Surgery Versus Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Large Polyps: Making Sense of When to Use Which Approach.

Endoscopic resection for large colorectal lesion is effective and cost-saving than surgery. Piecemeal resections are often effective if applied meticulously but endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) allows meritorious removal of large lesions in one piece. For rectal lesions, transanal endoscopic microsurgery or transanal minimally invasive surgery offers more radical transmural resection but ESD is also effective for removal of complex rectal lesions. Surgical resection with lymph node dissection is the gold standard for invasive cancer; however, the management of low-risk early-stage colorectal cancer is worth debating. Treatment selection for large colorectal lesions is discussed based on lesion factor and treatment outcomes.

Preoperative chemo-radiation-induced ulceration in patients with esophageal cancer: a confounding factor in tumor response assessment in integrated computed tomographic-positron emission tomographic imaging.

HYPOTHESIS: Positron emission tomography can be useful in predicting response of esophageal cancer after preoperative chemo-radiation therapy (CRT). We evaluated the use of integrated computed tomography (CT)-PET among patients with esophageal cancer being considered for resection after CRT. METHODS: Three reviewers blinded to clinical and pathologic staging retrospectively reviewed the CT-PET scans of patients with esophageal cancer after preoperative CRT who underwent esophagectomy. [F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose uptake for residual malignancy was determined by visual analysis and semi-quantitatively when standardized uptake value (SUV) was > or =4. RESULTS: Forty-two patients underwent esophageal resection. Using visual analysis, CT-PET had a sensitivity of 47% and specificity of 58% in detecting residual malignancy. Using semi-quantitative analysis, 19 patients had a SUV > or =4 in the region of the primary esophageal tumor and were interpreted as having residual malignancy (sensitivity 43%, specificity 50%). Of these 19, six had complete pathologic response to CRT. These false-positive results, due to therapy-induced ulceration detected at endoscopy, limit the use of CT-PET alone in detecting residual malignancy. Similarly, sensitivity (25%) and specificity (73%) of endoscopy/biopsy in detecting residual malignancy were poor. However, the accuracy of CT-PET in detecting residual malignancy was improved when combined with endoscopic findings. In the absence of ulceration at endoscopy, 8 of 8 patients with SUV > or =4 after chemo-radiation had residual malignancy at surgery. CONCLUSIONS: CRT-induced ulceration results in false-positive results on CT-PET and precludes accurate detection of residual esophageal tumor. However, CT-PET in combination with endoscopy is useful in identifying patients with a high risk of residual tumor post-CRT.

Interobserver and intra-observer consistency in the endoscopic assessment of colonic pit patterns.

BACKGROUND: The colonic pit pattern is recognized as an aid to the differential diagnosis between hyperplastic lesions, adenoma, and carcinoma, and is a focus for observation by magnification chromoendoscopy, especially in Japan. This study evaluated intra- and interobserver agreement of experienced endoscopists in the assessment of colonic pit patterns when using the Kudo classification. METHODS: A total of 220 magnification chromoendoscopic pictures of colonic lesions were selected, of which 215 were collected from a consecutive series of patients. The pictures were randomly displayed twice to 6 experienced endoscopists at an interval of 1 week. Each picture was assessed for predominant pit pattern by using the classification of Kudo. Histopathologic diagnosis also was predicted based on the pit pattern diagnosis. Kappa statistics were used to estimate intra- and interobserver variation. RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation) inter- and intra-observer kappa values for experienced endoscopists were 0.716 (0.031) and 0.810 (0.084), respectively. For prediction of histopathology according to the pit pattern diagnosis, the mean (standard deviation) inter- and intra-observer kappa values were 0.776 (0.032) (p = 0.001) and 0.862 (0.069) (p = 0.028), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: For experienced endoscopists, the inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of the classification of colonic pit pattern is good.