Search

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., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is a trend toward organ conservation in the management of rectal tumors. However, there is no consensus on standardized investigations to guide treatment., Objective: We report the value of multimodal endoscopic assessment (white light, magnification chromoendoscopy and narrow band imaging, selected colonoscopic ultrasound) for rectal early neoplastic tumors to inform treatment decisions., Design: This was a retrospective study., Setting: The study was conducted in a tertiary referral unit for interventional endoscopy and early colorectal cancer., Patients: A total of 296 patients referred with rectal early neoplastic tumors were assessed using standardized multimodal endoscopic assessment and classified according to risk of harboring invasive cancer., Main Outcome Measures: Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of multimodal endoscopic assessment, and previous biopsy to predict invasive cancer were calculated and treatment outcomes reported., Results: After multimodal endoscopic assessment, lesions were classified as invasive cancer, at least deep submucosal invasion (n = 65); invasive cancer, superficial submucosal invasion or high risk of covert cancer (n = 119); or low risk of covert cancer (n = 112). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and negative predictive values of multimodal endoscopic assessment for diagnosing invasive cancer, deep submucosal invasion, were 77%, 98%, 93%, and 93%. The combined classification of all lesions with invasive cancer or high risk of covert cancer had a negative predictive value of 96% for invasive cancer on final histopathology. Sensitivity of previous biopsy was 37%. A total of 47 patients underwent radical surgery and 33 transanal endoscopic microsurgery. No patients without invasive cancer were subjected to radical surgery; 222 patients initially underwent endoscopic resection. Of the 203 without deep submucosal invasion, 95% avoided surgery and were free from recurrence at last follow-up., Limitations: This was a retrospective study from a tertiary referral unit., Conclusions: Standardized multimodal endoscopic assessment guides rational treatment decisions for rectal tumors resulting in organ-conserving treatment for all patients without deep submucosal invasive cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B133. LA EVALUACIÓN ENDOSCÓPICA MULTIMODAL COMO GUÍA DE DECISIONES EN EL TRATAMIENTO DE TUMORES RECTALES NEOPLÁSICOS PRECOCES: La tendencia actual es la preservación del órgano en el manejo de los tumores de rectao. Sin embargo, no hay consenso sobre las investigaciones estandar para guiar dicho tratamiento.Presentamos los valores de la evaluación endoscópica multimodal (luz blanca, cromoendoscopia de aumento, imagen de banda estrecha y ecografía colonoscópica seleccionada) para tumores rectales neoplásicos tempranos y así notificar las decisiones sobre el tratamiento.Estudio retrospectivo.El estudio se realizó en una unidad de referencia terciaria para endoscopia intervencionista y cáncer colorrectal temprano.Se evaluaron 296 pacientes referidos con tumores neoplásicos precoces de recto mediante una evaluación endoscópica multimodal estandarizada y se clasificaron de acuerdo al riesgo de albergar un cáncer invasivo.Se calcularon la sensibilidad, la especificidad, los valores predictivos positivos y negativos de la evaluación endoscópica multimodal y la biopsia previa para predecir el cáncer invasivo y se notificaron los resultados para el tratamiento.Después de la evaluación endoscópica multimodal, las lesiones se clasificaron como: cáncer invasive (al menos invasión submucosa profunda n = 65); cáncer invasive (invasión submucosa superficial o alto riesgo de cáncer encubierto n = 119) y finalmente aquellos de bajo riesgo de cáncer encubierto (n = 112). La sensibilidad, la especificidad, los valores predictivos positivos y negativos de la evaluación endoscópica multimodal para el diagnóstico de cáncer invasivo, la invasión submucosa profunda fueron 77%, 98%, 93% y 93% respectivamente. La clasificación combinada de todas las lesiones con cáncer invasivo o de alto riesgo de cáncer encubierto tuvo un VPN del 96% para el cáncer invasivo en la histopatología final. La sensibilidad fué de 37% en todas las biopsias previas. 47 pacientes fueron sometidos a cirugía radical, 33 por microcirugía endoscópica transanal. Ningún paciente sin cáncer invasivo fue sometido a cirugía radical. Inicialmente, 222 pacientes fueron sometidos a resección endoscópica. De los 203 sin invasión submucosa profunda, el 95% evitó la cirugía y no tuvieron recurrencia en el último seguimiento.Estudio retrospectivo de una unidad de referencia terciaria.La evaluación endoscópica multimodal estandarizada guía las decisiones racionales de tratamiento para los tumores rectales que resultan en un tratamiento conservador de órganos para todos los pacientes sin cáncer invasivo submucoso profundo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B133.

Background and Aims: Few large Western series examine risk factors for recurrence after endoscopic resection (ER) of large (≥20 mm) colorectal laterally spreading tumors. Recurrence beyond initial surveillance is seldom reported, and differences between residual/recurrent adenoma and late recurrence are not scrutinized. We report the incidence of recurrence at successive surveillance intervals, identify risk factors for recurrent/residual adenoma and late recurrence, and describe the outcomes of ER of recurrent adenomas., Methods: Recurrence was calculated for successive surveillance periods after colorectal ER. Multiple logistic regression was used to identify independent risk factors for recurrent/residual adenoma and late recurrence (≥12 months)., Results: Six hundred twenty colorectal ERs were performed, and 456 eligible patients (98%) had completed 3- to 6-month surveillance. Residual/recurrent adenoma (3-6 months) was detected in 8.3%, at 12 months in 6.1%, between 24 and 36 months in 6.4%, and after 36 months in 13.5%. Independent risk factors for residual/recurrent adenoma were piecemeal resection (odds ratio [OR], 13.0; P = .01), adjunctive argon plasma coagulation (OR, 2.4; P = .01), and lesion occupying ≥75% of the luminal circumference (OR, 5.6; P < .001) and for late recurrence were lesion size >60 mm (OR, 6.3; P < .001) and piecemeal resection (OR, 4.4; P = .04). Of 66 patients with recurrence, 5 required surgery, 8 left the treatment pathway, 20 are still receiving ER or surveillance, and 33 had ER with normal subsequent surveillance., Conclusions: Recurrence occurs at successive periods of surveillance after ER even beyond 3 years. Aside from piecemeal resection, risk factors for residual/recurrent adenoma and late recurrence are different. Recurrence can be challenging to treat, but surgery is rarely required., (Copyright © 2019 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Injudicious attempts at resection and extensive sampling of large colorectal adenomas prior to referral for endoscopic resection (ER) are common. This has deleterious effects, but little is known about the outcomes following ER. We retrospectively analysed the outcomes of ER of large adenomas previously subjected to substantial manipulation., Method: ER of large (≥ 2 cm) colorectal adenomas were grouped according to level of manipulation: prior attempted resection, heavy manipulation (≥ six biopsies or tattoo under lesion) or minimal manipulation (< six biopsies). Outcomes were compared between groups. Independent predictors of outcomes were identified using multiple logistic regression., Results: Five hundred forty-two lesions (mean size 53.7 mm) were included. Two hundred sixty-five (49%) had been subjected to prior attempted resection or heavy manipulation, 151 (28%) to minimal manipulation, and 126 (23%) were not previously manipulated. ESD techniques were used more frequently than EMR after substantial manipulation. There were no differences in initial success of ER (99%, 98%, 98%, p = 0.71). Prior attempted resection was independently associated with recurrence (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.5, p = 0.03) and negatively associated with en bloc resection (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.1-0.7, p = 0.004). Regardless of level of prior manipulation, there were no differences in sustained endoscopic cure with > 95% of patients overall free from recurrence and avoiding surgery at last follow-up., Conclusion: There is a substantial burden of injudicious lesion manipulation before referral, which makes recurrence more likely and en bloc resection less likely. However, with appropriate expertise, sustained successful endoscopic treatment is achievable for the vast majority of patients treated in a specialist unit.

Purpose: Almost any colorectal superficial neoplastic lesion can be treated by endoscopic resection (ER) but very little is known about outcomes of ER leaving circumferential or near-circumferential mucosal defects. We report the outcomes of ER leaving ≥ 75% circumferential mucosal defects performed in a western expert centre., Methods: Five hundred eighty-seven ERs of large colorectal lesions ≥ 20 mm were grouped according to the extent of the mucosal defect and comparisons made between those with < 75% and ≥ 75% defects. Independent predictors of stenosis were identified., Results: Forty-seven patients had ER leaving ≥ 75% circumference defect, most located at or distal to the rectosigmoid, with ≥ 90% defects in 5 and 100% in 11. There were no significant colonic muscle injuries in patients with ≥ 75% defect and no differences in post-procedure bleeding (OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.2-13.7, p = 0.64) between patients with ≥ 75% and < 75% defects. Stenosis developed in 9 patients. ≥ 90% circumference defect was the only independent risk factor for stenosis (OR 286, p < 0.001). Three of 4 patients with asymptomatic stenosis had successful expectant management. The remainder were treated with dilatation. Recurrence was more likely in those with ≥ 75% defect (OR 7.9, 95% CI 3.8-16.4, p < 0.001) but was managed with further ER in all but 2 cases., Conclusion: ER of colorectal lesions resulting in defects ≥ 75% of the luminal circumference is challenging but safe and effective when performed in an expert centre. The only independent predictor of stenosis is ≥ 90% circumference defect but some patients improve with expectant management; therefore, pre-emptive intervention may not be warranted.

Background: Endoscopic resection of large colorectal lesions is well reported and is the first line of treatment for all noninvasive colorectal neoplasms in many centers, but little is known about the outcomes of endoscopic resection of truly massive colorectal lesions ≥8 cm., Objective: We report on the outcomes of endoscopic resection for massive (≥8 cm) colorectal adenomas and compare the outcomes with resection of large (2.0-7.9 cm) lesions., Design: This was a retrospective study., Settings: The study was conducted in a tertiary referral unit for interventional endoscopy., Patients: A total of 435 endoscopic resections of large colorectal polyps (≥2 cm) were included, of which 96 were ≥8 cm., Main Outcome Measures: Outcomes included initial successful resection, complications, recurrence, surgery, and hospital admission., Results: Endoscopic resection was successful for 91 of 96 massive lesions (≥8 cm). Mean size was 10.1 cm (range, 8-16 cm). A total of 75% had previous attempts at resection or heavy manipulation before referral. Thirty two were resected using endoscopic submucosal dissection or hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection and the rest using piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection. No patients required surgery for a perforation. Five patients had postprocedural bleeding. There were 25 recurrences: 2 were treated with transanal endoscopic microsurgery, 2 with right hemicolectomy, and the rest with endoscopic resection. Compared with patients with large lesions, more patients with massive adenomas had complications (19.8% versus 3.3%), required admission (39.6% versus 11.0%), developed recurrence (30.8% versus 9.9%), or required surgery for recurrence (5.0% versus 0.8%)., Limitations: This was a retrospective study., Conclusions: Endoscopic resection of massive colorectal adenomas ≥8 cm is achievable with few significant complications, and the majority of patients avoid surgery. Systematic assessment is required to appropriately select patients for endoscopic resection, which should be performed in specialist units. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A653.

Background: Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection results in high rates of en bloc resection, few recurrences, and accurate diagnosis, and it is useful in lesions with significant fibrosis. However, endoscopic submucosal dissection has not been widely adopted by Western endoscopists and the published experience from Western centers is very limited., Objectives: This study aims to report the outcomes from a UK tertiary center using colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection as part of a standard lesion specific treatment approach., Design: This was a retrospective study., Setting: The study was conducted in a tertiary referral unit for interventional endoscopy in the United Kingdom., Patients: A total of 116 colorectal lesions were resected using endoscopic submucosal dissection or hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection in 107 patients., Main Outcome Measures: Outcomes included complications, recurrence, requirement for surgery, en bloc and R0 resection., Results: One hundred sixteen lesions (mean size 58.8mm) were resected using endoscopic submucosal dissection (n = 58) and hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (n = 58). Eighty-two (70.7%) had failed attempts at resection (n = 58) or extensive sampling before referral. Twelve contained invasive adenocarcinoma; endoscopic resection was curative in 6. Only 2 of 6 patients with noncurative endoscopic resection agreed to surgery, and none had lymph node metastases. Six of 7 perforations were successfully treated with endoscopic clips. Where endoscopic submucosal dissection was used alone, en bloc resection was achieved in 93% and R0 resection was achieved in 91%. Two patients experienced recurrence; both were managed with endoscopic resection., Limitations: This was a retrospective study. Procedures were planned as endoscopic submucosal dissection, but some may have been converted to hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection and not recorded., Conclusion: Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection can be used in a Western center as part of a standard lesion-specific approach to deliver effective organ-conserving treatment to patients with large challenging lesions. Lesion assessment in Western practice should be improved to reduce the incidence of prior heavy manipulation and to guide appropriate referral. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A601.

Background: The SCENIC consensus statement recommends endoscopic resection of all visible dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease, but patients with large or complex lesions may still be advised to have colectomy. This article presents outcomes for large nonpolypoid resections associated with colitis at our institution., Methods: Data including demographics, clinical history, lesion characteristics, method of resection, and postresection surveillance were collected prospectively in patients with visible lesions within colitic mucosa from January 2011 to November 2016. Resection techniques included endoscopic mucosal resection , endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and hybrid ESD. Surveillance with magnification chromoendoscopy was performed at 3 months, 1-year postresection, and annually thereafter., Results: Fifteen lesions satisfied the inclusion criteria in 15 patients. Mean lesion size was 48.3+/-21.7 (20-90) mm. All lesions were non-polypoid with distinct margins and no ulceration. 73% lesions were scarred of which 64% had undergone prior instrumentation. En bloc resection was achieved in n=6. Presumed endoscopic diagnosis was confirmed histopathologically in all resected lesions. One case of perforation and another with bleeding were both managed endoscopically. Median follow-up was 28 months (12-35) with no recurrence., Conclusion: This cohort series demonstrates that endoscopic resection of large non-polypoid lesions associated with colitis is feasible and safe using an array of resection methods supporting the role of advanced endoscopic therapeutics for the management of colitis associated dysplasia in a western tertiary endoscopic center.

Background: Endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps is well established. However, significant differences in technique exist between eastern and western interventional endoscopists. We report the results of endoscopic resection of large complex colorectal lesions from a specialist unit that combines eastern and western techniques for assessment and resection., Patients and Methods: Endoscopic resections of colorectal lesions of at least 2 cm were included. Lesions were assessed using magnification chromoendoscopy supplemented by colonoscopic ultrasound in selected cases. A lesion-specific approach to resection with endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was used. Surveillance endoscopy was performed at 3 (SC1) and 12 (SC2) months., Results: Four hundred and sixty-six large (≥20 mm) colorectal lesions (mean size 54.8 mm) were resected. Three hundread and fifty-six were resected using endoscopic mucosal resection and 110 by ESD or hybrid ESD. Fifty-one percent of lesions had been subjected to previous failed attempts at resection or heavy manipulation (≥6 biopsies). Nevertheless, endoscopic resection was deemed successful after an initial attempt in 98%. Recurrence occurred in 15% and could be treated with endoscopic resection in most. Only two patients required surgery for perforation. Nine patients had postprocedure bleeding; only two required endoscopic clips. Ninety-six percent of patients without invasive cancer were free from recurrence and had avoided surgery at last follow-up., Conclusion: Combining eastern and western practices for assessment and resection results in safe and effective organ-conserving treatment of complex colorectal lesions. Accurate assessment before and after resection using magnification chromoendoscopy and a lesion-specific approach to resection, incorporating ESD where appropriate, are important factors in achieving these results.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables en bloc resection of large complex colorectal superficial neoplastic lesions, resulting in very low rates of local recurrence, high-quality pathologic specimens for accurate histopathologic diagnosis and potentially curative treatment of early adenocarcinoma without resorting to major surgical resection. The safety and efficacy of the technique, which was pioneered in the upper gastrointestinal tract, has been established by the consistently impressive outcomes from expert centers in Japan and some other eastern countries. However, ESD is challenging to perform in the colorectum and there is a significant risk of complications, particularly in the early stages of the learning curve. Early studies from western centers raised concerns about the high complication rates, and the impressive results from Japanese centers were not replicated. As a result, many western endoscopists are skeptical about the role of ESD and few centers have incorporated the technique into their practice. Nevertheless, although the distribution of expertise, referral centers and modes of practice may differ in Japan and western countries, ESD has an important role and can be safely and effectively incorporated into western practice. Key to achieving this is meticulous lesion assessment and selection, appropriate referral to centers with the necessary expertise and experience and application of the appropriate technique individualized to the patient. This review discusses the advantages, risks and benefits of ESD to treat colorectal lesions and the importance of preprocedure lesion assessment and in vivo diagnosis and outlines a pragmatic rationale for appropriate lesion selection as well as the patient, technical and institutional factors that should be considered., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.