Endoscopic full-thickness resection of T1 colorectal cancers: a retrospective analysis from a multicenter Dutch eFTR registry.

BACKGROUND: Complete endoscopic resection and accurate histological evaluation for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) are critical in determining subsequent treatment. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a new treatment option for T1 CRC < 2 cm. We aimed to report clinical outcomes and short-term results. METHODS: Consecutive eFTR procedures for T1 CRC, prospectively recorded in our national registry between November 2015 and April 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes were technical success and R0 resection. Secondary outcomes were histological risk assessment, curative resection, adverse events, and short-term outcomes. RESULTS: We included 330 procedures: 132 primary resections and 198 secondary scar resections after incomplete T1 CRC resection. Overall technical success, R0 resection, and curative resection rates were 87.0 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 82.7 %-90.3 %), 85.6 % (95 %CI 81.2 %-89.2 %), and 60.3 % (95 %CI 54.7 %-65.7 %). Curative resection rate was 23.7 % (95 %CI 15.9 %-33.6 %) for primary resection of T1 CRC and 60.8 % (95 %CI 50.4 %-70.4 %) after excluding deep submucosal invasion as a risk factor. Risk stratification was possible in 99.3 %. The severe adverse event rate was 2.2 %. Additional oncological surgery was performed in 49/320 (15.3 %), with residual cancer in 11/49 (22.4 %). Endoscopic follow-up was available in 200/242 (82.6 %), with a median of 4 months and residual cancer in 1 (0.5 %) following an incomplete resection. CONCLUSIONS: eFTR is relatively safe and effective for resection of small T1 CRC, both as primary and secondary treatment. eFTR can expand endoscopic treatment options for T1 CRC and could help to reduce surgical overtreatment. Future studies should focus on long-term outcomes.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) of colorectal lesions: results from the Dutch colorectal eFTR registry.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a minimally invasive resection technique that allows definite diagnosis and treatment for complex colorectal lesions ≤ 30 mm unsuitable for conventional endoscopic resection. This study reports clinical outcomes from the Dutch colorectal eFTR registry. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing eFTR in 20 hospitals were prospectively included. The primary outcome was technical success, defined as macroscopic complete en bloc resection. Secondary outcomes were: clinical success, defined as tumor-free resection margins (R0 resection); full-thickness resection rate; and adverse events. RESULTS : Between July 2015 and October 2018, 367 procedures were included. Indications were difficult polyps (non-lifting sign and/or difficult location; n = 133), primary resection of suspected T1 colorectal cancer (CRC; n = 71), re-resection after incomplete resection of T1 CRC (n = 150), and subepithelial tumors (n = 13). Technical success was achieved in 308 procedures (83.9 %). In 21 procedures (5.7 %), eFTR was not performed because the lesion could not be reached or retracted into the cap. In the remaining 346 procedures, R0 resection was achieved in 285 (82.4 %) and full-thickness resection in 288 (83.2 %). The median diameter of resected specimens was 23 mm. Overall adverse event rate was 9.3 % (n = 34/367): 10 patients (2.7 %) required emergency surgery for five delayed and two immediate perforations and three cases of appendicitis. CONCLUSION : eFTR is an effective and relatively safe en bloc resection technique for complex colorectal lesions with the potential to avoid surgery. Further studies assessing the role of eFTR in early CRC treatment with long-term outcomes are needed.

Randomized Comparison of Surveillance Intervals in Familial Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: Colonoscopic surveillance is recommended for individuals with familial colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the appropriate screening interval has not yet been determined. The aim of this randomized trial was to compare a 3-year with a 6-year screening interval. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individuals between ages 45 and 65 years with one first-degree relative with CRC age < 50 years or two first-degree relatives with CRC were selected. Patients with zero to two adenomas at baseline were randomly assigned to one of two groups: group A (colonoscopy at 6 years) or group B (colonoscopy at 3 and 6 years). The primary outcome measure was advanced adenomatous polyps (AAPs). Risk factors studied included sex, age, type of family history, and baseline endoscopic findings. RESULTS: A total of 528 patients were randomly assigned (group A, n = 262; group B, n = 266). Intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant difference in the proportion of patients with AAPs at the first follow-up examination at 6 years in group A (6.9%) versus 3 years in group B (3.5%). Also, the proportion of patients with AAPs at the final follow-up examination at 6 years in group A (6.9%) versus 6 years in group B (3.4%) was not significantly different. Only AAPs at baseline was a significant predictor for the presence of AAPs at first follow-up. After correction for the difference in AAPs at baseline, differences between the groups in the rate of AAPs at first follow-up and at the final examination were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In view of the relatively low rate of AAPs at 6 years and the absence of CRC in group A, we consider a 6-year surveillance interval appropriate. A surveillance interval of 3 years might be considered in patients with AAPs and patients with ≥ three adenomas.