Literature DB >> 26786685

Endoscopic mucosal resection for large serrated lesions in comparison with adenomas: a prospective multicentre study of 2000 lesions.

Maria Pellise1, Nicholas G Burgess1,2, Nicholas Tutticci1, Luke F Hourigan3,4, Simon A Zanati5,6, Gregor J Brown5,7, Rajvinder Singh8, Stephen J Williams1, Spiro C Raftopoulos9, Donald Ormonde9, Alan Moss6, Karen Byth10,11, Heok P'Ng12, Hema Mahajan12, Duncan McLeod12, Michael J Bourke1,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is effective for large laterally spreading flat and sessile lesions (LSLs). Sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSA/Ps) are linked to the relative failure of colonoscopy to prevent proximal colorectal cancer. We aimed to examine the technical success, adverse events and recurrence following EMR for large SSA/Ps in comparison with large conventional adenomas.
DESIGN: Over 74 months till August 2014, prospective multicentre data of LSLs ≥20 mm were analysed. A standardised dye-based conventional EMR technique followed by scheduled surveillance colonoscopy was used.
RESULTS: From a total of 2000 lesions, 323 SSA/Ps in 246 patients and 1527 adenomas in 1425 patients were included for analysis. Technical success for EMR was superior in SSA/Ps compared with adenomas (99.1% vs 94.5%, p<0.001). Significant bleeding and perforation were similar in both cohorts. The cumulative recurrence rates for adenomas after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months were 16.1%, 20.4%, 23.4% and 28.4%, respectively. For SSA/Ps, they were 6.3% at 6 months and 7.0% from 12 months onwards (p<0.001). Following multivariable adjustment, the HR of recurrence for adenomas versus SSA/Ps was 1.7 (95% CI 0.9 to 3.0, p=0.097). Subgroup analysis by lesion size revealed an eightfold increased risk of recurrence for 20-25 mm adenomas versus SSA/Ps, but no significantly different risk between lesion types in larger lesion groups.
CONCLUSION: Recurrence after EMR of 20-25 mm LSLs is significantly less frequent in SSA/Ps compared with adenomatous lesions. SSA/Ps can be more effectively removed than adenomatous LSLs with equivalent safety. Ensuring complete initial resection is imperative for avoiding recurrence. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01368289. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COLONIC POLYPS; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL ADENOMAS; COLORECTAL CANCER; ENDOSCOPIC PROCEDURES

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26786685     DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310249

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gut        ISSN: 0017-5749            Impact factor:   23.059


  26 in total

1.  Endoscopic Management of Complex Lesions in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

Authors:  Anna M Buchner
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2021-03

2.  Morbidity and mortality after surgery for nonmalignant colorectal polyps.

Authors:  Anne F Peery; Nicholas J Shaheen; Katherine S Cools; Todd H Baron; Mark Koruda; Joseph A Galanko; Ian S Grimm
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2017-04-10       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) in the lower gastrointestinal tract.

Authors:  H Albrecht; M Raithel; A Braun; A Nagel; A Stegmaier; K Utpatel; C Schäfer
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 3.781

4.  En bloc endoscopic mucosal resection is equally effective for sessile serrated polyps and conventional adenomas.

Authors:  Amol Agarwal; Sidyarth Garimall; Frank I Scott; Nuzhat A Ahmad; Michael L Kochman; Gregory G Ginsberg; Vinay Chandrasekhara
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-09-22       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 5.  Optimizing Resection of Large Colorectal Polyps.

Authors:  Steven J Heitman; David J Tate; Michael J Bourke
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-03

6.  Specialist Endoscopists Are Associated with a Decreased Risk of Incomplete Polyp Resection During Endoscopic Mucosal Resection in the Colon.

Authors:  Anna Tavakkoli; Ryan J Law; Aarti O Bedi; Anoop Prabhu; Tadd Hiatt; Michelle A Anderson; Erik J Wamsteker; B Joseph Elmunzer; Cyrus R Piraka; James M Scheiman; Grace H Elta; Richard S Kwon
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2017-06-09       Impact factor: 3.199

7.  Polyp Resection and Removal Procedures: Insights From the 2017 Digestive Disease Week.

Authors:  Carol Burke; Vivek Kaul; Heiko Pohl
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2017-09

8.  Recommendations for Follow-Up After Colonoscopy and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Samir Gupta; David Lieberman; Joseph C Anderson; Carol A Burke; Jason A Dominitz; Tonya Kaltenbach; Douglas J Robertson; Aasma Shaukat; Sapna Syngal; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2020-02-07       Impact factor: 22.682

9.  Recommendations for Follow-Up After Colonoscopy and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.

Authors:  Samir Gupta; David Lieberman; Joseph C Anderson; Carol A Burke; Jason A Dominitz; Tonya Kaltenbach; Douglas J Robertson; Aasma Shaukat; Sapna Syngal; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2020-02-07       Impact factor: 9.427

10.  Treatment strategy for local recurrences after endoscopic resection of a colorectal neoplasm.

Authors:  Sayo Ito; Kinichi Hotta; Kenichiro Imai; Yuichiro Yamaguchi; Yoshihiro Kishida; Kohei Takizawa; Naomi Kakushima; Noboru Kawata; Masao Yoshida; Hirotoshi Ishiwatari; Hiroyuki Matsubayashi; Hiroyuki Ono
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-07-24       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.