.).

Narrow-band imaging for scar (NBI-SCAR) classification: from conception to multicenter validation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Surveillance post-endoscopic resection (ER) currently warrants biopsy samples from the resection site scar in most cases, although clinical practice is variable. A classification with standard criteria for scars has not yet been established. We aimed to create and validate a novel classification for post-ER scars by using specific criteria based on advanced imaging.

METHODS

Key endoscopic features for scars with and without recurrence were (1) dark brown color, elongated/branched pit pattern, and dense capillary pattern and (2) whitish, pale appearance, round/slightly large pits, and irregular sparse vessels. Scars were first assessed with high-definition white-light endoscopy (HD-WLE) followed by interrogation with narrow-band imaging (NBI). Scars with at least 2 concordant characteristics were diagnosed with "high confidence" for NBI for scar (NBI-SCAR) classification. The final endoscopic predictions were correlated with histopathology. The primary outcome was the difference in sensitivity between NBI-SCAR and HD-WLE predictions. Secondary outcomes included the validation of our findings in 6 different endoscopy settings (Australia, United States, Japan, Brazil, Singapore, and Malaysia). The validation took place in 2 sessions separated by 2 to 3 weeks, each with 10 one-minute videos of post-ER scars on underwater NBI with dual focus. Inter-rater and intrarater reliability were calculated with Fleiss' free-marginal kappa and Bennett et al. S score, respectively.

RESULTS

One hundred scars from 82 patients were included. Ninety-five scars were accurately predicted with high confidence by NBI-SCAR in the exploratory phase. NBI-SCAR sensitivity was significantly higher compared with HD-WLE (100% vs 73.7%, P < .05). In the validation phase, similar results were found for endoscopists who routinely perform colonoscopies and use NBI (sensitivity of 96.4%). The inter-rater and intrarater reliability throughout all centers were, respectively, substantial (κ = .61) and moderate (average S = .52) for this subset.

CONCLUSIONS

NBI-SCAR has a high sensitivity and negative predictive value for excluding recurrence for endoscopists experienced in colonoscopy and NBI. In this setting, this approach may help to accurately evaluate or resect scars and potentially mitigate the burden of unnecessary biopsy samples.

Prediction of adenoma recurrence after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection: interobserver agreement and utilization of the Sydney EMR recurrence tool

Background and aims: Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (pEMR) allows resection of larger non-invasive colorectal lesions. Adenoma recurrence is an important limitation and occurs in ≤20%. The present study aimed to validate the Sydney EMR recurrence tool (SERT) score as a predictor of both endoscopic and histologic recurrence and evaluate interobserver agreement in adenoma recurrence based on endoscopic scar assessment, among nonexperts in EMR.Methods: Retrospective cohort and cross-sectional study, in which all patients submitted to pEMR in a tertiary care center in Portugal, between 2012 and 2018 were included. SERT-score was calculated for all lesions and compared with the SMSA (size, morphology, site, access) score already validated as a predictor of adenoma recurrence. Image based offline analysis was performed to evaluate adenoma recurrence prediction and assess the interobserver agreement within a heterogeneous group of participants, mostly composed by nonexperts in EMR.Results: There was a moderate positive correlation between the SERT and SMSA scores (p <.001; r = 0.61). SERT-score was significantly associated with endoscopic recurrence (p =.005) and histologic recurrence (p = .015). Endoscopic prediction of recurrence had high coefficient of agreement (k-0.806; p < .001).Conclusion: Histologic recurrence after pEMR can be predicted by SERT score and optical diagnosis of recurrent adenoma has high interobserver agreement between nonexperts in EMR.

Cap-fitted endoscopic mucosal resection of ≥ 20 mm colon flat lesions followed by argon plasma coagulation results in a low adenoma recurrence rate

Background and study aims  Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is increasingly used for the treatment of large colonic polyps (≥ 20 mm). A drawback of EMR is local adenoma recurrence. Therefore, we studied the impact of argon plasma coagulation (APC) of the EMR edge on local adenoma recurrence. Patients and methods  This was a retrospective study of patients with laterally spreading tumors (LST) ≥ 20 mm, who underwent EMR from January 2009 to August 2018 and follow-up endoscopic assessment. A cap-fitted endoscope was used to assess completeness of resection by systematically inspecting the EMR defect for any macroscopic disease. This was followed by forced APC of the resection edge followed by clip closure of the defect. Surveillance colonoscopy was performed at 6 months after resection to detect recurrence. Results  Two hundred forty-six patients met the inclusion criteria. Most were female (53 %) and white (80 %), with a Median age of 64 years. Median polyp size was 35 mm (interquartile range, 30-45 mm). Most polyps were located in the right colon (77 %) and were removed by piecemeal EMR (70 %). Eleven patients (5 %) had residual tumor at the resection site. Conclusions  We observed low adenoma recurrence after argon plasma coagulation of the EMR edge with a cap fitted colonoscope in patients with LST ≥ 20 mm of the colon, which requires further validation in a randomized controlled study.

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection without submucosal injection (UEMR) for large colorectal polyps: A community-based series

BACKGROUND

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection without submucosal injection (UEMR) is an appealing therapy for large colorectal polyps. However, this technique is not practiced widely and there are limited data evaluating UEMR in community settings.

METHODS

The study comprised patients undergoing UEMR of large (≥20 mm) sessile colorectal lesions at a community-based center. Residual neoplasia was assessed via follow-up colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Among 264 lesions (diameter 38 ± 18 mm; range 20-110 mm) 99% were successfully resected with UEMR. Two lesions involving the cecum/IC valve required multiple sessions. There were no cases of perforation or post-polypectomy syndrome. Delayed bleeding occurred in 1.6%, all managed conservatively. Residual neoplasia was present in 5.7% and was amenable to UEMR.

CONCLUSION

This large community-based series demonstrated high efficacy and safety of UEMR for large sessile colorectal lesions. The results support UEMR as first-line therapy for these lesions.

SUMMARY

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection without submucosal injection (UEMR) is a recently developed method that has advantages over conventional EMR for treatment of large colorectal lesions. However, UEMR is not practiced widely and there are limited data evaluating this technique in everyday practice. This large community-based series demonstrated high efficacy and safety of UEMR for large sessile colorectal lesions.

Prophylactic Snare Tip Soft Coagulation and Its Impact on Adenoma Recurrence After Colonic Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

BACKGROUND

Up to 20% of patients can have recurrence of adenomatous tissue at first surveillance study after colon endoscopic mucosal resection of large polyps.

AIMS

To determine whether an educational intervention discussing thermal ablation of lateral margins of the mucosectomy site of post-endoscopic mucosal resection defect with snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) would decrease adenoma recurrence.

METHODS

We performed a single-center quality improvement project from November 1, 2016, to November 30, 2017. Gastroenterologists underwent an educational intervention demonstrating the treatment of peripheral margins of mucosectomy site with STSC after standard mucosectomy technique. These cases (intervention group) were compared with consecutive procedures performed prior to commencement of the quality improvement study (pre-intervention group). Patients with large colorectal lesions (≥ 20 mm) were included.

RESULTS

Of the 120 patients here included, overall demographics of the groups were similar and the most common histology was sessile serrated adenoma (study group 45% vs 32% control group). Adenoma recurrence on intervention group and pre-intervention group was 12% versus 30%; p = 0.01. On univariate analysis, biopsy prior to mucosectomy, intraprocedural bleeding, and application of STSC on mucosectomy defect were the strongest predictors of adenoma recurrence. Adenoma recurrence in the intervention group was significantly lower than in the pre-intervention group in both univariate (odds ratio, 0.3 [95% CI, 0.11-0.80]) and multivariate analyses (odds ratio, 0.2 [95% CI, 0.12-0.92]).

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of STSC of post-endoscopic mucosal resection peripheral defects is clinically feasible and significantly decreased adenoma recurrence.