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.

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 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.

Referrals for surgical removal of polyps since the introduction of a colorectal cancer screening programme.

AIM: Implementation of the Dutch national bowel screening programme in 2014 led to an increased rate of detection of polyps. In general, polyps should be removed endoscopically. However, if the size and location of the polyp make endoscopic removal technically difficult, or if there is a suspicion for early (T1) cancer, surgery is the preferred method for removal. An increasing number of these patients are being treated with minimally invasive surgical procedures instead of segmental resection. The aim of this study was to assess the number of referrals for surgery and the type of surgery for polyps since the introduction of the Dutch national bowel screening programme. METHOD: A retrospective cohort study was performed. Patients who underwent surgery for colorectal polyps between January 2012 and December 2017 were included. Patients with histologically proven carcinoma prior to surgery were excluded. Primary outcomes were the number and type of surgical procedures for polyps. RESULTS: A total of 164 patients were included. An annual increase in procedures for colorectal polyps was observed, from 18 patients in 2012 to 36 patients in 2017. All the procedures before implementation of the screening programme were segmental resections, and 58.8% of the patients underwent organ-preserving surgery after implementation of the screening. The overall complication rate of organ-preserving surgery was 16.3%, compared with 44.3% for segmental resections (P = 0.001). Overall, invasive colorectal cancer was encountered in 23.8% of cases. CONCLUSION: The number of referrals for surgical resection of colorectal polyps has doubled since the introduction of the Dutch national bowel screening programme with a substantial shift towards organ-preserving techniques.

Limited Endoscopic-Assisted Wedge Resection for Excision of Colon Polyps.

BACKGROUND: Combined endoscopic laparoscopic surgical removal is used for polyps in the colon that are not suitable for endoscopic removal because of size, location, or scarring. However, the placement of a linear stapler can be challenging. Currently a wedge resection is mostly documented in the cecum or ascending colon. OBJECTIVE: We report on our experience with limited endoscopy-assisted wedge resections in the entire colon. DESIGN: A retrospective study was performed. SETTINGS: This was a single-center study. PATIENTS: Eight patients were included between March 2015 and April 2016. INTERVENTIONS: The laparoscopic surgical technique consisted of placing a suture under endoscopic view through the base of the polyp into the lumen. Subsequently, traction was given on the suture to enable stapling of a wedge of the colon. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Medical data were collected (ie, indication for referral for surgery, location and size of the polyp, duration of surgical procedure, length of hospital stay, and perioperative and postoperative complications). Operative time was defined as the total time of general anesthesia. RESULTS: Eight patients, with a mean age of 74.5 years (range, 68.0-82.0 years), were treated. The main indications for laparoscopic resection were the size and difficult location of the polyp. There were no complications. Mean operative time was 132 minutes. Five patients were discharged the day after surgery, and the other 3 patients were admitted for a total of 2 days. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that limited endoscopy-assisted wedge resection is a feasible and easy technique for the removal of colon polyps and residual adenomatous tissue in scars that are not accessible for endoscopic removal. Because of traction given on the suture through the base of the polyp, the linear stapler is easily used for wedge resections of polyps, even for those that are not in favorable positions.

Tolerability of Capecitabine Monotherapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Real-World Study.

BACKGROUND: Capecitabine monotherapy is a treatment option for selected patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and is administered to up to 17% of patients. Data are limited with regard to adverse events and dosing practices associated with capecitabine monotherapy in real-world situations. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to provide real-world data on adverse event rates and dose adjustments/discontinuations associated with capecitabine monotherapy in patients with mCRC. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed data from CRC patients scheduled to receive up to eight planned cycles of capecitabine monotherapy between 2009 and 2013 at a single large community hospital in The Netherlands. Data on adverse events (hand-foot syndrome [HFS], gastrointestinal (GI) events, hematological adverse events, and cardiotoxicity), as well as relative dose intensities (RDIs), dose reductions, and discontinuations, were evaluated. RESULTS: Data from 86 patients (45 females; mean age at the start of treatment, 69 years) were included. A total of 46.5% of patients experienced HFS and 44.2% experienced a GI event at some time during treatment. Hematological events and cardiotoxicity were rare. Most patients (77%) started at below the recommended dose, and patients at the lowest dose also had the lowest median RDIs. Dose reductions and discontinuations occurred in 15-25% of patients who experienced HFS or GI event over the course of eight cycles. CONCLUSIONS: HFS and GI events were very common in patients treated with capecitabine monotherapy in a real-world clinical setting. Most patients started treatment at below the recommended dose, and 15-25% of patients who had HFS or a GI event had a dose reduction or discontinuation.

Identification of familial colorectal cancer and hereditary colorectal cancer syndromes through the Dutch population-screening program: results ofa pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: In 2014, a population-screening program using immuno-faecal occult blood testing (I-FOBT) has started in the Netherlands. The aims of this study were to evaluate the proportion of individuals in the Dutch screening program with a positive I-FOBT that fulfill the criteria for familial colorectal cancer (FCC) and to evaluate the proportion of participants that needs genetic counseling or colonoscopic surveillance. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This retrospective observational study was performed in two large hospitals. Individuals aged between 55 and 75 years with a positive I-FOBT that underwent colonoscopy were included. A detailed family history was obtained in all individuals. RESULTS: A total of 657 individuals with a positive I-FOBT test underwent colonoscopy. A total of 120 (18.3%) participants were found to have a positive family history for CRC, 20 (3.0%) fulfilled the FCC criteria, 4 (0.6%) the Bethesda guidelines and 1 (0.2%) participant the Amsterdam criteria. Multiple adenomas (>10) were found in 21 (3.2%) participants. No cases of serrated polyposis were identified. Based on these criteria and guidelines, a total of 35 (5.3%) required referral to the clinical geneticist and the relatives of 20 (3.0%) participants should be referred for surveillance colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: Obtaining a detailed family history at the time of intake of participants with a positive I-FOBT in the Dutch surveillance program increased the identification of participants with familial CRC.

Equivalent Helicobacter pylori infection rates in Lynch syndrome mutation carriers with and without a first-degree relative with gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Lynch syndrome (LS) are at an increased risk of developing gastric cancer. In 2010, a guideline that recommended to screen all patients for Helicobacter pylori was implemented in the Netherlands. H. pylori is an important risk factor in the development of gastric cancer in the general population, and eradication of the bacterium reduces this risk. We aimed to assess the proportion of LS patients being tested and the yield and also addressed the question whether H. pylori infection is more prevalent in LS families with known cases of gastric cancer. METHODS: Proven mutation carriers from five different Dutch hospitals were included. The implementation of H. pylori screening and its outcome was examined. The observation period was 2008-2013. The presence of first-degree family members with gastric cancer was noted, and it was observed if H. pylori infection was more prevalent in Lynch families with known cases of gastric cancer. Obtainable endoscopy reports were reviewed. RESULTS: Four hundred forty-three (male, 184) proven mutation carriers were included. The proportion of patients screened increased after 2010, from 37 to 68%. Twenty percent of the patients were infected. The 25 patients who had a first-degree family member with gastric cancer did not have a higher infection rate. In 30% of cases, an endoscopy was performed; in four patients, intestinal metaplasia and in eight patients, gastric cancer was found. CONCLUSION: The recommendation to screen for H. pylori is increasingly followed. The prevalence of infection in this patient group does not differ from the general population. Patients who had a first-degree family member with gastric cancer did not have a higher infection rate.