Seon Hee Lim1, John M Levenick2, Abraham Mathew3, Matthew T Moyer3, Charles E Dye3, Thomas J McGarrity3. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Healthcare Research Institute, Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center, Seoul, 138-984, Korea. 2. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, HU33, 500 University Drive, Hershey, PA, 17033-0850, USA. jlevenick@hmc.psu.edu. 3. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Penn State Hershey Medical Center, HU33, 500 University Drive, Hershey, PA, 17033-0850, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Referrals for endoscopic management of large non-pedunculated (NP) colorectal polyps have increased as new techniques have emerged. The outcomes for referred large NP polyps based on the polyp morphology were investigated METHODS: A retrospective review of patients referred for large (≥20 mm) NP polyp management from January 2010 through June 2014 was completed. Polyp morphology was classified as either a NP polyp with depression (M1) or NP polyp with no depression (M0). Differences in treatment, histology, adverse events, outcomes at follow-up including residual disease, and need for surgical treatment were determined by morphology for all NP polyps ≥20 mm in size. RESULTS: One-hundred and sixty-nine M1 and 136 M0 polyps ≥20 mm were removed endoscopically during the review period. Mean size was 31.9 ± 11.0 mm in M1, and 26.8 ± 9.5 mm in M0 group (p < 0.0001). En bloc resection was possible in 18.3 % of M1 and 30.9 % of M0 lesions (p = 0.011) with endoscopic submucosal dissection used in 13 and 2.2 % of polyps, respectively (p < 0.0001). Residual polyp was found in 26.5 % (27/102) of M1 and 13.6 % (12/88) of M0 patients at surveillance colonoscopy (p = 0.029). On multivariate analysis, piecemeal resection and M1 morphology showed significant association with residual polyp (OR 4.23, 95 % CI 1.23-14.59, p = 0.022, and OR 2.15, 95 % CI 1.004-4.62, p = 0.049, respectively). CONCLUSION: Effective endoscopic management of large NP colorectal polyps, especially polyps without depression (M0), can be accomplished in the great majority of patients. Polyp morphology, particularly the presence or absence of depression, is a useful tool which influenced treatment, histology, and outcomes.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Referrals for endoscopic management of large non-pedunculated (NP) colorectal polyps have increased as new techniques have emerged. The outcomes for referred large NP polyps based on the polyp morphology were investigated METHODS: A retrospective review of patients referred for large (≥20 mm) NP polyp management from January 2010 through June 2014 was completed. Polyp morphology was classified as either a NP polyp with depression (M1) or NP polyp with no depression (M0). Differences in treatment, histology, adverse events, outcomes at follow-up including residual disease, and need for surgical treatment were determined by morphology for all NP polyps ≥20 mm in size. RESULTS: One-hundred and sixty-nine M1 and 136 M0polyps ≥20 mm were removed endoscopically during the review period. Mean size was 31.9 ± 11.0 mm in M1, and 26.8 ± 9.5 mm in M0 group (p < 0.0001). En bloc resection was possible in 18.3 % of M1 and 30.9 % of M0 lesions (p = 0.011) with endoscopic submucosal dissection used in 13 and 2.2 % of polyps, respectively (p < 0.0001). Residual polyp was found in 26.5 % (27/102) of M1 and 13.6 % (12/88) of M0 patients at surveillance colonoscopy (p = 0.029). On multivariate analysis, piecemeal resection and M1 morphology showed significant association with residual polyp (OR 4.23, 95 % CI 1.23-14.59, p = 0.022, and OR 2.15, 95 % CI 1.004-4.62, p = 0.049, respectively). CONCLUSION: Effective endoscopic management of large NP colorectal polyps, especially polyps without depression (M0), can be accomplished in the great majority of patients. Polyp morphology, particularly the presence or absence of depression, is a useful tool which influenced treatment, histology, and outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Endoscopic treatment; Large colon polyp; Paris classification; Polyp with depression
Authors: Timothy A Woodward; Michael G Heckman; Patrick Cleveland; Silvio De Melo; Massimo Raimondo; Michael Wallace Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Douglas K Rex; Dennis J Ahnen; John A Baron; Kenneth P Batts; Carol A Burke; Randall W Burt; John R Goldblum; José G Guillem; Charles J Kahi; Matthew F Kalady; Michael J O'Brien; Robert D Odze; Shuji Ogino; Susan Parry; Dale C Snover; Emina Emilia Torlakovic; Paul E Wise; Joanne Young; James Church Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-06-19 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Nicholas G Burgess; Maria Pellise; Kavinderjit S Nanda; Luke F Hourigan; Simon A Zanati; Gregor J Brown; Rajvinder Singh; Stephen J Williams; Spiro C Raftopoulos; Donald Ormonde; Alan Moss; Karen Byth; Heok P'Ng; Duncan McLeod; Michael J Bourke Journal: Gut Date: 2015-03-02 Impact factor: 23.059
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
Authors: Khaled Abdeljawad; Krishna C Vemulapalli; Charles J Kahi; Oscar W Cummings; Dale C Snover; Douglas K Rex Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-07-03 Impact factor: 9.427