Endoscopic resection of large sessile colorectal polyps.

Colonoscopic removal of large, sessile polyps is difficult, but can be successfully carried out by experienced endoscopists. "Piecemeal" resection with an electrocautery snare was performed at our institution in 108 patients with 132 such lesions. The mean size of the unresected polyps was 3.0 cm. Complications occurred in 3.0% of polypectomies (3.8% of patients), with bleeding necessitating transfusion in 2.3% of polypectomies (2.8% of patients), and microperforation (probable) in the remainder. No patient required emergency surgery due to a complication. In 65 patients (60%), colonoscopic resection and follow-up alone was carried out. Of these, adenomas recurred/persisted in 28%, most of which were successfully re-resected. Nearly half of all recurrent polyps occurred after at least one negative intervening examination. Carcinoma later appeared in 17% of the recurrences despite apparent initial complete resection of a previously benign polyp. Cure was ultimately achieved in 88% of endoscopically managed patients. Surgical resection was required in 27% of patients, mostly following the initial polypectomy when invasive carcinoma was found in the specimen. No residual tumor was later found in 41% of the colon specimens from these patients. Ninety-one percent of cancers were favorable stage, whether discovered early or late. Follow-up colonoscopy was achieved in 77% of patients over an average of 3.7 years. Metachronous polyps were excised in 52 patients (63%) and metachronous carcinoma was diagnosed in 3 patients (3.6%). An aggressive regimen of surveillance colonoscopy is warranted in these patients to detect and manage local recurrences and to remove subsequent adenomas. Endoscopic resection of large sessile adenomas can be safe and effective.     

Recurrence after endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection for large sessile colorectal polyps

AIM: To evaluate the safety and outcomes of endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection (EPMR) for large sessile colorectal polyps. METHODS: The patients enrolled in this study were 47 patients with 50 large sessile polyps (diameter, 2 cm or greater) who underwent EPMR using a submucosal saline injection technique between December 2002 and October 2005. All medical records, including characteristics of the patients and polyps, complications, and recurrences, were retrospectively reviewed. The first follow-up end...     

Endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection of large colorectal tumors

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Since endoscopic en bloc resection of large and sessile tumors is technically difficult, endoscopic en bloc piecemeal mucosal resection (EPMR) is usually chosen for resection of such tumors. Tumors resected by EPMR are, however, difficult to evaluate histologically. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of EPMR. METHODOLOGY: We removed 30 large colorectal tumors in 30 patients by EPMR between 1992-2000. Endoscopic examination was repeated at 3, 6 and 12 months and later on after initial endoscopic resection. Patients in whom no residual tumor was found by both endoscopic and histologic examination were considered to be "cured". RESULTS: Histological examination of the resected tumor tissues revealed malignancy in 43.3% (13/30). Three patients had invasive malignant tumors and underwent surgery. Following complete endoscopic resection, recurrences were observed in 2 patients with benign tumors, which were resected by additional endoscopic resection. All patients including the two with non-invasive malignant tumors remain free from recurrence during a mean follow-up period of 45.2 months (range, 3-104 months). Bleeding was the only complication and was seen in one patient (3.3%; 1/30), which was treated by endoscopic clipping. CONCLUSIONS: EPMR of benign or non-invasive large malignant tumors is a safe and effective procedure. Complete excision of large, sessile and non-invasive tumors is possible, although complete removal by EPMR cannot be verified histologically.     

Endoscopic mucosal resection of 161 cases of large sessile or flat colorectal polyps

OBJECTIVE: Large sessile or flat colorectal polyps, which are traditionally treated surgically, may be amenable to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), often using a piecemeal method. Appropriate selection of lesions and a careful technique may enhance the efficacy of EMR for polyps >or=20 mm in diameter without compromising safety. The aim of this study was to identify the factors that may be predictive of the risk of polyp recurrence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the outcome of 161 polyps >or=20 mm in diameter, treated by piecemeal EMR at a single centre using the "lift and cut" technique. All records were reviewed for polyp size, site, morphology and histology. Polypectomy technique, patient follow-up, polyp recurrence and surgical interventions were also recorded. RESULTS: Over an 8-year period, 161 colonic polyps measuring >or=20 mm were removed by EMR. Follow-up data were available for 149 cases (93%) with a mean polyp diameter of 32.5 mm; the total success rate of endoscopic polyp removal was 95.4%. The number of cases requiring 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 attempts at EMR was 89 (60%), 36 (24%), 14 (9%), 2 (1.3%) and 1 (0.7%), respectively. Recurrence was significantly related to polyp size (p<0.001). There was no statistically significant relationship between site and recurrence. Seven patients (4.6%) underwent surgical intervention after EMR because of failed clearance. There were no post-EMR perforations and significant bleeding was reported in only two patients (1.7%). CONCLUSIONS: With careful attention to technique, piecemeal EMR is a safe option for the resection of most sessile and flat colorectal polyps >or=20 mm in size. A stricter follow-up may be required for larger lesions because of a higher risk of recurrence.     

Endoscopic mucosal resection of 161 cases of large sessile or flat colorectal polyps

Objective. Large sessile or flat colorectal polyps, which are traditionally treated surgically, may be amenable to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), often using a piecemeal method. Appropriate selection of lesions and a careful technique may enhance the efficacy of EMR for polyps ≥20 mm in diameter without compromising safety. The aim of this study was to identify the factors that may be predictive of the risk of polyp recurrence. Material and methods. A retrospective analysis was conducted on the outcome of 161 polyps ≥20 mm in diameter, treated by piecemeal EMR at a single centre using the “lift and cut” technique. All records were reviewed for polyp size, site, morphology and histology. Polypectomy technique, patient follow-up, polyp recurrence and surgical interventions were also recorded. Results. Over an 8-year period, 161 colonic polyps measuring ≥20 mm were removed by EMR. Follow-up data were available for 149 cases (93%) with a mean polyp diameter of 32.5 mm; the total success rate of endoscopic polyp removal was 95.4%. The number of cases requiring 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 attempts at EMR was 89 (60%), 36 (24%), 14 (9%), 2 (1.3%) and 1 (0.7%), respectively. Recurrence was significantly related to polyp size (p<0.001). There was no statistically significant relationship between site and recurrence. Seven patients (4.6%) underwent surgical intervention after EMR because of failed clearance. There were no post-EMR perforations and significant bleeding was reported in only two patients (1.7%). Conclusions. With careful attention to technique, piecemeal EMR is a safe option for the resection of most sessile and flat colorectal polyps ≥20 mm in size. A stricter follow-up may be required for larger lesions because of a higher risk of recurrence.     

Endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps.

BACKGROUNDS: Endoscopic polypectomy is a common technique, but there are discrepancies over which treatment--surgical or endoscopic--to follow in case of polyps of 2 cm or larger. OBJECTIVES: To analyse the efficacy and complications of colonoscopic polypectomy of large colorectal polyps. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 147 polypectomies were performed on 142 patients over an eight-year period. The technique used was that of submucosal adrenaline 1:10000 or saline injection at the base of the polyp, followed by resection of the polyp using a diathermic snare in the smallest number of fragments. Remnant adenomatous tissue was fulgurated with an argon plasma coagulator. Lately, prophylactic hemoclips have been used for thick-pedicle polyps. Complete removal was defined as when a polyp was completely resected in one or more polypectomy sessions. Polypectomy failure was defined as when a polyp could not be completely resected or contained an invasive carcinoma. RESULTS: The mean patient age was 67.9 years (range, 4-90 years), with 68 men and 79 women. There were 74 sessile polyps, and the most common location was the sigmoid colon. The most frequent histology was tubulovillous. Most of the polyps (96.6%), were resected and cured. This was not achieved in four cases of invasive carcinoma, and a villous polyp of the cecum. All pedunculated polyps were resected in one session, whereas the average number of colonoscopies for sessile polyps was 1.35 +/- 0.6 (range, 1-4). The polypectomy was curative in all of the in situ carcinomata except one. As for complications, 2 colonic perforations (requiring surgery) and 8 hemorrhages appeared, which were controlled via endoscopy. There was no associated mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic polypectomy of large polyps (> or =2 cm) is a safe, effective treatment, though it is not free from complications. Complete resection is achieved in a high percentage, and there are few relapses. It should be considered a technique of choice for this type of polyp, except in cases of invasive carcinoma.     

Endoscopic submucosal dissection or piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection for large superficial colorectal lesions: A cost effectiveness study

Background and aimsEndoscopic management is preferred to surgical management for large superficial colorectal lesions. However, the optimal endoscopic resection strategy (piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection [pEMR] or endoscopic submucosal dissection [ESD]) is still debated from an economical point of view. To date, in France, there is no Health Insurance reimbursement rate for the hospital stays related to ESD. We searched to estimate the global cost of colorectal ESD and to define the most cost-effectiveness endoscopic strategy.MethodsA model was created to compare the cost-effectiveness of ESD and pEMR according to optical diagnosis (Japan NBI Expert Team [JNET], laterally spreading tumour [LST], CONECCT). We distinguished three groups from the same multicentre ESD cohort and compared the medical and economic outcomes: real-life ESD data (Universal-ESD or U-ESD) compared to modelled selective ESD (S-ESD JNET; S-ESD LST; S-ESD CONECCT) and exclusive pEMR strategies (Universal-EMR or U-EMR).ResultsThe en-bloc, R0, and curative resection rates were 97.5%, 86.5%, and 82.6%, respectively in the real life French ESD cohort of 833 colorectal lesions. U-ESD was the least-expensive strategy, with a global cost of 2,858,048.17 €, i.e. 3,431.03 €/patient and was also the most effective strategy because it avoided 774 surgeries, which was more than any other strategy. It outperformed S-ESD CONNECT (global cost = 2,951,411.44 €, and 3,543.11 €/patient, 765 surgeries avoided, S-ESD LST (global cost = 3,055,951.53 €, and 3,668.61 €/patient, 749 surgeries avoided), and S-ESD JNET (global cost = 3,547,426.97 € and 4,258.62 €/patient, 704 surgeries avoided) and U-EMR (global cost = 4,060,547.62 € and 4,874.61 €/patient, 620 surgeries avoided). Even though a model which optimized pEMR results (0% technical failure, 0% primary surgery), U-EMR strategy remained the most expansive strategy and the one that avoided the least surgeries.ConclusionESD for all LSTs upper than 20 mm is more cost-effective than pEMR, and S-ESD.     

Endoscopic ultrasonography for colorectal cancer using submucosal saline solution injection

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY     

EMR of large sessile colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND: EMR optimizes histopathologic assessment of resected lesions. This study evaluated the outcome of EMR of large sessile colorectal polyps in terms of complications and recurrence. METHODS: An uncontrolled prospective study was conducted of a cohort of 136 patients with sessile colorectal polyps referred for EMR. After submucosal injection, EMR was performed piecemeal by either snare polypectomy alone or with cap aspiration. RESULTS: In 136 patients, a total of 139 sessile polyps were resected, 86 of which were in the right colon. Median polyps diameter was 20 mm in the right colon and 30 mm in the other colonic segments. Intraprocedure bleeding occurred after 15 polypectomies (10.8%) and was controlled endoscopically in all cases; there was no delayed bleeding. Post-polypectomy syndrome occurred in 5 patients (3.7%). There was no perforation. Invasive carcinoma was found in 17 sessile colorectal polyps, and surgery was performed in 10 of 17 cases. Follow-up colonoscopy in 93 patients without invasive carcinoma (96 polyps), over a median of 12.3 months, disclosed local recurrence of 21 adenomatous polyps (21.9%). Colonoscopic follow-up in 5 of the 7 patients, who had sessile colorectal polyps with invasive carcinoma and did not undergo surgery, disclosed no local recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: EMR, including EMR with cap aspiration, is effective and safe for removal of sessile colorectal polyps throughout the colon.     

Endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps using a clipping method

PURPOSE: In conventional endoscopic snare polypectomy, bleeding and perforation are the principal concerns. To prevent these complications, we employ an endoscopic clipping technique using the HX-3L clipping apparatus. METHODS: With this method, clips are used to clamp the base of a polyp. A snare is hung peripheral to the clips. The polyp is then resected by coagulating and cutting with an electric current. RESULTS: Neither bleeding nor perforation during or after polypectomy has occurred, nor have complications related to the use of clips developed. Gigantic polyps were not resected piecemeal, but rather were resecteden bloc facilitating a clear determination of cancer on the surface of the resected site. Endoscopic clipping permitted site marking for colonoscopic surveillance. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the clipping method has many advantages and is a useful technique in colonoscopic polypectomy.     

内镜黏膜切除术治疗大肠广基大息肉

目的探讨内镜黏膜切除术(EMR)对肠道广基大息肉样病变的治疗价值。方法采用结肠镜下大肠黏膜切除术治疗135例共157个结直肠广基大息肉。病灶黏膜下注射肾上腺素生理盐水后,一次圈套整块切除或分次圈套切除病变,回收全部标本送病理检查,术后结肠镜随访。结果全部息肉EMR一次切除,除3个位于直肠黏膜下的病灶小于1 cm外,其余均大于1.5 cm,最大的13 cm×12 cm,无手术并发症。术后病理:腺瘤123个,其中有异型增生80个;黏膜内癌11个;增生性息肉20个;直肠类癌3个。随访中,有2例大于7 cm的直肠腺瘤分别于术后1个月及3个月复查时复发,均给予热活检钳完整钳除,病理分别为增生性息肉和绒毛状腺瘤,再复查6-12个月无复发。结论EMR是治疗大肠癌前病变及黏膜内癌安全、有效的方法。     

Treatment with argon plasma coagulation reduces recurrence after piecemeal resection of large sessile colonic polyps: a randomized trial and recommendations

BACKGROUND: Recurrence is frequent after piecemeal snare resection of large sessile colorectal polyps. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of argon plasma coagulation (APC) in preventing recurrence when applied to the edge and base of the polypectomy site after apparently complete piecemeal resection. METHODS: Patients with large (>1.5 cm) sessile polyps removed by piecemeal snare cautery were placed into 2 groups. The first consisted of patients with polyps believed by the endoscopist to be completely excised. These patients were randomized to either no further therapy (control) or to APC of the rim and any residual mucosal or submucosal tissue in the base of the polypectomy site. The second group comprised patients in whom polyps, as judged by the endoscopist, were incompletely excised by snare polypectomy; APC was routinely applied without randomization to all visible remaining adenomatous tissue. Follow-up colonoscopy was performed within 3 months and 1 year; biopsy specimens were taken routinely from the resection site and further polypectomy was performed as indicated. RESULTS: There were fewer recurrences after APC in the randomized group (1/10 APC, 7/11 no APC; p = 0.02). In the group with initial incomplete snare polypectomy, recurrence was detected at 3 months in 6 of 13 despite APC. One patient was hospitalized with abdominal pain and minor rectal bleeding but required no intervention. There were no other episodes of significant late bleeding caused by piecemeal polypectomy. One patient was referred for surgery after unsuccessful endoscopic management. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with apparent complete endoscopic snare resection of large adenomas, postpolypectomy application of APC reduces adenomatous recurrence.     

Endoscopic management of large colorectal polyps

Objectives  The optimal treatment for large colorectal polyps (LCPs) is still a controversial issue. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic polypectomy (EP) of colorectal polyps ≥2 cm in size. Patients and methods  One hundred fifty-one EP LCPs were performed over a period of 7 years. Diathermal snare was used for pedunculated and pseudopedunculated polyps and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or biopsy forceps polypectomy for sessile and flat polyps. The resected polyps were recovered and collected for histology. At scheduled follow-up visits 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after polypectomy, complications and recurrences were recorded in all patients. Results  Fifteen polyps were located in the rectum, 84 in the sigmoid colon, 11 in the descending colon, four in the splenic flexure, 11 in the transverse colon, 11 in the hepatic flexure, seven in the ascending colon and eight in the cecum. Fifty-six polyps were sessile, 54 pedunculated, 25 pseudopedunculated, and 16 flat. At histology, most of polyps (131) were adenomas (nine with adenocarcinoma in situ). Five were invasive polypoid carcinomas and required colonic resection. Immediate bleeding occurred in ten patients (7.6%) and it was stopped by endoscopic hemoclips (7), epinephrine injection (1), or surgery (2). There were three perforations (2.3%; all polypoid carcinomas), managed endoscopically (1) or surgically (2). Delayed bleeding occurred in two patients (1.5%) and was treated by endoscopic diathermy and hemoclips (1) or surgery (1). During follow-up, six (4.6%) incompletely excised polyps and three (2.3%) relapses in the site of previous EP were detected and endoscopically removed. Conclusion  EP is relatively safe and effective for benign-appearing LCPs.