Rebecca Sonson

Long-term adenoma recurrence following wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (WF-EMR) for advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia is infrequent: results and risk factors in 1000 cases from the Australian Colonic EMR (ACE) study

Objective Wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (WF-EMR) is an alternative to surgery for treatment of advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia up to 120 mm in size, but has been criticised for its potentially high recurrence rates. We aimed to quantify recurrence at 4 months (early) and 16 months (late) following successful WF-EMR and identify its risk factors and clinical significance. Design Ongoing multicentre, prospective, intention-to-treat analysis of sessile or laterally spreading colonic lesions ≥20 mm in size referred for WF-EMR to seven academic endoscopy units. Surveillance colonoscopy (SC) was performed 4 months (SC1) and 16 months (SC2) after WF-EMR, with photographic documentation and biopsy of the scar. Results 1134 consecutive patients were enrolled when 1000 successful EMRs were achieved, of whom 799 have undergone SC1. 670 were normal. Early recurrent/residual adenoma was present in 128 (16.0%, 95% CI 13.6% to 18.7%). One case was unknown. The recurrent/residual adenoma was diminutive in 71.7% of cases. On multivariable analysis, risk factors were lesion size >40 mm, use of argon plasma coagulation and intraprocedural bleeding. Of 670 with normal SC1, 426 have undergone SC2, with late recurrence present in 17 cases (4.0%, 95% CI 2.4% to 6.2%). Overall, recurrent/residual adenoma was successfully treated endoscopically in 135 of 145 cases (93.1%, 95% CI 88.1% to 96.4%). If the initial EMR was deemed successful and did not contain submucosal invasion requiring surgery, 98.1% (95% CI 96.6% to 99.0%) were adenoma-free and had avoided surgery at 16 months following EMR. Conclusions Following colonic WF-EMR, early recurrent/residual adenoma occurs in 16%, and is usually unifocal and diminutive. Risk factors were identified. Late recurrence occurs in 4%. Overall, recurrence was managed endoscopically in 93% of cases. Recurrence is not a significant clinical problem following WF-EMR, as with strict colonoscopic surveillance, it can be managed endoscopically with high success rates. Trial registration number: NCT01368289.

Risk Factors for Intraprocedural and Clinically Significant Delayed Bleeding After Wide-field Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Colonic Lesions

BACKGROUND & AIMS Wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (WF-EMR) of large sessile colonic polyps is a safe and cost-effective outpatient treatment. Bleeding is the main complication. Few studies have examined risk factors for bleeding during the procedure (intraprocedural bleeding [IPB]) or after it (clinically significant post-endoscopic bleeding [CSPEB]). We investigated factors associated with IPB and CSPEB in a large prospective study. METHODS We analyzed data from WF-EMRs of sessile colorectal polyps ≥ 20 mm in size (mean size, 35.5 mm), which were performed on 1172 patients (mean age, 67.8 years) from June 2008-March 2013 at 7 tertiary hospitals as part of the Australian Colonic Endoscopic Resection Study. Data were collected on characteristics of patients and lesions, along with outcomes of procedures and clinical and histologic analyses. Independent predictors of IPB and CSPEB were identified by multiple logistic regression analysis. RESULTS Of the patients studied, 133 (11.3%) had IPB. Independent predictors included increasing lesion size (odds ratio, 1.24/10 mm; P < .001), Paris endoscopic classification of 0-IIa + Is (odds ratio, 2.12; P = .004), tubulovillous or villous histology (odds ratio, 1.84; P = .007), and study institutions that performed the procedure on fewer than 75 patients (odds ratio, 3.78; P < .001). All IPB was successfully controlled endoscopically. IPB prolonged procedures and was associated with early recurrence (relative risk, 1.68; P = .011). Seventy-three patients (6.2%) had CSPEB. On multivariable analysis, CSPEB was associated with proximal colon location (odds ratio, 3.72; P < .001), use of an electrosurgical current not controlled by a microprocessor (odds ratio, 2.03; P = .038), and IPB (odds ratio, 2.16; P = .016). Lesion size and comorbidities did not predict CSPEB. CONCLUSIONS In a prospective study of patients undergoing WF-EMR of large sessile colonic polyps, IPB is associated with larger lesions, lesion histology, and Paris endoscopic classification of type 0-IIa + Is. IPB prolongs the duration of the procedure, is a marker for recurrence, and is associated with CSPEB. CSPEB occurs most frequently in the proximal colon and less when current is controlled by a microprocessor.

Carbon dioxide insufflation reduces number of postprocedure admissions after endoscopic resection of large colonic lesions: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND Endoscopic resection (ER) for large colonic lesions is a safe and effective outpatient treatment. Postprocedural pain creates concern for perforation and often results in postprocedure admission (PPA). Carbon dioxide (CO(2)) insufflation has been shown to reduce pain scores after routine colonoscopy, but an influence on more critical outcomes such as PPA has not been shown. OBJECTIVE To assess the outcomes of patients undergoing ER for large colonic lesions, comparing those having air versus those having CO(2) insufflation. DESIGN Prospective, observational, cohort study. SETTING Academic, high-volume, tertiary-care referral center. PATIENTS Consecutive patients referred for ER of sessile colorectal polyps ≥20 mm. INTERVENTION ER with air or CO(2). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS Rates of PPA, technical outcomes, complication rates. RESULTS ER was performed on 575 lesions ≥20 mm, 228 with CO(2) insufflation. Mean lesion size was 36.5 mm. Lesion and patient characteristics were similar in both groups. The use of CO(2) was associated with a 62% decrease in the PPA rate from 8.9% to 3.4% (P = .01). This was mainly because of an 82% decrease in PPA for pain from 5.7% to 1.0% (P = .006). There were no significant difference in the rates of complications. Multiple logistical regression was performed. The adjusted odds ratio (OR) of PPA (OR 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16-0.95; P = .04) and PPA for pain (OR 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04-0.78; P = .02) in the CO(2) group remained significant. LIMITATIONS Single center, nonrandomized study. CONCLUSION CO(2) insufflation significantly reduces PPA after ER of large colonic lesions, primarily because of reduced PPA for pain. CO(2) insufflation should be routinely used during ER of large colonic lesions.

Cost Analysis of Endoscopic Mucosal Resection vs Surgery for Large Laterally Spreading Colorectal Lesions

BACKGROUND & AIMS Large laterally spreading lesions (LSL) in the colon and rectum can be safely and effectively removed by endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). However, many patients still undergo surgery. Endoscopic treatment may be more cost effective. We compared the costs of endoscopic versus surgical management of large LSL. METHODS We performed a prospective, observational, multicenter study of consecutive patients referred to 1 of 7 academic hospitals in Australia for the management of large LSL (≥ 20 mm) from January 2010 to December 2013. We collected data on numbers of patients undergoing EMR, actual endoscopic management costs (index colonoscopy, hospital stay, adverse events, and first surveillance colonoscopy), characteristics of patients and lesions, outcomes, and adverse events, and findings from follow-up examinations 14 days, 4-6 months, and 16-18 months after treatment. We compared data from patients who underwent EMR with those from a model in which all patients underwent surgery without any complications. Event-specific costs, based on Australian refined diagnosis-related group codes, were used to estimate average cost per patient. RESULTS EMR was performed on 1489 lesions (mean size, 36 mm) in 1353 patients (mean age, 67 years; 52.1% male). Total costs involved in the endoscopic management of large LSL were US

Prophylactic Endoscopic Coagulation to Prevent Bleeding After Wide-Field Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Sessile Colon Polyps

6,316,593 and total inpatient hospitalization length of stay was 1180 days. The total cost predicted for the surgical management group was US

Topical submucosal chromoendoscopy defines the level of resection in colonic EMR and may improve procedural safety (with video)

16,601,502, with a total inpatient hospitalization length of stay of 4986 days. Endoscopic management produced a potential total cost saving of US

Caught in the act: endoscopic characterization of sessile serrated adenomas with dysplasia

10,284,909; the mean cost difference per patient was US

Endoscopic mucosal resection of laterally spreading lesions involving the ileocecal valve: technique, risk factors for failure, and outcomes

7602 (95% confidence interval,

Endoscopic resection of subtotal or completely circumferential laterally spreading colonic adenomas: technique, caveats, and outcomes.

8458-

Comparison of the histopathological effects of two electrosurgical currents in an in vivo porcine model of esophageal endoscopic mucosal resection

9220; P < .001). Inpatient hospitalization length of stay was reduced by 2.81 nights per patient (95% confidence interval, 2.69-2.94; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS In a large multicenter study, endoscopic management of large LSL by EMR was significantly more cost-effective than surgery. Endoscopic management by EMR at an appropriately experienced and resourced tertiary center should be considered the first line of therapy for most patients with this disorder. This approach is likely to deliver substantial overall health expenditure savings. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT01368289.