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.

Are adenoma and serrated polyp detection rates correlated with endoscopists' sensitivity of optical diagnosis?

INTRODUCTION : Endoscopists with a high adenoma detection rate (ADR) and proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR) detect these polyps more frequently, which may be attributable to better recognition of their endoscopic features. Little is known about the association between endoscopic lesion detection and differentiation skills. Therefore, we evaluated the correlation between the ADR, PSPDR, and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas and serrated polyps. METHODS: We performed an exploratory post-hoc analysis of the DISCOUNT-2 study, including complete colonoscopies after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) performed by endoscopists who performed ≥ 50 colonoscopies. The correlations between the ADR, PSPDR, and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis were calculated using Pearson's rho correlation coefficient. RESULTS: 24 endoscopists performed ≥ 50 colonoscopies, resulting in a total of 2889 colonoscopies. The overall ADR was 84.5 % (range 71.4 % - 95.3 %) and overall PSPDR was 13.7 % (4.3 % - 29.0 %). The sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas and serrated polyps were 94.5 % (83.3 % - 100 %) and 74.0 % (37.5 % - 94.1 %), respectively. No correlation could be demonstrated between the ADR and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas (-0.20; P = 0.35) or between the PSPDR and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for serrated polyps (-0.12; P = 0.57). CONCLUSIONS: In a homogeneous FIT-positive population, no correlation between the ADR, PSPDR, and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas and serrated polyps could be demonstrated. These exploratory results suggest that lesion detection and differentiation require different endoscopic skills. Further prospective studies are needed; until then, monitoring of both performance indicators is important to secure optimal efficacy of FIT-based colorectal cancer screening.

Outcomes of surgical resections for benign colon polyps: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Not all benign colonic polyps are suitable for endoscopic resection, although criteria for endoscopic non-resectability vary worldwide. Clinical decision-making largely depends on endoscopic treatment options, as well as postoperative risks after surgical resection. This systematic review aimed to determine postoperative outcomes and the characteristics of surgically resected benign colonic polyps. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies investigating the outcomes of surgical resection for benign colonic polyps since 1980. Studies were considered eligible when at least one postoperative outcome (morbidity and/or mortality) was reported. Meta-analyses were conducted for the primary outcome measures (morbidity and mortality) for studies that included patients only after the year 2000. RESULTS: Of the 4210 studies retrieved, 26 studies describing 139 897 patients were included. The most common indications for surgical resection were polyp location in the right-sided colon, non-pedunculated morphology, and large polyp size. The pooled 1-month complication and mortality rates of studies that included patients after the year 2000 were 24 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 15 % - 36 %) and 0.7 % (95 %CI 0.6 % - 0.8 %), respectively. CONCLUSION: The postoperative morbidity and mortality after colonic resection for benign polyps are substantial. Referral to an advanced interventional endoscopist should be considered before referral for surgery to evaluate the possibilities for endoscopic treatment of large, non-pedunculated, and/or colonic polyps in difficult locations without suspicion of submucosal malignant invasion.

Quality assurance of colonoscopy within the Dutch national colorectal cancer screening program.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is capable of reducing CRC-related morbidity and mortality. Colonoscopy is the reference standard to detect CRC, also providing the opportunity to detect and resect its precursor lesions: colorectal polyps. Therefore, colonoscopy is either used as a primary screening tool or as a subsequent procedure after a positive triage test in screening programs based on non-invasive stool testing or sigmoidoscopy. However, in both settings, colonoscopy is not fully protective for the occurrence of post-colonoscopy CRCs (PCCRCs). Because most PCCRCs are the result of colonoscopy-related factors, a high-quality procedure is of paramount importance to assure optimal effectiveness of CRC screening programs. For this reason, at the start of the Dutch fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening program, quality criteria for endoscopists performing colonoscopies in FIT-positive screenees, as well as for endoscopy centers, were defined. In conjunction, an accreditation and auditing system was designed and implemented. In this report, we describe the quality assurance process for endoscopists participating in the Dutch national CRC screening program, including a detailed description of the evidence-based quality criteria. We believe that our experience might serve as an example for colonoscopy quality assurance programs in other CRC screening programs.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of polyps involving the appendiceal orifice: a prospective observational case study.

Background and study aims Colorectal polyps involving the appendiceal orifice (AO) are difficult to resect with conventional polypectomy techniques and therefore often require surgical intervention. These appendiceal polyps could potentially be removed with endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) performed with a full-thickness resection device (FTRD). The aim of this prospective observational case study was to evaluate feasibility, technical success and safety of eFTR procedures involving the AO. Patients and methods This study was performed between November 2016 and December 2017 in a tertiary referral center by two experienced endoscopists. All patients referred for eFTR with a polyp involving the AO that could not be resected by EMR due to more than 50 % circumferential involvement of the AO or deep extension into the AO were included. The only exclusion criterion was lesion diameter > 20 mm. Results Seven patients underwent eFTR for a polyp involving the AO. All target lesions could be reached with the FTRD and retracted into the device. Technical success with an endoscopic radical en-bloc and full-thickness resection was achieved in all cases. Histopathological R0 resection was achieved in 85.7 % of patients (6/7). One patient who previously underwent an appendectomy developed a small abscess adjacent to the resection site, which was treated conservatively. Another patient developed secondary appendicitis followed by a laparoscopic appendectomy. Conclusion This small exploratory study suggests that eFTR of appendiceal polyps is feasible and can offer a minimally invasive approach for radical resection of these lesions. However, more safety and long-term follow-up data are needed to evaluate this evolving technique.

Impact of differences in adenoma and proximal serrated polyp detection rate on the long-term effectiveness of FIT-based colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Both the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR) vary among endoscopists. It is unclear how these variations influence colorectal cancer (CRC) screening effectiveness. We evaluated the effect of variation in these detection rates on the long-term impact of fecal immunochemical test (FIT) based screening. METHODS: The Adenoma and Serrated pathway to Colorectal CAncer (ASCCA) model was set up to simulate the Dutch national biennial FIT-based CRC screening program between 2014 and 2044. Adherence to FIT and colonoscopy was 73 and 92%. Besides a 'no screening scenario', several screening scenarios varying in ADR and PSPDR were evaluated. Using the available literature on colonoscopy miss rates led to a base-case ADR of 59% and PSPDR of 11%, which were varied with intervals of 3 and 2%. RESULTS: Compared to no screening, FIT-screening in the base-case scenario reduced long-term mortality with 51.8%. At a fixed PSPDR of 11%, an increase in ADR from 44 to 62% would result in a 10.7% difference in mortality reduction. Using a fixed ADR of 59%, changing the PSPDR from 3 to 15% did not substantially influence long-term mortality (51.0 to 52.3%). CONCLUSIONS: An increase in ADR gradually reduces CRC burden in a FIT-based screening program, whereas an increase in PSPDR only minimally influences long-term outcomes at a population-level. The limited effect of the PSPDR can be explained by the limited sensitivity of FIT for serrated polyps (SPs). Other triage modalities aiming to detect relevant SPs should be explored.

Volume of surgery for benign colorectal polyps in the last 11 years.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Traditionally large, complex colorectal polyps were managed by surgical resection (SR), and in recent years endoscopic resection (ER) has progressed significantly. However, to what extent ER has replaced SR remains largely unknown. We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study to assess the volume and volume changes of SR for benign colorectal polyps over the past decade. METHODS: Patients who underwent SR for a benign colorectal polyp in the Netherlands between 2005 and 2015 were selected from the prospective nationwide Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA database). Clinical characteristics were obtained from the charts of patients who underwent SR in the province of Noord-Holland. RESULTS: A total of 5937 patients were treated with SR for a colorectal polyp and the absolute (454-739 per year) and relative volumes (0.20%-0.37% per colonoscopy per year) of SR remained stable. In the province of Noord-Holland, 928 patients (15.6%) underwent SR. In these patients, submucosal lifting and ER were attempted in 19.9% (n = 175) and 15.0% (n = 134). After 2010, patients were more likely to undergo lifting (27.7% vs 11.4%, P < .001) and ER attempts (18.8% vs 10.9%, P = .001) before definitive SR. Twenty-two patients (2.4%) had been referred to another endoscopy clinic. CONCLUSIONS: SR for large, complex colorectal polyps is still frequently performed and has remained stable. A small percentage of patients underwent ER attempts before SR, and referral for an additional ER attempt only occurred in a minority of cases. To increase ER attempts, implementation of a regional multidisciplinary referral network should be considered.

Feasibility, safety, and diagnostic yield of the Extra Wide Angle View (EWAVE) colonoscope for the detection of colorectal lesions.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) of conventional colonoscopy can still be improved. We conducted a prospective multicenter cohort study to assess the feasibility, safety, and diagnostic yield of the Extra Wide Angle View (EWAVE) colonoscope, which offers a 235° view obtained from a forward-viewing and two lateral backward-viewing lenses incorporated into one image. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was performed between November 2015 and June 2016. EWAVE colonoscopy was performed in patients with an increased risk of colorectal cancer by experienced and EWAVE-trained endoscopists (≥ 500 colonoscopies, ≥ 10 with the EWAVE system). RESULTS: A total of 193 patients underwent EWAVE colonoscopy. The cecal intubation rate was 97.4 %. EWAVE colonoscopy had a polyp detection rate (PDR) of 61.1 % (118 /193), ADR of 39.9 % (77 /193), and advanced ADR of 13.5 % (26 /193). No adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: EWAVE colonoscopy is feasible and safe. The ADR appears comparable to those achieved with conventional colonoscopes in similar patient populations. To further elucidate the additional benefits of wide-angle-view colonoscopes, randomized trials would be required.

The occurrence and characteristics of endoscopically unexpected malignant degeneration in large rectal adenomas.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Large non-pedunculated rectal polyps are most commonly resected by endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). Despite pre-procedural diagnostics, unexpected rectal cancer is incidentally encountered within the resected specimen. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic assessment and procedural characteristics of lesions with and without unexpected submucosal invasion. METHODS: A post-hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized trial (TREND study) was performed in which patients with a non-pedunculated rectal polyp of ≥3 cm without endoscopic suspicion of invasive growth were randomized between EMR and TEM. RESULTS: Unexpected rectal cancer was detected in 13% (27/203) of patients; 15 after EMR and 12 after TEM. Most consisted of low-risk T1 cancers (78%, n = 18). There were no differences in the diagnostic assessment between lesions with and without unexpected submucosal invasion. Diagnostic biopsies revealed similar rates of high-grade dysplasia (28% [7/25] vs 18% [26/144]). When compared with EMR of adenomas, EMR procedures of unexpected cancers had a lower success rate of submucosal lifting (60% vs 93%, P < .001), were more often assessed as endoscopically incomplete (33% vs 10%, P = .01), and were more frequently terminated prematurely (60% vs 8%, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic assessment of large non-pedunculated rectal polyps revealed similar characteristics between unexpected cancers and adenomas. Unexpected cancers during EMR were non-lifting in 40%, endoscopically assessed as incomplete in 33%, and terminated prematurely in 60%. In treatment-naive patients, these factors should raise suspicion of malignancy and need discussion in a multidisciplinary team meeting for decision on further treatment strategies.