Patient educational videos on T1 colorectal cancer.

Video 1Colorectal cancer: how does it develop and how can you detect it? Video 2A polyp suspected to be colorectal cancer: what now? Video 3Early-stage colon cancer with unfavorable features: what now?

Predicting procedure duration of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection at Western endoscopy centers.

Background and study aims Overcoming logistical obstacles for the implementation of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) requires accurate prediction of procedure times. We aimed to evaluate existing and new prediction models for ESD duration. Patients and methods Records of all consecutive patients who underwent single, non-hybrid colorectal ESDs before 2020 at three Dutch centers were reviewed. The performance of an Eastern prediction model [GIE 2021;94(1):133-144] was assessed in the Dutch cohort. A prediction model for procedure duration was built using multivariable linear regression. The model's performance was validated using internal validation by bootstrap resampling, internal-external cross-validation and external validation in an independent Swedish ESD cohort. Results A total of 435 colorectal ESDs were analyzed (92% en bloc resections, mean duration 139 minutes, mean tumor size 39 mm). The performance of current unstandardized time scheduling practice was suboptimal (explained variance: R 2 =27%). We successfully validated the Eastern prediction model for colorectal ESD duration <60 minutes (c-statistic 0.70, 95% CI 0.62-0.77), but this model was limited due to dichotomization of the outcome and a relatively low frequency (14%) of ESDs completed <60 minutes in the Dutch centers. The model was more useful with a dichotomization cut-off of 120 minutes (c-statistic: 0.75; 88% and 17% of "easy" and "very difficult" ESDs completed <120 minutes, respectively). To predict ESD duration as continuous outcome, we developed and validated the six-variable cESD-TIME formula ( https://cesdtimeformula.shinyapps.io/calculator/ ; optimism-corrected R 2 =61%; R 2 =66% after recalibration of the slope). Conclusions We provided two useful tools for predicting colorectal ESD duration at Western centers. Further improvements and validations are encouraged with potential local adaptation to optimize time planning.

Outcome of Completion Surgery after Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Early-Stage Colorectal Cancer Patients.

T1 colorectal cancers (T1CRC) are increasingly being treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). After ESD of a T1CRC, completion surgery is indicated in a subgroup of patients. Currently, the influence of ESD on surgical morbidity and mortality is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare 90-day morbidity and mortality of completion surgery after ESD to primary surgery. The completion surgery group consisted of suspected T1CRC patients from a multicenter prospective ESD database (2014-2020). The primary surgery group consisted of pT1CRC patients from a nationwide surgical registry (2017-2019). Patients with rectal or sigmoidal cancers were selected. Patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy were excluded. Propensity score adjustment was used to correct for confounders. In total, 411 patients were included: 54 in the completion surgery group (39 pT1, 15 pT2) and 357 in the primary surgery group with pT1CRC. Adverse event rate was 24.1% after completion surgery and 21.3% after primary surgery. After completion surgery 90-day mortality did not occur, though one patient died in the primary surgery group. After propensity score adjustment, lymph node yield did not differ significantly between the groups. Among other morbidity-related outcomes, stoma rate (OR 1.298 95%-CI 0.587-2.872, p = 0.519) and adverse event rate (OR 1.162; 95%-CI 0.570-2.370, p = 0.679) also did not differ significantly. A subgroup analysis was performed in patients undergoing rectal surgery. In this subgroup (37 completion and 136 primary surgery), these morbidity outcomes also did not differ significantly. In conclusion, this study suggests that ESD does not compromise morbidity or 90-day mortality of completion surgery.

Colorectal polyps: Targets for fluorescence-guided endoscopy to detect high-grade dysplasia and T1 colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Differentiating high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and T1 colorectal cancer (T1CRC) from low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in colorectal polyps can be challenging. Incorrect recognition of HGD or T1CRC foci can lead to a need for additional treatment after local resection, which might not have been necessary if it was recognized correctly. Tumor-targeted fluorescence-guided endoscopy might help to improve recognition. OBJECTIVE: Selecting the most suitable HGD and T1CRC-specific imaging target from a panel of well-established biomarkers: carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), c-mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor (c-MET), epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM), folate receptor alpha (FRα), and integrin alpha-v beta-6 (αvß6). METHODS: En bloc resection specimens of colorectal polyps harboring HGD or T1CRC were selected. Immunohistochemistry on paraffin sections was used to determine the biomarker expression in normal epithelium, LGD, HGD, and T1CRC (scores of 0-12). The differential expression in HGD-T1CRC components compared to surrounding LGD and normal components was assessed, just as the sensitivity and specificity of each marker. RESULTS: 60 specimens were included (21 HGD, 39 T1CRC). Positive expression (score >1) of HGD-T1CRC components was found in 73.3%, 78.3%, and 100% of cases for CEA, c-MET, and EpCAM, respectively, and in <40% for FRα and αvß6. Negative expression (score 0-1) of the LGD component occurred more frequently for CEA (66.1%) than c-MET (31.6%) and EpCAM (0%). The differential expression in the HGD-T1CRC component compared to the surrounding LGD component was found for CEA in 66.7%, for c-MET in 43.1%, for EpCAM in 17.2%, for FRα in 22.4%, and for αvß6 in 15.5% of the cases. Moreover, CEA showed the highest combined sensitivity (65.0%) and specificity (75.0%) for the detection of an HGD-T1CRC component in colorectal polyps. CONCLUSION: Of the tested targets, CEA appears the most suitable to specifically detect HGD and T1 cancer foci in colorectal polyps. An in vivo study using tumor-targeted fluorescence-guided endoscopy should confirm these findings.

Risk of recurrence after local resection of T1 rectal cancer: a meta-analysis with meta-regression.

BACKGROUND: T1 rectal cancer (RC) patients are increasingly being treated by local resection alone but uniform surveillance strategies thereafter are lacking. To determine whether different local resection techniques influence the risk of recurrence and cancer-related mortality, a meta-analysis was performed. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted for T1RC patients treated with local surgical resection. The primary outcome was the risk of RC recurrence and RC-related mortality. Pooled estimates were calculated using mixed-effect logistic regression. We also systematically searched and evaluated endoscopically treated T1RC patients in a similar manner. RESULTS: In 2585 unique T1RC patients (86 studies) undergoing local surgical resection, the overall pooled cumulative incidence of recurrence was 9.1% (302 events, 95% CI 7.3-11.4%; I2 = 68.3%). In meta-regression, the recurrence risk was associated with histological risk status (p < 0.005; low-risk 6.6%, 95% CI 4.4-9.7% vs. high-risk 28.2%, 95% CI 19-39.7%) and local surgical resection technique (p < 0.005; TEM/TAMIS 7.7%, 95% CI 5.3-11.0% vs. other local surgical excisions 10.8%, 95% CI 6.7-16.8%). In 641 unique T1RC patients treated with flexible endoscopic excision (16 studies), the risk of recurrence (7.7%, 95% CI 5.2-11.2%), cancer-related mortality (2.3%, 95% CI 1.1-4.9), and cancer-related mortality among patients with recurrence (30.0%, 95% CI 14.7-49.4%) were comparable to outcomes after TEM/TAMIS (risk of recurrence 7.7%, 95% CI 5.3-11.0%, cancer-related mortality 2.8%, 95% CI 1.2-6.2% and among patients with recurrence 35.6%, 95% CI 21.9-51.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with T1 rectal cancer may have a significantly lower recurrence risk after TEM/TAMIS compared to other local surgical resection techniques. After TEM/TAMIS and endoscopic resection the recurrence risk, cancer-related mortality and cancer-related mortality among patients with recurrence were comparable. Recurrence was mainly dependent on histological risk status.

The performance and safety of motorized spiral enteroscopy, including in patients with surgically altered gastrointestinal anatomy: a multicenter prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Data are scarce on the efficacy and safety of motorized spiral enteroscopy (MSE). No data are available on the utility of this technique in patients with surgically altered gastrointestinal (GI) anatomy. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of MSE in patients with suspected small-bowel disease, including those with surgically altered GI anatomy. METHODS: A multicenter prospective observational, uncontrolled study evaluated MSE in consecutive patients with suspected small-bowel pathology and an indication for diagnostic and/or therapeutic intervention. RESULTS: A total of 170 patients (102 men; median age 64 years, range 18-89) were included. The overall diagnostic yield was 64.1 %. Endotherapy was performed in 53.5 % of procedures. The median total procedure times for the antegrade and retrograde approaches were 45 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 30-80) and 40 minutes (IQR 30-70), respectively. When total (pan)enteroscopy was intended, this was achieved at rate of 70.3 % (28.1 % by antegrade approach and 42.2 % by a bidirectional approach). Surgically altered GI anatomy was present in 34 /170 of all procedures (20.0 %) and in 11 /45 of the successful total enteroscopy procedures (24.4 %). Propofol sedation or general anesthesia were used in 92.9 % and 7.1 % of the procedures, respectively. Minor adverse events were observed in 15.9 % of patients, but there were no major adverse events. CONCLUSION: MSE seems to be an effective and safe endoscopic procedure. Total (pan)enteroscopy can be achieved, in one or two sessions, even in the presence of surgically altered GI anatomy. The total procedure time is relatively short. For both antegrade and retrograde MSE procedures, propofol sedation seems sufficient and safe.

Risk and Time Pattern of Recurrences After Local Endoscopic Resection of T1 Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Growing numbers of patients with T1 CRC are being treated with local endoscopic resection only and as a result, the need for optimization of surveillance strategies for these patients also increases. We aimed to estimate the cumulative incidence and time pattern of CRC recurrences for endoscopically treated patients with T1 CRC. METHODS: Using a systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library (from inception till 15 May 2020), we identified and extracted data from studies describing the cumulative incidence of local or distant CRC recurrence for patients with T1 CRC treated with local endoscopic resection only. Pooled estimates were calculated using mixed-effect logistic regression models. RESULTS: Seventy-one studies with 5167 unique, endoscopically treated patients with T1 CRC were included. The pooled cumulative incidence of any CRC recurrence was 3.3% (209 events; 95% CI, 2.6%-4.3%; I2 = 54.9%), with local and distant recurrences being found at comparable rates (pooled incidences 1.9% and 1.6%, respectively). CRC-related mortality was observed in 42 out of 2519 patients (35 studies; pooled incidence 1.7%, 95% CI, 1.2%-2.2%; I2 = 0%), and the CRC-related mortality rate among patients with recurrence was 40.8% (42/103 patients). The vast majority of recurrences (95.6%) occurred within 72 months of follow-up. Pooled incidences of any CRC recurrence were 7.0% for high-risk T1 CRCs (28 studies; 95% CI, 4.9%-9.9%; I2 = 48.1%) and 0.7% (36 studies; 95% CI, 0.4%-1.2%; I2 = 0%) for low-risk T1 CRCs. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis provides quantitative outcome measures which are relevant to guidelines on surveillance after local endoscopic resection of T1 CRC.

Hybrid endoscopic mucosal resection and full-thickness resection for large colonic polyps harboring a small focus of invasive cancer: a case series.

Endoscopic treatment of large laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) with a focus of submucosally invasive colorectal cancer (T1 CRC) can be challenging. We evaluated outcomes of a hybrid resection technique using piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (pEMR) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) in patients with large colonic LSTs containing suspected T1 CRC. Six hybrid pEMR-eFTR procedures for T1 CRCs were registered in a nationwide eFTR registry between July 2015 and December 2019. In all cases, the invasive part of the lesion was successfully isolated with eFTR; with eFTR, histologically complete resection of the invasive part was achieved in 5 /6 patients (83.3 %). No adverse events occurred during or after the procedure. The median follow-up time was 10 months (range 6-27), with all patients having undergone ≥ 1 surveillance colonoscopy. One patient had a small adenomatous recurrence, which was removed endoscopically. In conclusion, hybrid pEMR-eFTR is a promising noninvasive treatment modality that seems feasible for a selected group of patients with large LSTs containing a small focus of T1 CRC.

Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of non-pedunculated rectal lesions (TRIASSIC study): study protocol of a European multicenter randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the recent years two innovative approaches have become available for minimally invasive en bloc resections of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions (polyps and early cancers). One is Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS), the other is Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD). Both techniques are standard of care, but a direct randomised comparison is lacking. The choice between either of these procedures is dependent on local expertise or availability rather than evidence-based. The European Society for Endoscopy has recommended that a comparison between ESD and local surgical resection is needed to guide decision making for the optimal approach for the removal of large rectal lesions in Western countries. The aim of this study is to directly compare both procedures in a randomised setting with regard to effectiveness, safety and perceived patient burden. METHODS: Multicenter randomised trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with non-pedunculated lesions > 2 cm, where the bulk of the lesion is below 15 cm from the anal verge, will be randomised between either a TAMIS or an ESD procedure. Lesions judged to be deeply invasive by an expert panel will be excluded. The primary endpoint is the cumulative local recurrence rate at follow-up rectoscopy at 12 months. Secondary endpoints are: 1) Radical (R0-) resection rate; 2) Perceived burden and quality of life; 3) Cost effectiveness at 12 months; 4) Surgical referral rate at 12 months; 5) Complication rate; 6) Local recurrence rate at 6 months. For this non-inferiority trial, the total sample size of 198 is based on an expected local recurrence rate of 3% in the ESD group, 6% in the TAMIS group and considering a difference of less than 6% to be non-inferior. DISCUSSION: This is the first European randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and safety of TAMIS and ESD for the en bloc resection of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions. This is important as the detection rate of these adenomas is expected to further increase with the introduction of colorectal screening programs throughout Europe. This study will therefore support an optimal use of healthcare resources in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NL7083 , 06 July 2018.

Endoscopic full thickness resection for early colon cancer in Lynch syndrome.

Subtotal colectomy is usually the therapy of choice in Lynch syndrome patients diagnosed with colon cancer. In patients who develop cancer after the age of 50-60 years, segmental colectomy is considered a good alternative. Although the endoscopic treatment of early colorectal cancer in non-Lynch patients has increased in the last decades, almost all patients with a Lynch syndrome-associated colorectal malignancy undergo surgery, even if the tumour is diagnosed in a (very) early stage. One of the endoscopic treatment options for early colorectal cancer is an endoscopic full thickness resection (eFTR). This treatment modality allows optimal pathological examination of the resection specimen, as a transmural resection is performed with optimal T-staging of the tumour. We report a case of a 62 year old man, diagnosed with MSH2-Lynch syndrome, who underwent successful eFTR treatment of an early (pT1) colon cancer located in the ascending colon, with no signs of recurrence 12 months after treatment. We discuss the pros and cons of endoscopic resection of early colorectal carcinoma in Lynch syndrome patients.

Quality of life and fear of cancer recurrence in T1 colorectal cancer patients treated with endoscopic or surgical tumor resection.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To optimize therapeutic decision-making in early invasive colorectal cancer (T1 CRC) patients, it is important to elicit the patient's perspective next to considering medical outcome. Because empirical data on patient-reported impact of different treatment options are lacking, we evaluated patients' quality of life, perceived time to recovery, and fear of cancer recurrence after endoscopic or surgical treatment for T1 CRC. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we selected patients with histologically confirmed T1 CRC who participated in the Dutch Bowel Cancer Screening Programme and received endoscopic or surgical treatment between January 2014 and July 2017. Quality of life was measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment 30-item Core Quality of Life Questionnaire and the 5-level EuroQoL 5-dimension questionnaire. We used the Cancer Worry Scale (CWS) to evaluate patients' fear of cancer recurrence. A question on perceived time to recovery after treatment was also included in the set of questionnaires sent to patients. RESULTS: Of all 119 eligible patients, 92.4% responded to the questionnaire (endoscopy group, 55/62; surgery group, 55/57). Compared with the surgery group, perceived time to recovery was on average 3 months shorter in endoscopically treated patients after adjustment for confounders (19.9 days vs 111.3 days; P = .001). The 2 treatment groups were comparable with regard to global quality of life, functioning domains, and symptom severity scores. Moreover, patients in the endoscopy group did not report more fear of cancer recurrence than those in the surgery group (CWS score, 0-40; endoscopy 7.6 vs surgery 9.7; P = .140). CONCLUSIONS: From the patient's perspective, endoscopic treatment provides a quicker recovery than surgery, without provoking more fear of cancer recurrence or any deterioration in quality of life. These results contribute to the shared therapeutic decision-making process of clinicians and T1 CRC patients.