The prevalence of small-bowel polyps on video capsule endoscopy in patients with sporadic duodenal or ampullary adenomas.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although sporadic duodenal and/or ampullary adenomas (DAs) are uncommon, they are increasingly diagnosed during upper endoscopy. These patients have a 3- to 7-fold increased risk of colonic neoplasia compared with the normal population. It is unknown, however, whether they also have an increased risk of additional small-bowel (SB) polyps. Our aim was to establish the prevalence of SB polyps in patients with DA. METHODS: In a single-center, prospective study, we used video capsule endoscopy (VCE) to investigate the prevalence of SB polyps in patients with a DA compared with patients undergoing VCE for obscure GI bleeding or iron deficiency anemia. RESULTS: Over 25 months, 201 patients were enrolled in the study; the mean age was 65 years and 47% were male. There were 101 control patients and 100 cases of DA cases (mean size, 30 mm (range, 10-80 mm)). We did not identify any SB polyps in either group. Colonic polyps were found more frequently in the DA group compared with controls (61% versus 37%, respectively (P =.002)). Advanced colonic adenoma (high-grade dysplasia, >10 mm, villous histology) were found in 18% of the DA group and 5% of the control group (P =.018). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that patients with a DA are not at risk for additional SB polyps and hence do not support screening with VCE. However, colonoscopy is mandatory due to the significantly higher risk of colonic polyps including advanced adenomas. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02470416.).

EMR of laterally spreading lesions around or involving the appendiceal orifice: technique, risk factors for failure, and outcomes of a tertiary referral cohort (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EMR of sessile periappendiceal laterally spreading lesions (PA-LSLs) is technically demanding because of poor endoscopic access to the appendiceal lumen and the thin colonic wall at the base of the cecum. We aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of EMR for PA-LSLs. METHODS: Consecutive LSLs ≥20 mm and PA-LSLs ≥10 mm detected at 3 academic endoscopy centers from September 2008 until January 2017 were eligible. Prospective patient, procedural, and lesion data were collected. PA-LSLs were compared with LSLs in other colonic locations. RESULTS: Thirty-eight PA-LSLs were compared with 1721 LSLs. Referral for surgery without an attempt at EMR was more likely with PA-LSLs (28.9% vs 5.1%, P < .001), and those that involved a greater percentage of the appendiceal orifice (AO) were less likely to be attempted (P = .038). Most PA-LSLs (10/11) were not attempted because of deep extension into the appendiceal lumen; 2 of 11 of these surgical specimens contained invasive cancer. Once attempted, complete clearance of visible adenoma (92.6% PA-LSLs vs 97.6% LSLs, P = .14), adverse events, and rates of adenoma recurrence did not vary significantly between PA-LSLs and LSLs. All 7 patients with prior appendicectomy achieved complete adenoma clearance. There were no cases of post-EMR appendicitis. Twenty of 22 PA-LSLs (91%) eligible for surveillance avoided surgery to longest follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: EMR is a safe, effective, and durable treatment for PA-LSLs when specific criteria are fulfilled. If the distal margin of the PA-LSL within the AO cannot be visualized or if more than 50% of the circumference of the orifice is involved, surgery should be considered. (Clinical trial registration number: NTC01368289.).

Wide-field piecemeal cold snare polypectomy of large sessile serrated polyps without a submucosal injection is safe.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS : Large series suggest endoscopic mucosal resection is safe and effective for the removal of large (≥ 10 mm) sessile serrated polyps (SSPs), but it exposes the patient to the risks of electrocautery, including delayed bleeding. We examined the feasibility and safety of piecemeal cold snare polypectomy (pCSP) for the resection of large SSPs. METHODS: Sequential large SSPs (10 - 35 mm) without endoscopic evidence of dysplasia referred over 12 months to a tertiary endoscopy center were considered for pCSP. A thin-wire snare was used in all cases. Submucosal injection was not performed. High definition imaging of the defect margin was used to ensure the absence of residual serrated tissue. Adverse events were assessed at 2 weeks and surveillance was planned for between 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: 41 SSPs were completely removed by pCSP in 34 patients. The median SSP size was 15 mm (interquartile range [IQR] 14.5 - 20 mm; range 10 - 35 mm). The median procedure duration was 4.5 minutes (IQR 1.4 - 6.3 minutes). There was no evidence of perforation or significant intraprocedural bleeding. At 2-week follow-up, there were no significant adverse events, including delayed bleeding and post polypectomy syndrome. First follow-up has been undertaken for 15 /41 lesions at a median of 6 months with no evidence of recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: There is potential for pCSP to become the standard of care for non-dysplastic large SSPs. This could reduce the burden of removing SSPs on patients and healthcare systems, particularly by avoidance of delayed bleeding.

A standardized imaging protocol for the endoscopic prediction of dysplasia within sessile serrated polyps (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Dysplasia within sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) is difficult to detect and may be mistaken for an adenoma, risking incomplete resection of the background serrated tissue, and is strongly implicated in interval cancer after colonoscopy. The use of endoscopic imaging to detect dysplasia within SSPs has not been systematically studied. METHODS: Consecutively detected SSPs ≥8 mm in size were evaluated by using a standardized imaging protocol at a tertiary-care endoscopy center over 3 years. Lesions suspected as SSPs were analyzed with high-definition white light then narrow-band imaging. A demarcated area with a neoplastic pit pattern (Kudo type III/IV, NICE type II) was sought among the serrated tissue. If this was detected, the lesion was labeled dysplastic (sessile serrated polyp with dysplasia); if not, it was labeled non-dysplastic (sessile serrated polyp without dysplasia). Histopathology was reviewed by 2 blinded specialist GI pathologists. RESULTS: A total of 141 SSPs were assessed in 83 patients. Median lesion size was 15.0 mm (interquartile range 10-20), and 54.6% were in the right side of the colon. Endoscopic evidence of dysplasia was detected in 36 of 141 (25.5%) SSPs; of these, 5 of 36 (13.9%) lacked dysplasia at histopathology. Two of 105 (1.9%) endoscopically designated non-dysplastic SSPs had dysplasia at histopathology. Endoscopic imaging, therefore, had an accuracy of 95.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.1%-97.6%) and a negative predictive value of 98.1% (95% CI, 92.6%-99.7%) for detection of dysplasia within SSPs. CONCLUSIONS: Dysplasia within SSPs can be detected accurately by using a simple, broadly applicable endoscopic imaging protocol that allows complete resection. Independent validation of this protocol and its dissemination to the wider endoscopic community may have a significant impact on rates of interval cancer. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03100552.).