Search

Background and Aims: Since 2009, the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum guidelines have recommended that tumor budding and submucosal invasion depth, in addition to lymphovascular invasion and tumor grade, be included as risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) in patients with T1 colorectal cancer (CRC). In this study, a novel nomogram was developed and validated by usirge-scale, real-world data, including the Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum risk factors, to accurately evaluate the risk of LNM in T1 CRC., Methods: Data from 4673 patients with T1 CRC treated at 27 high-volume institutions between 2009 and 2016 were analyzed for LNM risk. To prepare a nonrandom split sample, the total cohort was divided into development and validation cohorts. Pathologic findings were extracted from the medical records of each participating institution. The discrimination ability was measured by using the concordance index, and the variability in each prediction was evaluated by using calibration curves., Results: Six independent risk factors for LNM, including submucosal invasion depth and tumor budding, were identified in the development cohort and entered into a nomogram. The concordance index was .784 for the clinical calculator in the development cohort and .790 in the validation cohort. The calibration curve approached the 45-degree diagonal in the validation cohort., Conclusions: This is the first nomogram to include submucosal invasion depth and tumor budding for use in routine pathologic diagnosis based on data from a nationwide multi-institutional study. This nomogram, developed with real-world data, should improve decision-making for an appropriate treatment strategy for T1 CRC., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Many knives have been developed to improve the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of scissor-type knives for colorectal ESD compared with needle-type knives., Methods: We performed a post-hoc propensity score-matched analysis in an 11-facility study between August 2013 and December 2018. A total of 2330 patients (2498 lesions) who underwent colorectal ESD were divided into needle-type (1923 patients, 2067 lesions) and scissor-type (407 patients, 431 lesions) knife groups. Short-term outcomes were compared between the 2 groups., Results: Two-to-one propensity score-matched analysis identified 814 (709 patients) and 407 (386 patients) lesions in the needle- and scissor-type knife groups, respectively. The median resection speed was significantly faster in the needle-type group (18.3 mm 2 /min) than in the scissor-type group (13.2 mm 2 /min, P < .0001), whereas en-bloc and histologic complete resection rates were not significantly different between the needle- and scissor-type groups (96.8% [788/814] vs 98.3% [400/407], P = .1888 and 95.1% [774/814] vs 95.6% [389/407], P = .7763, respectively). The rate of lesions resected using a single knife was significantly higher in the scissor-type group (98.5% [401/407]) than in the needle-type group (43.9% [357/814], P < .0001). Rates of intraoperative perforation and delayed bleeding were significantly lower in the scissor-type group than in the needle-type group (.7% [3/407] vs 2.5% [20/814], P = .0431 for each)., Conclusions: Scissor-type knives are safer for colorectal ESD. However, they are associated with slower resection speeds compared with needle-type knives. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000016197.)., (Copyright © 2022 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Since 2008, a plethora of research studies has compared the efficacy of water-assisted (aided) colonoscopy (WAC) and underwater resection (UWR) of colorectal lesions with standard colonoscopy. We reviewed and graded the research evidence with potential clinical application. We conducted a modified Delphi consensus among experienced colonoscopists on definitions and practice of water immersion (WI), water exchange (WE), and UWR., Methods: Major databases were searched to obtain research reports that could potentially shape clinical practice related to WAC and UWR. Pertinent references were graded (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Extracted data supporting evidence-based statements were tabulated and provided to respondents. We received responses from 55 (85% surveyed) experienced colonoscopists (37 experts and 18 nonexperts in WAC) from 16 countries in 3 rounds. Voting was conducted anonymously in the second and third round, with ≥80% agreement defined as consensus. We aimed to obtain consensus in all statements., Results: In the first and the second modified Delphi rounds, 20 proposed statements were decreased to 14 and then 11 statements. After the third round, the combined responses from all respondents depicted the consensus in 11 statements (S): definitions of WI (S1) and WE (S2), procedural features (S3-S5), impact on bowel cleanliness (S6), adenoma detection (S7), pain score (S8), and UWR (S9-S11)., Conclusions: The most important consensus statements are that WI and WE are not the same in implementation and outcomes. Because studies that could potentially shape clinical practice of WAC and UWR were chosen for review, this modified Delphi consensus supports recommendations for the use of WAC in clinical practice., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Although advanced high-volume centers have reported good outcomes of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), a limited number of highly skilled experts in specialized institutions performed these procedures. We undertook a retrospective multicenter survey, which included nonspecialized hospitals, to investigate the clinical outcomes of colorectal ESD., Methods: We recruited 1233 consecutive patients with 1259 colorectal tumors resected by ESD at 12 institutions. We evaluated the en bloc resection rate, histologic complete resection rate, curative (R0) resection rate, adverse events, and the long-term prognoses, including local recurrence, metachronous tumor development, and survival rate., Results: The en bloc, histologic complete, and R0 resection rates were 92.6%, 87.4%, and 83.7%, respectively. The delayed bleeding, intraoperative perforation, and delayed perforation rates were 3.7%, 3.4%, and .4%, respectively. The long-term outcomes analysis included 1091 patients (88.4%). Local recurrences occurred in 1.7%, and metachronous tumors (>5 mm) developed in 11.0% of the patients. The 3- and 5-year overall survival rates were 95.1% and 92.3%, respectively. The number of colonic tumors, severe submucosal fibrosis, and en bloc resection rates were significantly higher in the high-volume centers (Group H) than those in the low-volume centers (Group L). The average tumor size in Group H was significantly larger than that in Group L., Conclusions: Colorectal ESDs are feasible, have acceptable adverse event risks, and favorable long-term prognoses. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000016197.)., (Copyright © 2018 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Endoscopic self-expandable metal stent placement has been used as an alternative to surgery for malignant colorectal obstruction; however, factors affecting its clinical outcome are unclear., Objective: To clarify the short-term safety and efficacy of endoscopic self-expandable metal stent placement for malignant colorectal obstruction and to identify factors associated with its clinical and technical failure., Design: Prospective clinical cohort study., Setting: Fourteen academic centers and 32 community hospitals., Patients: A total of 513 consecutive patients with malignant colorectal obstruction., Intervention: Endoscopic self-expandable metal stent placement, sharing of stent placement methods among participating facilities., Main Outcome Measurements: The primary endpoint was clinical success, defined as symptom and radiological finding resolution within 24 hours. Secondary endpoints were technical success and adverse events. The follow-up period was 7 days., Results: The clinical and technical success rates were 95.5% and 97.9%, respectively. Major adverse events included perforation (2.1%), stent migration (1.0%), and stent occlusion (0.8%). The main causes of perforation were the procedure itself (0.8%) and comorbidities (obstructive colitis and impending perforation) not apparent before stent placement (0.6%). Extrinsic tumor origin was independently associated with the clinical failure after stent placement (odds ratio 4.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-14.79; P = .02). Stricture marking trended toward a negative association with technical failure (P = .09)., Limitations: Noncomparative study., Conclusion: Strict inclusion criteria and stricture marking may improve the technical and clinical success of stent placement., (Copyright © 2015 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)