OBJECTIVES: We evaluated risk factors for residual neoplasia on first follow-up endoscopy after colonic endoscopic mucosal resections (EMRs). METHODS: This retrospective study in a high-volume EMR tertiary-referral center examined EMRs on 423 colonic lesions in 313 patients. RESULTS: Residual neoplasia at first follow-up endoscopy was present following 12% of colonic EMRs. Single-variable analysis showed evidence of an increased risk of residual neoplasia for larger polyps, polyps without a lifting sign, and polyps removed piecemeal. In multivariable analysis, only use of the piecemeal method was independently associated with residual neoplasia. CONCLUSIONS: Additional procedures are needed to complete resection in more than 1 in 10 colonic EMRs. Residual neoplasia occurs more often with piecemeal resection. Close surveillance after EMR and the use of newer methods to further reduce residual neoplasia are needed.
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated risk factors for residual neoplasia on first follow-up endoscopy after colonic endoscopic mucosal resections (EMRs). METHODS: This retrospective study in a high-volume EMR tertiary-referral center examined EMRs on 423 colonic lesions in 313 patients. RESULTS: Residual neoplasia at first follow-up endoscopy was present following 12% of colonic EMRs. Single-variable analysis showed evidence of an increased risk of residual neoplasia for larger polyps, polyps without a lifting sign, and polyps removed piecemeal. In multivariable analysis, only use of the piecemeal method was independently associated with residual neoplasia. CONCLUSIONS: Additional procedures are needed to complete resection in more than 1 in 10 colonic EMRs. Residual neoplasia occurs more often with piecemeal resection. Close surveillance after EMR and the use of newer methods to further reduce residual neoplasia are needed.
Authors: F Bianco; A Arezzo; F Agresta; C Coco; R Faletti; Z Krivocapic; G Rotondano; G A Santoro; N Vettoretto; S De Franciscis; A Belli; G M Romano Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Amandeep K Shergill; Erin E Conners; Kenneth R McQuaid; Sara Epstein; James C Ryan; Janak N Shah; John Inadomi; Ma Somsouk Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-05-01 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Matthew D Rutter; Amit Chattree; Jamie A Barbour; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Pradeep Bhandari; Brian P Saunders; Andrew M Veitch; John Anderson; Bjorn J Rembacken; Maurice B Loughrey; Rupert Pullan; William V Garrett; Gethin Lewis; Sunil Dolwani Journal: Gut Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Rm Barendse; Gd Musters; P Fockens; Wa Bemelman; Ej de Graaf; Fj van den Broek; K van der Linde; Mp Schwartz; Mh Houben; Aw van Milligen de Wit; Bj Witteman; R Winograd; E Dekker Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Gottumukkala S Raju; Phillip J Lum; William A Ross; Selvi Thirumurthi; Ethan Miller; Patrick M Lynch; Jeffrey H Lee; Manoop S Bhutani; Mehnaz A Shafi; Brian R Weston; Mala Pande; Robert S Bresalier; Asif Rashid; Lopa Mishra; Marta L Davila; John R Stroehlein Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-02-06 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Seon Hee Lim; John M Levenick; Abraham Mathew; Matthew T Moyer; Charles E Dye; Thomas J McGarrity Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 3.199