Standardised training for endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps to reduce recurrence (*STAR-LNPCP study): a multicentre cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the preferred treatment for non-invasive large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) but is associated with an early recurrence rate of up to 30%. We evaluated whether standardised EMR training could reduce recurrence rates in Dutch community hospitals. DESIGN: In this multicentre cluster randomised trial, 59 endoscopists from 30 hospitals were randomly assigned to the intervention group (e-learning and 2-day training including hands-on session) or control group. From April 2019 to August 2021, all consecutive EMR-treated LNPCPs were included. Primary endpoint was recurrence rate after 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 1412 LNPCPs were included; 699 in the intervention group and 713 in the control group (median size 30 mm vs 30 mm, 45% vs 52% size, morphology, site and access (SMSA) score IV, 64% vs 64% proximal location). Recurrence rates were lower in the intervention group compared with controls (13% vs 25%, OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.78; p=0.005) with similar complication rates (8% vs 9%, OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.36; p=0.720). Recurrences were more often unifocal in the intervention group (92% vs 76%; p=0.006). In sensitivity analysis, the benefit of the intervention on recurrence rate was only observed in the 20-40 mm LNPCPs (5% vs 20% in 20-29 mm, p=0.001; 10% vs 21% in 30-39 mm, p=0.013) but less evident in ≥40 mm LNPCPs (24% vs 31%; p=0.151). In a post hoc analysis, the training effect was maintained in the study group, while in the control group the recurrence rate remained high. CONCLUSION: A compact standardised EMR training for LNPCPs significantly reduced recurrences in community hospitals. This strongly argues for a national dedicated training programme for endoscopists performing EMR of ≥20 mm LNPCPs. Interestingly, in sensitivity analysis, this benefit was limited for LNPCPs ≥40 mm. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR7477.

Prevalence of neoplasia at colonoscopy among testicular cancer survivors treated with platinum-based chemotherapy.

Testicular cancer survivors (TCS) treated with platinum-based chemotherapy have an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). We determined the yield of colonoscopy in TCS to assess its potential in reducing CRC incidence and mortality. We conducted a colonoscopy screening study among TCS in four Dutch hospitals to assess the yield of colorectal neoplasia. Neoplasia was defined as adenomas, serrated polyps (SPs), advanced adenomas (AAs: ≥10 mm diameter, high-grade dysplasia or ≥25% villous component), advanced serrated polyps (ASPs: ≥10 mm diameter or dysplasia) or CRC. Advanced neoplasia (AN) was defined as AA, ASP or CRC. Colonoscopy yield was compared to average-risk American males who underwent screening colonoscopy (n = 24,193) using a propensity score matched analysis, adjusted for age, smoking status, alcohol consumption and body mass index. A total of 137 TCS underwent colonoscopy. Median age was 50 years among TCS (IQR 43-57) vs 55 years (IQR 51-62) among American controls. A total of 126 TCS were matched to 602 controls. The prevalence of AN was higher in TCS than in controls (8.7% vs 1.7%; P = .0002). Nonadvanced adenomas and SPs were detected in 45.2% of TCS vs 5.5% of controls (P < .0001). No lesions were detected in 46.0% of TCS vs 92.9% of controls (P < .0001). TCS treated with platinum-based chemotherapy have a higher prevalence of neoplasia and AN than matched controls. These results support our hypothesis that platinum-based chemotherapy increases the risk of colorectal neoplasia in TCS. Cost-effectiveness studies are warranted to ascertain the threshold of AN prevalence that justifies the recommendation of colonoscopy for TCS.

Differences in treatment of stage I colorectal cancers: a population-based study of colorectal cancers detected within and outside of a screening program.

BACKGROUND: Screen-detected colorectal cancers (CRCs) are often treated less invasively than stage-matched non-screen-detected CRCs, but the reasons for this are not fully understood. This study evaluated the treatment of stage I CRCs detected within and outside of the screening program in the Netherlands. METHODS : Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry for all stage I CRCs diagnosed between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2020 were analyzed, comparing patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics of screen-detected and non-screen-detected stage I CRCs. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between treatment (local excision only vs. surgical oncologic resection) and patient and tumor characteristics, stratified for T stage and tumor location. RESULTS: Screen-detected stage I CRCs were relatively more often T1 than T2 compared with non-screen-detected stage I CRCs (66.9 % vs. 53.3 %; P < 0.001). When only T1 tumors were considered, both screen-detected colon and rectal cancers were more often treated with local excision only than non-screen-detected T1 cancers (odds ratio [OR] 2.19, 95 %CI 1.93-2.49; and OR 1.29, 95 %CI 1.05-1.59, respectively), adjusted for sex, tumor location, lymphovascular invasion (LVI) status, and tumor differentiation. CONCLUSIONS : Less invasive treatment of screen-detected stage I CRC is partly explained by the higher rate of T1 cancers compared with non-screen-detected stage I CRCs. T1 stage I screen-detected CRCs were also more likely to undergo less invasive treatment than non-screen-detected CRCs, adjusted for risk factors such as LVI and tumor differentiation. Future research should investigate whether the choice of local excision was related to unidentified cancer-related factors or the expertise of the endoscopists.

Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2024.

1: ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2: ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3: ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6-9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4: ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10-19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5: ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6: ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9: ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10: ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11: ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.

Oncologic outcomes of screen-detected and non-screen-detected T1 colorectal cancers.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) has increased with the implementation of CRC screening programs. It is unknown whether the outcomes and risk models for T1 CRC based on non-screen-detected patients can be extrapolated to screen-detected T1 CRC. This study aimed to compare the stage distribution and oncologic outcomes of T1 CRC patients within and outside the screening program. METHODS: Data from T1 CRC patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 were collected from 12 hospitals in the Netherlands. The presence of lymph node metastasis (LNM) at diagnosis was compared between screen-detected and non-screen-detected patients using multivariable logistic regression. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to analyze differences in the time to recurrence (TTR), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival. Additionally, the performance of conventional risk factors for LNM was evaluated across the groups. RESULTS: 1803 patients were included (1114 [62%] screen-detected), with median follow-up of 51 months (interquartile range 30). The proportion of LNM did not significantly differ between screen- and non-screen-detected patients (12.6% vs. 8.9%; odds ratio 1.41; 95%CI 0.89-2.23); a prediction model for LNM performed equally in both groups. The 3- and 5-year TTR, MFS, and CSS were similar for patients within and outside the screening program. However, overall survival was significantly longer in screen-detected T1 CRC patients (adjusted hazard ratio 0.51; 95%CI 0.38-0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Screen-detected and non-screen-detected T1 CRCs have similar stage distributions and oncologic outcomes and can therefore be treated equally. However, screen-detected T1 CRC patients exhibit a lower rate of non-CRC-related mortality, resulting in longer overall survival.

Effect of optical diagnosis training on recognition and treatment of submucosal invasive colorectal cancer in community hospitals: a prospective multicenter intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Recognition of submucosal invasive colorectal cancer (T1 CRC) is difficult, with sensitivities of 35 %-60 % in Western countries. We evaluated the real-life effects of training in the OPTICAL model, a recently developed structured and validated prediction model, in Dutch community hospitals. METHODS: In this prospective multicenter study (OPTICAL II), 383 endoscopists from 40 hospitals were invited to follow an e-learning program on the OPTICAL model, to increase sensitivity in detecting T1 CRC in nonpedunculated polyps. Real-life recognition of T1 CRC was then evaluated in 25 hospitals. Endoscopic and pathologic reports of T1 CRCs detected during the next year were collected retrospectively, with endoscopists unaware of this evaluation. Sensitivity for T1 CRC recognition, R0 resection rate, and treatment modality were compared for trained vs. untrained endoscopists. RESULTS: 1 year after e-learning, 528 nonpedunculated T1 CRCs were recorded for endoscopies performed by 251 endoscopists (118 [47 %] trained). Median T1 CRC size was 20 mm. Lesions were mainly located in the distal colorectum (66 %). Trained endoscopists recognized T1 CRCs more frequently than untrained endoscopists (sensitivity 74 % vs. 62 %; mixed model analysis odds ratio [OR] 2.90, 95 %CI 1.54-5.45). R0 resection rate was higher for T1 CRCs detected by trained endoscopists (69 % vs. 56 %; OR 1.73, 95 %CI 1.03-2.91). CONCLUSION: Training in optical recognition of T1 CRCs in community hospitals was associated with increased recognition of T1 CRCs, leading to higher en bloc and R0 resection rates. This may be an important step toward more organ-preserving strategies.

Deep Submucosal Invasion Is Not an Independent Risk Factor for Lymph Node Metastasis in T1 Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Deep submucosal invasion (DSI) is considered a key risk factor for lymph node metastasis (LNM) and important criterion to recommend surgery in T1 colorectal cancer. However, metastatic risk for DSI is shown to be low in the absence of other histologic risk factors. This meta-analysis determines the independent risk of DSI for LNM. METHODS: Suitable studies were included to establish LNM risk for DSI in univariable analysis. To assess DSI as independent risk factor, studies were eligible if risk factors (eg, DSI, poor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, and high-grade tumor budding) were simultaneously included in multivariable analysis or LNM rate of DSI was described in absence of poor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, and high-grade tumor budding. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% CIs were calculated. RESULTS: Sixty-seven studies (21,238 patients) were included. Overall LNM rate was 11.2% and significantly higher for DSI-positive cancers (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 2.10-3.18). Eight studies (3621 patients) were included in multivariable meta-analysis and did not weigh DSI as a significant predictor for LNM (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 0.96-3.12). As opposed to a significant association between LNM and poor differentiation (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.39-3.28), high-grade tumor budding (OR, 2.83; 95% CI, 2.06-3.88), and lymphovascular invasion (OR, 3.16; 95% CI, 1.88-5.33). Eight studies (1146 patients) analyzed DSI as solitary risk factor; absolute risk of LNM was 2.6% and pooled incidence rate was 2.83 (95% CI, 1.66-4.78). CONCLUSIONS: DSI is not a strong independent predictor for LNM and should be reconsidered as a sole indicator for oncologic surgery. The expanding armamentarium for local excision as first-line treatment prompts serious consideration in amenable cases to tailor T1 colorectal cancer management.

Colonoscopy-Assisted Laparoscopic Wedge Resection for the Treatment of Suspected T1 Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Local en bloc resection of pT1 colon cancer has been gaining acceptance during the last few years. In the absence of histological risk factors, the risk of lymph-node metastases (LNM) is negligible and does not outweigh the morbidity and mortality of an oncologic resection. Colonoscopy-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection (CAL-WR) has proved to be an effective and safe technique for removing complex benign polyps. The role of CAL-WR for the primary resection of suspected T1 colon cancer has to be established. METHODS: This retrospective study aimed to determine the radicality and safety of CAL-WR as a local en bloc resection technique for a suspected T1 colon cancer. Therefore, the study identified patients in whom high-grade dysplasia or a T1 colon carcinoma was suspected based on histology and/or macroscopic assessment, requiring an en bloc resection. RESULTS: The study analyzed 57 patients who underwent CAL-WR for a suspected macroscopic polyp or polyps with biopsy-proven high-grade dysplasia or T1 colon carcinoma. For 27 of these 57 patients, a pT1 colon carcinoma was diagnosed at pathologic examination after CAL-WR. Histological risk factors for LNM were present in three cases, and 70% showed deep submucosal invasion (Sm2/Sm3). For patients with pT1 colon carcinoma, an overall R0-resection rate of 88.9% was achieved. A minor complication was noted in one patient (1.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The CAL-WR procedure is an effective and safe technique for suspected high-grade dysplasia or T1-colon carcinoma. It may fill the gap for tumors that are macroscopic suspected for deep submucosal invasion, providing more patients an organ-preserving treatment option.

Patients' perspectives and the perceptions of healthcare providers in the treatment of early rectal cancer; a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making has become of increased importance in choosing the most suitable treatment strategy for early rectal cancer, however, clinical decision-making is still primarily based on physicians' perspectives. Balancing quality of life and oncological outcomes is difficult, and guidance on patients' involvement in this subject in early rectal cancer is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to explore preferences and priorities of patients as well as physicians' perspectives in treatment for early rectal cancer. METHODS: In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were performed with early rectal cancer patients (n = 10) and healthcare providers (n = 10). Participants were asked which factors influenced their preferences and how important these factors were. Thematic analyses were performed. In addition, participants were asked to rank the discussed factors according to importance to gain additional insights. RESULTS: Patients addressed the following relevant factors: the risk of an ostomy, risk of poor bowel function and treatment related complications. Healthcare providers emphasized oncological outcomes as tumour recurrence, risk of an ostomy and poor bowel function. Patients perceived absolute risks of adverse outcome to be lower than healthcare providers and were quite willing undergo organ preservation to achieve a better prospect of quality of life. CONCLUSION: Patients' preferences in treatment of early rectal cancer vary between patients and frequently differ from assumptions of preferences by healthcare providers. To optimize future shared decision-making, healthcare providers should be aware of these differences and should invite patients to explore and address their priorities more explicitly during consultation. Factors deemed important by both physicians and patients should be expressed during consultation to decide on a tailored treatment strategy.

Endoscopic management of patients with high-risk colorectal colitis-associated neoplasia: a Delphi study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Current guidelines recommend endoscopic resection of visible and endoscopically resectable colorectal colitis-associated neoplasia (CAN) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, patients with high-risk CAN (HR-CAN) are often not amenable to conventional resection techniques, and a consensus approach for the endoscopic management of these lesions is presently lacking. This Delphi study aims to reach consensus among experts on the endoscopic management of these lesions. METHODS: A 3-round modified Delphi process was conducted to reach consensus among worldwide IBD and/or endoscopy experts (n = 18) from 3 continents. Consensus was considered if ≥75% agreed or disagreed. Quality of evidence was assessed by the criteria of the Cochrane Collaboration group. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on all statements (n = 14). Experts agreed on a definition for CAN and HR-CAN. Consensus was reached on the examination of the colon with enhanced endoscopic imaging before resection, the endoscopic resectability of an HR-CAN lesion, and endoscopic assessment and standard report of CAN lesions. In addition, experts agreed on type of resections of HR-CAN (< 20 mm, >20 mm, with or without good lifting), endoscopic success (technical success and outcomes), histologic assessment, and follow-up in HR-CAN. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first step in developing international consensus-based recommendations for endoscopic management of CAN and HR-CAN. Although the quality of available evidence was considered low, consensus was reached on several aspects of the management of CAN and HR-CAN. The present work and proposed standardization might benefit future studies.

Low risk of local recurrence after a successful en bloc endoscopic submucosal dissection for noninvasive colorectal lesions with positive horizontal resection margins (R-ESD study).

BACKGROUND : During endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), the normal mucosa is cut under constant optical control. We studied whether a positive horizontal resection margin after a complete en bloc ESD predicts local recurrence. METHODS: In this European multicenter cohort study, patients with a complete en bloc colorectal ESD were selected from prospective registries. Cases were defined by a horizontal resection margin that was positive or indeterminate for dysplasia (HM1), whereas controls had a free resection margin (HM0). Low risk lesions with submucosal invasion (T1) and margins free of carcinoma were analyzed separately. The main outcome was local recurrence. RESULTS: From 928 consecutive ESDs (2011-2020), 354 patients (40 % female; mean age 67 years, median follow-up 23.6 months), with 308 noninvasive lesions and 46 T1 lesions, were included. The recurrence rate for noninvasive lesions was 1/212 (0.5 %; 95 %CI 0.02 %-2.6 %) for HM0 vs. 2/96 (2.1 %; 95 %CI 0.57 %-7.3 %) for HM1. The recurrence rate for T1 lesions was 1/38 (2.6 %; 95 %CI 0.14 %-13.5 %) for HM0 vs. 2/8 (25 %; 95 %CI 7.2 %-59.1 %) for HM1. CONCLUSION: A positive horizontal resection margin after an en bloc ESD for noninvasive lesions is associated with a marginal nonsignificant increase in the local recurrence rate, equal to an ESD with clear horizontal margins. This could not be confirmed for T1 lesions.

Limited wedge resection for T1 colon cancer (LIMERIC-II trial) - rationale and study protocol of a prospective multicenter clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The sole presence of deep submucosal invasion is shown to be associated with a limited risk of lymph node metastasis. This justifies a local excision of suspected deep submucosal invasive colon carcinomas (T1 CCs) as a first step treatment strategy. Recently Colonoscopy-Assisted Laparoscopic Wedge Resection (CAL-WR) has been shown to be able to resect pT1 CRCs with a high R0 resection rate, but the long term outcomes are lacking. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety, effectiveness and long-term oncological outcomes of CAL-WR as primary treatment for patients with suspected superficial and also deeply-invasive T1 CCs. METHODS: In this prospective multicenter clinical trial, patients with a macroscopic and/or histologically suspected T1 CCs will receive CAL-WR as primary treatment in order to prevent unnecessary major surgery for low-risk T1 CCs. To make a CAL-WR technically feasible, the tumor may not include > 50% of the circumference and has to be localized at least 25 cm proximal from the anus. Also, there should be sufficient distance to the ileocecal valve to place a linear stapler. Before inclusion, all eligible patients will be assessed by an expert panel to confirm suspicion of T1 CC, estimate invasion depth and subsequent advise which local resection techniques are possible for removal of the lesion. The primary outcome of this study is the proportion of patients with pT1 CC that is curatively treated with CAL-WR only and in whom thus organ-preservation could be achieved. Secondary outcomes are 1) CAL-WR's technical success and R0 resection rate for T1 CC, 2) procedure-related morbidity and mortality, 3) 5-year overall and disease free survival, 4) 3-year metastasis free survival, 5) procedure-related costs and 6) impact on quality of life. A sample size of 143 patients was calculated. DISCUSSION: CAL-WR is a full-thickness local resection technique that could also be effective in removing pT1 colon cancer. With the lack of current endoscopic local resection techniques for > 15 mm pT1 CCs with deep submucosal invasion, CAL-WR could fill the gap between endoscopy and major oncologic surgery. The present study is the first to provide insight in the long-term oncological outcomes of CAL-WR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CCMO register (ToetsingOnline), NL81497.075.22, protocol version 2.3 (October 2022).

Colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection versus segmental colon resection for benign colonic polyps: a comparative cost analysis.

AIM: The colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection (CAL-WR) is proven to be an effective and safe alternative to a segmental colon resection (SCR) for large or complex benign colonic polyps that are not eligible for endoscopic removal. This analysis aimed to evaluate the costs of CAL-WR and compare them to the costs of an SCR. METHOD: A single-centre 90-day 'in-hospital' comparative cost analysis was performed on patients undergoing CAL-WR or SCR for complex benign polyps between 2016 and 2020. The CAL-WR group consisted of 44 patients who participated in a prospective multicentre study (LIMERIC study). Inclusion criteria were (1) endoscopically unresectable benign polyps; (2) residual or recurrence after previous polypectomy; or (3) irradically resected low risk pT1 colon carcinoma. The comparison group, which was retrospectively identified, included 32 patients who underwent an elective SCR in the same period. RESULTS: Colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection was associated with significantly fewer complications (7% in the CAL-WR group vs. 45% in the SCR group, P < 0.001), shorter operation time (50 min in the CAL-WR group vs. 119 min in the SCR group, P < 0.001), shorter length of hospital stay (median length of stay 2 days in the CAL-WR group vs. 4 days in the SCR group, P < 0.001) and less use of surgical resources (reduction in costs of 32% per patient), resulting in a cost savings of €2372 (£2099 GBP) per patient (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Given the clinical and financial benefits, CAL-WR should be recommended for complex benign polyps that are not eligible for endoscopic resection before major surgery is considered.

Colonoscopic-Assisted Laparoscopic Wedge Resection for Colonic Lesions: A Prospective Multicenter Cohort Study (LIMERIC-Study).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a modified CAL-WR. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The use of segmental colectomy in patients with endoscopically unresectable colonic lesions results in significant morbidity and mortality. CAL-WR is an alternative procedure that may reduce morbidity. METHODS: This prospective multicenter study was performed in 13 Dutch hospitals between January 2017 and December 2019. Inclusion criteria were (1) colonic lesions inaccessible using current endoscopic resection techniques (judged by an expert panel), (2) non-lifting residual/recurrent adenomatous tissue after previous polypectomy or (3) an undetermined resection margin after endoscopic removal of a low-risk pathological T1 (pT1) colon carcinoma. Thirty-day morbidity, technical success rate and radicality were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 118 patients included (56% male, mean age 66 years, standard deviation ± 8 years), 66 (56%) had complex lesions unsuitable for endoscopic removal, 34 (29%) had non-lifting residual/recurrent adenoma after previous polypectomy and 18 (15%) had uncertain resection margins after polypectomy of a pT1 colon carcinoma. CAL-WR was technically successful in 93% and R0 resection was achieved in 91% of patients. Minor complications (Clavien-Dindo i-ii) were noted in 7 patients (6%) and an additional oncologic segmental resection was performed in 12 cases (11%). Residual tissue at the scar was observed in 5% of patients during endoscopic follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: CAL-WR is an effective, organ-preserving approach that results in minor complications and circumvents the need for major surgery. CAL-WR, therefore, deserves consideration when endoscopic excision of circumscribed lesions is impossible or incomplete.

Full-Thickness Scar Resection After R1/Rx Excised T1 Colorectal Cancers as an Alternative to Completion Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Local full-thickness resections of the scar (FTRS) after local excision of a T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) with uncertain resection margins is proposed as an alternative strategy to completion surgery (CS), provided that no local intramural residual cancer (LIRC) is found. However, a comparison on long-term oncological outcome between both strategies is missing. METHODS: A large cohort of patients with consecutive T1 CRC between 2000 and 2017 was used. Patients were selected if they underwent a macroscopically complete local excision of a T1 CRC but positive or unassessable (R1/Rx) resection margins at histology and without lymphovascular invasion or poor differentiation. Patients treated with CS or FTRS were compared on the presence of CRC recurrence, a 5-year overall survival, disease-free survival, and metastasis-free survival. RESULTS: Of 3,697 patients with a T1 CRC, 434 met the inclusion criteria (mean age 66 years, 61% men). Three hundred thirty-four patients underwent CS, and 100 patients underwent FTRS. The median follow-up period was 64 months. CRC recurrence was seen in 7 patients who underwent CS (2.2%, 95% CI 0.9%-4.6%) and in 8 patients who underwent FTRS (9.0%, 95% CI 3.9%-17.7%). Disease-free survival was lower in FTRS strategy (96.8% vs 89.9%, P = 0.019), but 5 of the 8 FTRS recurrences could be treated with salvage surgery. The metastasis-free survival (CS 96.8% vs FTRS 92.1%, P = 0.10) and overall survival (CS 95.6% vs FTRS 94.4%, P = 0.55) did not differ significantly between both strategies. DISCUSSION: FTRS after local excision of a T1 CRC with R1/Rx resection margins as a sole risk factor, followed by surveillance and salvage surgery in case of CRC recurrence, could be a valid alternative strategy to CS.

Relevance of polyp size for primary endoscopic full-thickness resection of suspected T1 colorectal cancers.

BACKGROUND: En bloc local excision of suspected T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) provides optimal tumor risk assessment with curative intent. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) with an over-the-scope device has emerged as a local excision technique for T1 CRCs, but data on the upper size limit for achieving a histological complete (R0) resection are lacking. We aimed to determine the influence of polyp size on the R0 rate. METHODS: eFTR procedures for suspected T1 CRCs performed between 2015 and 2021 were selected from the endoscopy databases of three tertiary centers. The main outcome was R0 resection, defined as tumor- and dysplasia-free margins (≥ 0.1 mm) for both the deep and lateral resection margins. Regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for R1/Rx resection, mainly focusing on endoscopically estimated polyp size. RESULTS: 136 patients underwent eFTR for suspected T1 CRC (median size 15 mm [IQR 13-18 mm]; 83.1 % cancer). The rates of technical success and R0 resection were 87.5 % (119/136; 95 %CI 80.9 %-92.1 %) and 79.7 % (106/136; 95 %CI 72.1 %-85.7 %), respectively. Increasing polyp size was significantly associated with R1/Rx resection (risk ratio 2.35 per 5-mm increase, 95 %CI 1.80-3.07; P < 0.001). The R0 rate was 89.9 % (80/89) for polyps ≤ 15 mm, 71.4 % (25/35) for 16-20 mm, and 11.1 % (1/9) for those > 20 mm. CONCLUSIONS: eFTR is associated with a 90 % R0 rate for T1 CRCs of ≤ 15 mm. Performing eFTR for polyps 16-20 mm should depend on access, their mobility, and the availability of alternative resection techniques. eFTR for > 20-mm polyps results in a high R1 rate and should not be recommended.

Efficacy and safety of cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection for treatment of nonlifting colorectal polyps.

BACKGROUND : Suboptimal lifting increases complexity of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for benign colorectal polyps. Cap-assisted EMR (EMR-C) may allow fibrotic polyp tissue to be captured in the snare. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of EMR-C for benign nonlifting colorectal polyps. METHODS : This was a multicenter study, which prospectively registered all EMR-C procedures (2016-2018) for presumed benign nonlifting colorectal polyps. RESULTS : 70 nonlifting polyps with a median size of 25 mm (interquartile range [IQR] 15-40) were treated with EMR-C. Complete polyp removal was achieved in 68 (97.1 %), including 47 (67.1 %) with EMR-C alone. Overall, 66 polyps showed benign histology, and endoscopic follow-up after a median of 6 months (IQR 6-10) showed recurrence in 19.7 %. First (n = 10) and second (n = 2) benign recurrences were all treated endoscopically. Deep mural injury type III-V occurred in 7.4 % and was treated successfully with clips. CONCLUSION : EMR-C may be an alternative therapeutic option for removal of benign nonlifting polyp tissue. Although recurrence still occurs, repeat endoscopic therapy usually leads to complete polyp clearance.

Endoscopic management of subepithelial lesions including neuroendocrine neoplasms: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

1: ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as the best tool to characterize subepithelial lesion (SEL) features (size, location, originating layer, echogenicity, shape), but EUS alone is not able to distinguish among all types of SEL.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests providing tissue diagnosis for all SELs with features suggestive of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) if they are of size > 20 mm, or have high risk stigmata, or require surgical resection or oncological treatment.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) or mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) equally for tissue diagnosis of SELs ≥ 20 mm in size.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends against surveillance of asymptomatic gastrointestinal (GI) tract leiomyomas, lipomas, heterotopic pancreas, granular cell tumors, schwannomas, and glomus tumors, if the diagnosis is clear.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests surveillance of asymptomatic esophageal and gastric SELs without definite diagnosis, with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at 3-6 months, and then at 2-3-year intervals for lesions < 10 mm in size, and at 1-2-year intervals for lesions 10-20 mm in size. For asymptomatic SELs > 20 mm in size that are not resected, ESGE suggests surveillance with EGD plus EUS at 6 months and then at 6-12-month intervals.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for type 1 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (g-NENs) if they grow larger than 10 mm. The choice of resection technique should depend on size, depth of invasion, and location in the stomach.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7: ESGE suggests considering removal of histologically proven gastric GISTs smaller than 20 mm as an alternative to surveillance. The decision to resect should be discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting. The choice of technique should depend on size, location, and local expertise.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests that, to avoid unnecessary follow-up, endoscopic resection is an option for gastric SELs smaller than 20 mm and of unknown histology after failure of attempts to obtain diagnosis.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends basing the surveillance strategy on the type and completeness of resection. After curative resection of benign SELs no follow-up is advised, except for type 1 gastric NEN for which surveillance at 1-2 years is advised.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 10: For lower or upper GI NEN with a positive or indeterminate margin at resection, ESGE recommends repeating endoscopy at 3-6 months and another attempt at endoscopic resection in the case of residual disease.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Endoscopic intermuscular dissection for deep submucosal invasive cancer in the rectum: a new endoscopic approach.

BACKGROUND: The risk of lymph node metastasis associated with deep submucosal invasion should be balanced against the mortality and morbidity of total mesorectal excision (TME). Dissection through the submucosa hinders radical deep resection, and full-thickness resection may influence the outcome of completion TME. Endoscopic intermuscular dissection (EID) in between the circular and longitudinal part of the muscularis propria could potentially provide an R0 resection while leaving the rectal wall intact. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, the data of patients treated with EID for suspected deep submucosal invasive rectal cancer between 2018 and 2020 were analyzed. Study outcomes were the percentages of technical success, R0 resection, curative resection, and adverse events. RESULTS: 67 patients (median age 67 years; 73 % men) were included. The median lesion size was 25 mm (interquartile range 20-33 mm). The rates of overall technical success, R0 resection, and curative resection were 96 % (95 %CI 89 %-99 %), 81 % (95 %CI 70 %-89 %), and 45 % (95 %CI 33 %-57 %). Only minor adverse events occurred in eight patients (12 %). CONCLUSION: EID for deep invasive T1 rectal cancer appears to be feasible and safe, and the high R0 resection rate creates the potential of rectal preserving therapy in 45 % of patients.

Digital single-operator cholangioscopy to guide selective cannulation of complex biliary strictures.

BACKGROUND: Selective cannulation and stenting of complex, tight, and/or angulated biliary strictures under endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP) can be challenging. Digital single-operator cholangioscopy (SOC) may facilitate guidewire advancement through the stricture with endoscopic visual guidance. We aimed to describe a case series on clinical outcomes of this technique for selective cannulation, when used after failed conventional ERCP attempts. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent therapeutic digital SOC for selective cannulation of biliary strictures after failed conventional ERCP were retrospectively included. RESULTS: Ten patients with a malignant (n = 6) or benign (n = 4) biliary stricture were included. Digital SOC-assisted selective guidewire insertion and stent placement across the biliary stricture were technically successful in five (50%) patients. Bilirubin levels improved in all patients with technical success. One (10%) patient developed a post-ERCP pancreatitis. CONCLUSIONS: Technically successful cannulation of biliary strictures with digital SOC was achieved in half of patients in whom cannulation with conventional ERCP failed, sparing them more invasive interventions. Stricture opacification during the failed ERCP was seen in all technically successful SOCs.