Korean guideline for colonoscopic polypectomy

Endoscopic treatment of colorectal polyps and early colorectal cancer

Background: Colonoscopy offers higher diagnostic sensitivity than other colorectal cancer screening methods and provides the advantage of both diagnostic tissue sampling and polyp removal. Since the majority of colorectal cancers evolve from adenomatous polyps, polyp resection through colonoscopy is widely considered an effective method of preventing colorectal cancer and reducing mortality rates.Current Concepts: Determining colorectal polyp size and shape requires comprehensive endoscopy with enhanced imaging techniques to choose treatment directions and the appropriate colorectal polypectomy method. The selection of the polypectomy method is contingent upon the polyp’s attributes and possible malignancy according to US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and European gastrointestinal endoscopy guidelines. This article examines eight polypectomy procedures: cold forceps polypectomy, hot biopsy polypectomy, cold snare polypectomy, hot snare polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), and modified EMR techniques. Each method has unique benefits and is suitable for particular polyp types and sizes. Piecemeal EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection offer alternatives for larger or challenging lesions that require careful planning and follow-up. After endoscopic resection of early colorectal cancer, further surgery may be necessary depending on the risk of lymph node metastasis as determined by specific histologic findings following Korean and Japanese guidelines.Discussion and Conclusion: The choice of endoscopic resection technique, which depends on factors such as polyp shape, size, and location as well as endoscopist skill, is crucial for ensuring complete polyp removal.

Modified underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for intermediate-sized sessile colorectal polyps

INTRODUCTION

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is effective for treating intermediate-sized colorectal polyps. However, it is sometimes difficult to obtain visibility in underwater conditions.

METHODS

This prospective, observational, single-center study included consecutive patients with intermediate-sized (10-20 mm) sessile colorectal polyps. Modified UEMR method was used to initially snare the lesion without injection or water infusion. Thereafter, water was infused until the lesion was submerged, then it was resected using electrocautery. We also evaluated the rates of complete resection and procedure-related complications.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients with 47 polyps were enrolled in the study. The median procedure time and fluid infusion were 71 s (42-607) and 50 mL (30-130), respectively. The rates of R0 resection and en bloc resection were 80.9 and 97.9%, respectively, with 100% technical success. R0 resection was observed in 42.9% of polyps sized ≥15 mm and 87.5% sized <15 mm (p < 0.01). Muscle entrapment was found in 71.4% of patients with polyps sized ≥15 mm and 10% <15 mm (p < 0.01). Immediate bleeding occurred in 12.8% of cases and was controlled using a snare tip or hemostatic forceps. Snare-tip ablation and hemostatic forceps ablation were performed in 27.7 and 6.4% of patients, respectively. No delayed bleeding, perforation, or any other complications were reported.

CONCLUSION

Modified UEMR can be used in cases in which securing visibility or performing the existing UEMR is challenging. Careful treatment is required when removing polyps >15 mm in size.

Polypectomy for Diminutive and Small Colorectal Polyps

Diminutive and small colorectal polyps are common findings during colonoscopies, and rarely contain dysplastic elements and progress to colorectal cancer. With improving technology and the advent of artificial intelligence, detection rates of small or diminutive polyps and adenomas are rising, resulting in increasing costs associated with colonoscopy. Incomplete resection rates are an outcome of interest because it correlates with interval colorectal cancer. More effort is warranted to standardize training programs and sensitize endoscopists to the importance of personal performance as a quality metric of colonoscopy. This article reviews indications, methods, and recent developments in polypectomy for small and diminutive polyps.

Circumferential submucosal incision prior to endoscopic mucosal resection versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions with endoscopic features of sessile serrated lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) are more prone to incomplete resection than conventional adenomas. This study evaluated whether circumferential submucosal incision prior to endoscopic mucosal resection (CSI-EMR) can increase the rate of complete and en bloc resections of colorectal lesions with endoscopic features of SSL.

METHODS

Retrospective analyses and propensity score matching were performed for the resection of colorectal lesions ≥ 10 mm with endoscopic features of SSL.

RESULTS

After 1:1 ratio matching, 127 lesions in the CSI-EMR group and 127 in the EMR group were selected for analysis. The median size of the lesions was 15 mm (IQR 12-16) in both groups. There was no significant difference in either the complete resection rate or en bloc resection rate between CSI-EMR and EMR groups (96.9% vs. 92.9%, P = 0.155; 92.1% vs. 89.0%, P = 0.391). By contrast, the R0 resection rate was significantly higher in the CSI-EMR group than in the EMR group (89.8% vs. 59.8%, P < 0.001). The median procedure time was significantly longer in the CSI-EMR group than in the EMR group (6.28 min vs. 2.55 min, P < 0.001), whereas there was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of adverse events or recurrence rate. Multivariate analysis showed that CSI-EMR was the only factor significantly associated with R0 resection (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

For colorectal lesions with endoscopic features of SSL, CSI-EMR does not increase the complete or en bloc resection rate, but does increase the R0 resection rate. The procedure time is longer for CSI-EMR than EMR. The association of CSI-EMR with R0 resection and non-recurrence should be further evaluated.

Gastrointestinal and Nongastrointestinal Complications of Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and Colonoscopy in the Real World: A Nationwide Standard Cohort Using the Common Data Model Database

Background/Aims

The global trend of an expanding aged population has increased concerns about complications correlated with gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy in elderly patients; however, there have been few reports published on this issue.

Methods

In this retrospective, observational cohort study performed between 2012 and 2017, serious complications of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), colonoscopy, and colonoscopic polypectomy were compared between patients according to age (≥65 years vs 18–64 years). We used the Health Insurance Review and Assessment-National Patient Samples database, previously converted to the standardized Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership-Common Data Model. Serious complications within 30 days of the procedure included both GI complications (bleeding and perforation) and non-GI complications (cerebrovascular accident [CVA], acute myocardial infarction [AMI], congestive heart failure [CHF], and death).

Results

A total of 387,647 patients who underwent EGD, 241,094 who underwent colonoscopy, and 89,059 who underwent colonoscopic polypectomy were assessed as part of this investigation. During the study period, endoscopic procedures in the older group steadily increased in number in all endoscopy groups (all p<0.001). Further, pooled complication rates of bleeding, CVA, AMI, CHF, and death were approximately three times higher among older patients who underwent EGD or colonoscopy. Moreover, pooled complication rates of CVA, AMI, CHF, and death were approximately 2.2 to 5.0 times higher among older patients who underwent colonoscopic polypectomy.

Conclusions

Elderly patients experienced approximately three times more GI and non-GI complications after EGD or colonoscopy than young patients. Physicians should pay attention to the potential risks of GI endoscopy in elderly patients.

[Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Antithrombotic Agents in Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy]

Antithrombotic agents, including antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants, are increasingly used in South Korea. The management of patients using antithrombotic agents and requiring gastrointestinal endoscopy is an important clinical challenge. Although clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of patients receiving antithrombotic agents and undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy have been developed in the Unites States, Europe, and Asia Pacific region, it is uncertain whether these guidelines can be adopted in South Korea. After reviewing current CPGs, we identified unmet needs and recognized significant discrepancies in the clinical practice among regions. This is the first CPG in Korea providing information that may assist endoscopists in the management of patients on antithrombotic agents who require diagnostic or elective therapeutic endoscopy. This guideline was developed through the adaptation process as an evidence-based method, with four guidelines retrieved by systematic review. Eligible guidelines were evaluated according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II process, and 13 statements were established using a grading system. This guideline was reviewed by external experts before an official. It will be revised as necessary to cover changes in technology, evidence, or other aspects of clinical practice.

Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Antithrombotic Agents in Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Antithrombotic agents, including antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants, are increasingly used in South Korea. The management of patients using antithrombotic agents and requiring gastrointestinal endoscopy is an important clinical challenge. Although clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of patients receiving antithrombotic agents and undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy have been developed in the Unites States, Europe, and Asia Pacific region, it is uncertain whether these guidelines can be adopted in South Korea. After reviewing current CPGs, we identified unmet needs and recognized significant discrepancies in the clinical practice among regions. This is the first CPG in Korea providing information that may assist endoscopists in the management of patients on antithrombotic agents who require diagnostic or elective therapeutic endoscopy. This guideline was developed through the adaptation process as an evidence-based method, with four guidelines retrieved by systematic review. Eligible guidelines were evaluated according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II process, and 13 statements were established using a grading system. This guideline was reviewed by external experts before an official. It will be revised as necessary to cover changes in technology, evidence, or other aspects of clinical practice.

Hot snare polypectomy versus endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study was performed to compare endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with hot snare polypectomy (HSP) in terms of the complete resection rate and the incidence of adverse events for resecting small (5-10 mm) colorectal polyps.

METHODS

Small colorectal polyps (5-10 mm) with neoplastic features were randomly allocated to either the HSP or EMR group. A submucosal injection was performed prior to hot snaring in the EMR group only. Complete resection was defined as the absence of neoplastic tissue from two additional biopsies of the polypectomy site. R0 resection was defined as the absence of neoplastic tissue at the margin of the resected specimen.

RESULTS

A total of 362 colon polyps from 272 patients were included, and 167 polyps in the HSP group and 155 polyps in the EMR group were analyzed. Between the polypectomy techniques, there was no significant difference in the complete resection rates, which were 96.4% (161/167) in the HSP group and 95.5% (148/155) in the EMR group (P = 0.67). The R0 resection rate in the HSP and EMR groups was significantly different, with 49.7% (83/167) and 74.8% (116/155), respectively (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The complete resection rates for small (5-10 mm) polyps were not different between HSP and EMR.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ClincialTrials.gov number NCT02239536.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colitis-Associated Dysplasia

Dysplasia is a precancerous lesion of colorectal cancer in patients with long-standing inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs), such as ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Recent guidelines suggest endoscopic resection as a key modality for the treatment of endoscopically resectable dysplasia in patients with colitis. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been suggested as one of the therapeutic options for dysplasia that is potentially resectable but not suitable for the conventional endoscopic mucosal resection technique. Several recent studies supported the feasibility of ESD for the treatment of colitis-associated dysplasia in terms of the en bloc and complete resection rates and the risk of procedure-related complications. However, these studies were performed exclusively in expert centers. Moreover, the local and metachronous recurrence rates were relatively high, and long-term outcome data are still lacking. Endoscopists should be highly skilled in colorectal ESD and have an intensive understanding of not only the lesions but also the conditions of patients with IBDs. Therefore, the decision to perform ESD for colitis-associated dysplasia should be made scrupulously after careful discussion with patients, in collaboration with a multidisciplinary IBD team including physicians, surgeons, and pathologists specialized in IBDs.

Safety of simultaneous endoscopic submucosal dissection for two large colorectal neoplasias in the same patient

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Multiple large colorectal lesions requiring endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are sometimes diagnosed during colonoscopy. We evaluated the feasibility and safety of ESD of two colorectal lesions in one session.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The lesions of 16 patients who underwent two ESD procedures in a single session (double ESD group) from November 2009 to July 2014 were matched with those of 64 patients who underwent a single ESD procedure (single ESD group) based on the size and location of the lesion and presence of submucosal fibrosis.

RESULTS

The net ESD time per patient was longer in double ESD group than in single ESD group (104.0±36.2 vs. 59.1±39.2 min, p<0.001). The net ESD time per lesion tended to be shorter in double ESD group than in single ESD group (49.6±30.0 vs. 59.1±39.2 min, p=0.077). The en bloc resection and curative resection rates did not differ between double ESD and single ESD groups (93.8 % vs. 98.4%, p=0.262; 90.6 % vs. 84.4 %, p=0.534, respectively). The intra- and postprocedural bleeding rates were 12.5% and 0% in double ESD group and 15.6% and 3.1% in single ESD group, respectively. Perforation occurred in two (6.3%) in double ESD group and in six (9.4%) in single ESD group (p=0.715).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the single ESD, two simultaneous colorectal ESD procedures in a patient did not increase complications; the en bloc and curative resection rates were similar when performed a single ESD procedure and two simultaneous ESD procedures.

Prospective analysis of delayed colorectal post-polypectomy bleeding

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS

Although post-polypectomy bleeding is the most frequent complication after colonoscopic polypectomy, only few studies have investigated the incidence of bleeding prospectively. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding and its associated risk factors prospectively.

METHODS

Patients who underwent colonoscopic polypectomy at Kangbuk Samsung Hospital from January 2013 to December 2014 were prospectively enrolled in this study. Trained nurses contacted patients via telephone 7 and 30 days after polypectomy and completed a standardized questionnaire regarding the development of bleeding. Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding was categorized as minor or major and early or late bleeding. Major delayed bleeding was defined as a > 2-g/dL drop in the hemoglobin level, requiring hospitalization for control of bleeding or blood transfusion; late delayed bleeding was defined as bleeding occurring later than 24 h after polypectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 8175 colonoscopic polypectomies were performed in 3887 patients. Overall, 133 (3.4%) patients developed delayed post-polypectomy bleeding. Among them, 90 (2.3%) and 43 (1.1%) patients developed minor and major delayed bleeding, respectively, and 39 (1.0%) patients developed late delayed bleeding. In the polyp-based multivariate analysis, young age (< 50 years; odds ratio [OR] 2.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-3.68), aspirin use (OR 2.78; 95% CI 1.23-6.31), and polyp size of > 10 mm (OR 2.45; 95% CI 1.38-4.36) were significant risk factors for major delayed bleeding, while young age (< 50 years; OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.35-5.12) and immediate bleeding (OR 3.3; 95% CI 1.49-7.30) were significant risk factors for late delayed bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Young age, aspirin use, polyp size, and immediate bleeding were found to be independent risk factors for delayed post-polypectomy bleeding.

Endoscopic Instruments and Electrosurgical Unit for Colonoscopic Polypectomy

Colorectal polypectomy is an effective method for prevention of colorectal cancer. Many endoscopic instruments have been used for colorectal polypectomy, such as snares, forceps, endoscopic clips, a Coagrasper, retrieval net, injector, and electrosurgery generator unit (ESU). Understanding the characteristics of endoscopic instruments and their proper use according to morphology and size of the colorectal polyp will enable endoscopists to perform effective polypectomy. I reviewed the characteristics of endoscopic instruments for colorectal polypectomy and their appropriate use, as well as the basic principles and settings of the ESU.

The Feasibility of Performing Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Without Previous Experience in Performing Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

BACKGROUND

Experience in gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been suggested as a prerequisite for performing colorectal ESD by some experts.

AIMS

To evaluate the feasibility of performing colorectal ESD without experience in gastric ESD.

METHODS

Between November 2009 and December 2013, ESD was attempted for 250 colorectal lesions by an endoscopist having extensive colonoscopy experience but no prior experience of gastric ESD. All attempts were categorized according to the chronological order of procedures: group 1, attempts 1-50; group 2, attempts 51-100; group 3, attempts 101-150; group 4, attempts 151-200; and group 5, attempts 201-250. Procedure-related outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

En bloc resection rate ≥80% was achieved after initial ten ESD attempts. The ESD success rate (72, 80, 90, 90, and 94% in group 1-5, respectively; p for trend = 0.001), perforation rate (14, 14, 6, 6, and 0% in group 1-5, respectively; p for trend = 0.003), and macroperforation rate (6, 6, 2, 2, and 0% in group 1-5, respectively; p for trend = 0.042) improved as experience accumulated. Performing >100 ESDs, rectal location, and absence of submucosal fibrosis were independent predictors of successful procedure.

CONCLUSION

Colorectal ESD can be safely and effectively performed by an endoscopist having extensive experience in colonoscopy-related procedures even without previous experience of gastric ESD. Meticulous case selection for ESD novice and active supervision by expert endoscopists during the initial learning period may minimize the risk of perforation.

Effectiveness of adjuvant radiotherapy after local excision of rectal cancer with deep submucosal invasion: a single-hospital, case-control analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of postoperative radiation therapy (RT) after local excision (LE) of deep submucosal invasive rectal cancer remains unclear. We evaluated the efficacy of adjuvant RT after LE of early rectal cancer with deep submucosal invasion.

METHODS

We screened 227 patients who underwent transanal excision or endoscopic removal of deep submucosal invasive rectal cancer between 1992 and 2012, of which 66 did not undergo radical surgery owing to the patient's preference or poor medical conditions. Of these, 35 (53 %) underwent LE alone (LE group) and 31 (47 %) received adjuvant RT after LE (LE + RT group). Nine patients in the RT group received concurrent adjuvant chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil. Two independent pathologists reviewed histological data.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients in the LE + RT and LE groups was 59.5 ± 9.6 and 55.3 ± 11.2 years, respectively. The mean follow-up duration was 78.7 ± 66.7 months in the LE + RT group and 70.5 ± 45.7 months in the LE group. Cancer eventually recurred in six patients (9.1 %; two in the LE + RT group and four in the LE group). In five of these patients, recurrence occurred within 4 years after the initial treatment. The other patient, who was in the LE group, exhibited multiple lymph node metastases at the 116-month follow-up. Kaplan-Meier estimates of recurrence-free survival at 5 years after treatment were 96.8 % in the LE + RT group and 97 % in the LE group (P = 0.657).

CONCLUSION

RT after LE of early rectal cancer with deep submucosal invasion might not improve recurrence-free survival compared with LE alone.

Preparation and patient evaluation for safe gastrointestinal endoscopy

Patient evaluation and preparation is the first and mandatory step to ensure safety and quality of endoscopic procedures. This begins and ends with identifying the patient, procedure type, and indication. Every patient has the right to be fully informed about risks and benefits of what is to be performed on them, and the medical personnel should respect the decision made by the patients. Thoroughly performed history taking and physical examination will guide the endoscopists to better stratify risk and plan sedation. Special attention should be given to higher-risk patients with higher-risk condition undergoing higher-risk procedures. Making preparations to monitor the patients and being ready to handle emergency situations throughout the endoscopic procedure are sine qua non to warrant safe endoscopy.

International digestive endoscopy network to strengthen network for lower gastrointestinal diseases including inflammatory bowel disease and colorectal cancer

The International Digestive Endoscopy Network 2012 organized by Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy was held at Seoul, Korea on June 9 to 10, 2012, during which invited lectures of world renowned experts on the lower gastrointestinal (GI) tract were given with a wide range of the latest knowledge and novel imaging of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). There were very informative five sessions in the lower GI part consisting of: Colonoscopy in IBD; what can we do in 2012?; A look into the bowel beyond colon in IBD; How to estimate the invasion depth of early GI cancer?; No more no man's land: small bowel exploration; and colorectal ESD: can it be a popular procedure?