Literature DB >> 26240689

For "difficult" benign colorectal lesions referred to surgical resection a second opinion by an experienced endoscopist is mandatory: A single centre experience.

Carmelo Luigiano1, Giuseppe Iabichino1, Nico Pagano1, Leonardo Henry Eusebi1, Stefania Miraglia1, Antonino Judica1, Angela Alibrandi1, Clara Virgilio1.   

Abstract

AIM: To assess how many patients with benign "difficult" colorectal lesions (DCRLs) referred to surgical resection, may be treated with endoscopic resection (ER) rather than surgical resection.
METHODS: The prospectively collected colonoscopy database of our Endoscopic Unit was reviewed to identify all consecutive patients who, between July 2011 and August 2013, underwent an endoscopic re-evaluation before surgical resection due to the presence of DCRLs with a histological confirmation of benignancy on forceps biopsy. ER was attempted when the lesion did not have definite features of deeply invasive cancer. The "nonlifting sign" excluded ER only in naive lesions without a prior attempted resection. Lesions were classified, using the Kyoto-Paris classification for mucosal neoplasia. For sessile and non-polypoid lesions the "inject and cut" resection technique was used. Pedunculated and semi-pedunculated lesions were transected at the stalk just below the polyps head and before or after resection, metal clips or a loop were applied on the stalk to prevent bleeding. The lesions were histologically classified according to the Vienna criteria and for the pedunculated lesions the Haggitt classification was used.
RESULTS: Eighty-two patients (42 females, mean age 62 years) with 82 lesions (mean size 37 mm) were included in the study. Sixty-nine (84%) lesions were endoscopically resected, while 13 underwent surgical resection since ER was deemed unsuitable. On histology, cancer was found in 21/69 lesions (14 intra-mucosal, 7 sub-mucosal) and was associated with the size (P < 0.001) and with type 0-IIa +Is (P = 0.011) and 0-IIa + IIc (P < 0.001) lesions. All patients with sub-mucosal cancer, underwent surgical resection. Complications occurred in 11/69 patients (7 bleedings, 2 transmural burn syndromes, 2 perforations), all managed endoscopically or conservatively, and were associated with presence of invasive cancer (P = 0.021). During follow-up recurrence/residual tissue was found in 14/51 sessile or non-polypoid lesions (13 treated endoscopically, 1 underwent surgical resection) and was associated with type 0-IIa + Is lesions (P = 0.001), piecemeal resections (P = 0.01) and with lesion size (P = 0.004). Overall, 74% of patients avoided surgery. Surgical resection was significantly associated with type 0-IIa + Is (P = 0.01) and 0-IIa + IIc (P = 0.001) lesions, with sub-mucosal invasion on histology (P < 0.001), with presence of the "nonlifting sign" (P < 0.001), and related to the dimension of the lesions (P = 0.001). In the logistic regression analysis, the only independent predictor for surgical resection was the dimension of the lesions (P = 0.002).
CONCLUSION: Before submitting patients to surgical resection for a benign DCRL, a second opinion by an experienced endoscopist is mandatory to avoid unnecessary surgery.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Complications; Difficult colorectal lesion; Endoscopic resection; Non-polypoid lesions; Polypoid lesions; Recurrence

Year:  2015        PMID: 26240689      PMCID: PMC4515422          DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i9.881

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc


  24 in total

1.  Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States.

Authors:  John D Birkmeyer; Andrea E Siewers; Emily V A Finlayson; Therese A Stukel; F Lee Lucas; Ida Batista; H Gilbert Welch; David E Wennberg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-04-11       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Efficacy, safety and outcomes of 'inject and cut' endoscopic mucosal resection for large sessile and flat colorectal polyps.

Authors:  Francesco Ferrara; Carmelo Luigiano; Stefania Ghersi; Carlo Fabbri; Marco Bassi; Patrizia Landi; Anna Maria Polifemo; Paola Billi; Vincenzo Cennamo; Pierluigi Consolo; Angela Alibrandi; Nicola D'Imperio
Journal:  Digestion       Date:  2010-06-24       Impact factor: 3.216

3.  The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia.

Authors:  R J Schlemper; R H Riddell; Y Kato; F Borchard; H S Cooper; S M Dawsey; M F Dixon; C M Fenoglio-Preiser; J F Fléjou; K Geboes; T Hattori; T Hirota; M Itabashi; M Iwafuchi; A Iwashita; Y I Kim; T Kirchner; M Klimpfinger; M Koike; G Y Lauwers; K J Lewin; G Oberhuber; F Offner; A B Price; C A Rubio; M Shimizu; T Shimoda; P Sipponen; E Solcia; M Stolte; H Watanabe; H Yamabe
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 23.059

4.  Outcomes of EMR of defiant colorectal lesions directed to an endoscopy referral center.

Authors:  Anna M Buchner; Carlos Guarner-Argente; Gregory G Ginsberg
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2012-05-31       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  Endoscopic mucosal resection outcomes and prediction of submucosal cancer from advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia.

Authors:  Alan Moss; Michael J Bourke; Stephen J Williams; Luke F Hourigan; Gregor Brown; William Tam; Rajvinder Singh; Simon Zanati; Robert Y Chen; Karen Byth
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2011-03-08       Impact factor: 22.682

6.  Management of the difficult colon polyp referred for resection: resect or rescope?

Authors:  Theodoros Voloyiannis; Michael J Snyder; Randolph R Bailey; Mark Pidala
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2008-01-18       Impact factor: 4.585

7.  Colonoscopy results of a French regional FOBT-based colorectal cancer screening program with high compliance.

Authors:  S Manfredi; C Piette; G Durand; G Plihon; G Mallard; J-F Bretagne
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2008-01-09       Impact factor: 10.093

8.  Prognostic factors in colorectal carcinomas arising in adenomas: implications for lesions removed by endoscopic polypectomy.

Authors:  R C Haggitt; R E Glotzbach; E E Soffer; L D Wruble
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  1985-08       Impact factor: 22.682

9.  Endoclip-assisted resection of large pedunculated colorectal polyps: technical aspects and outcome.

Authors:  Carmelo Luigiano; Francesco Ferrara; Stefania Ghersi; Carlo Fabbri; Vincenzo Cennamo; Patrizia Landi; Anna Maria Polifemo; Paola Billi; Marco Bassi; Pierluigi Consolo; Angela Alibrandi; Nicola D'Imperio
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2009-08-06       Impact factor: 3.199

10.  Outcomes of repeat colonoscopy in patients with polyps referred for surgery without biopsy-proven cancer.

Authors:  Shai Friedland; Subhas Banerjee; Rajan Kochar; Ann Chen; Andrew Shelton
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-07-31       Impact factor: 9.427

View more
  4 in total

1.  Resection of colonic lesions: full thickness, full monty?

Authors:  N Pagano
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2019-10-09       Impact factor: 3.781

2.  Outcome of EMR as an alternative to surgery in patients with complex colon polyps.

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

3.  Variation in colectomy rates for benign polyp and colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Joceline V Vu; Kyle H Sheetz; Ana C De Roo; Tadd Hiatt; Samantha Hendren
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-02-19       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Multicentre study of surgical referral and outcomes of patients with benign colorectal lesions.

Authors:  N C A Vermeer; M P M de Neree Tot Babberich; P Fockens; I D Nagtegaal; C J H van de Velde; E Dekker; P J Tanis; K C M J Peeters
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2019-07-30
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.