Recurrences of advanced sessile and lateral spreading colorectal adenoma after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) thermal ablation versus no adjuvant therapy (RESPECT): a protocol of an international randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, large benign lateral spreading lesions (LSLs) and sessile polyps in the colorectum are mostly resected by endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). A major drawback of EMR is the polyp recurrence rate of up to 20%. Snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) is considered an effective technique to reduce recurrence rates. However, clinical trials on STSC have mainly been conducted in expert referral centers. In these studies, polyp recurrence was assessed optically, and additional adjunctive techniques were excluded. In the current trial, we will evaluate the efficacy and safety of STSC in daily practice, by allowing adjunctive techniques during EMR and the use of both optical and histological polyp recurrence to assess recurrences during follow-up. METHODS: The RESPECT study is a multicenter, parallel-group, international single blinded randomized controlled superiority trial performed in the Netherlands and Germany. A total of 306 patients undergoing piecemeal EMR for LSLs or sessile colorectal polyps sized 20-60 mm will be randomized during the procedure after endoscopic complete polyp resection to the intervention or control group. Post-EMR defects allocated to the intervention group will be treated with thermal ablation with STSC of the entire resection margin. Primary outcome will be polyp recurrence by optical and histological confirmation at the first surveillance colonoscopy after 6 months. Secondary outcomes include technical success and complication rates. DISCUSSION: The RESPECT study will evaluate if STSC is effective in reducing recurrence rates after piecemeal EMR of large colorectal lesions in daily clinical practice performed by expert and non-expert endoscopists. Moreover, endoscopists will be allowed to use adjunctive techniques to remove remaining adenomatous tissue during the procedure. Finally, adenomatous polyp recurrence during follow-up will be defined by histologic identification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05121805. Registered on 16 November 2021. Start recruitment: 17 March 2022. Planned completion of recruitment: 31 April 2025.

Endoscopic techniques to reduce recurrence rates after colorectal EMR: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an effective, safe, and minimally invasive treatment for large lateral spreading and sessile polyps. The reported high recurrence rate of approximately 20% is however one of the major drawbacks. Several endoscopic interventions have been suggested to reduce recurrence rates. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of endoscopic interventions targeting the EMR margin to reduce recurrence rates. METHODS: We searched in PubMed and Ovid for studies comparing recurrence rates after interventions targeting the EMR margin with standard EMR. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate at the first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1) assessed histologically or macroscopically. For the meta-analysis, risk ratios (RRs) were calculated and pooled using a random effects model. The secondary outcome was post-procedural complication rates. RESULTS: Six studies with a total of 1335 lesions were included in the meta-analysis. The techniques performed in the intervention group targeting the resection margin were argon plasma coagulation, snare tip soft coagulation, extended EMR, and precutting EMR. The interventions reduced the adenoma recurrence rate with more than 50%, resulting in a pooled RR of 0.37 (95% CI 0.18, 0.76) comparing the intervention group with the control groups. Overall post-procedural complication rates did not increase significantly in the intervention arm (RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.65, 2.58). CONCLUSION: Interventions targeting the EMR margin decrease recurrence rates and may not result in more complications.

Impact of multidisciplinary tumor board discussion on palliation of patients with esophageal or gastro-esophageal junction cancer: a population-based study.

Background: The Dutch guidelines for esophageal and gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) cancer recommend discussion of patients by a multidisciplinary tumor board (MDT). Despite this recommendation, one previous study in the Netherlands suggested that therapeutic guidance was missing for palliative care of patients with esophageal cancer. The aim of the current study was therefore to assess the impact of an MDT discussion on initial palliative treatment and outcome of patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer.Material and methods: The population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry was used to identify patients treated for esophageal or GEJ cancer with palliative intent between 2010 and 2017 in 7 hospitals. We compared patients discussed by the MDT with patients not discussed by the MDT in a multivariate analysis. Primary outcome was type of initial palliative treatment. Secondary outcome was overall survival.Results: A total of 389/948 (41%) patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer were discussed by the MDT before initial palliative treatment. MDT discussion compared to non-MDT discussion was associated with more patients treated with palliative intent external beam radiotherapy (38% vs. 21%, OR 2.7 [95% CI 1.8-3.9]) and systemic therapy (30% vs. 23%, OR 1.6 [95% CI 1.0-2.5]), and fewer patients treated with stent placement (4% vs. 12%, OR 0.3 [95% CI 0.1-0.6]) and best supportive care alone (12% vs. 33%, OR 0.2 [95% CI 0.1-0.3]). MDT discussion was also associated with improved survival (169 days vs. 107 days, HR 1.3 [95% CI 1.1-1.6]).Conclusion: Our study shows that MDT discussion of patients with esophageal or GEJ cancer resulted in more patients treated with initial palliative radiotherapy and chemotherapy compared with patients not discussed by the MDT. Moreover, MDT discussion may have a positive effect on survival, highlighting the importance of MDT meetings at all stages of treatment.

Reasons why the diagnosis of serrated polyposis syndrome is missed.

OBJECTIVES: Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is a relatively new and under-recognized colorectal cancer (CRC) predisposition syndrome. Previous studies have reported miss-rates of SPS diagnosis varying from 40 to 82%. As SPS patients and their first-degree relatives have an increased risk of CRC, early recognition is important. We aimed to determine the miss-rate of SPS and to determine the reasons for missed diagnosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients diagnosed with at least one colorectal polyp or carcinoma detected at our tertiary referral center between January 1986 and July 2013 using the nationwide pathology registry. On the basis of cumulative polyp count with size and location, SPS patients were identified. We checked whether the SPS diagnosis was made in the medical files and, if not, what might have been the reason for missing the diagnosis. RESULTS: We randomly assessed 5000 patients, of whom 25 patients fulfilled the WHO criteria for SPS. In six patients, no previous SPS diagnosis had been made, leading to a miss-rate of 24.0% (95% confidence interval: 7.3-40.7). The reasons for missed diagnosis were polyps removed before establishment of the WHO criteria, unavailable pathology reports, and failure to apply the criteria by the clinician. CONCLUSION: The miss-rate for the diagnosis of SPS is considerable, even during longer follow-up with repeated colonoscopies. A preventable reason for missing SPS cases is failure to apply the WHO criteria. Awareness of this CRC predisposition syndrome needs to be raised to decrease the miss-rate of SPS.