Nicholas G Burgess1, Luke F Hourigan2, Simon A Zanati3, Gregor J Brown4, Rajvinder Singh5, Stephen J Williams6, Spiro C Raftopoulos7, Donald Ormonde7, Alan Moss8, Karen Byth9, Hema Mahajan10, Duncan McLeod10, Michael J Bourke11. 1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Westmead Clinical School, University of Sydney, School of Medicine, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 2. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia; Gallipoli Medical Research Institute, School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Greenslopes Private Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. 3. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Western Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 4. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Epworth Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 5. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Lyell McEwin Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. 6. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 7. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. 8. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Western Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 9. University of Sydney National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 10. Institute of Clinical Pathology and Medical Research, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 11. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Westmead Clinical School, University of Sydney, School of Medicine, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: michael@citywestgastro.com.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Among patients with large colorectal sessile polyps or laterally spreading lesions, it is important to identify those at risk for submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC). Lesions with overt endoscopic evidence of SMIC are referred for surgery, although those without these features might still contain SMIC that is not visible on endoscopic inspection (covert SMIC). Lesions with a high covert SMIC risk might be better suited for endoscopic submucosal dissection than for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). We analyzed a group of patients with large colon lesions to identify factors associated with SMIC, and examined lesions without overt endoscopic high-risk signs to determine factors associated with covert SMIC. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of consecutive patients referred for EMR of large sessile or flat colorectal polyps or laterally spreading lesions (≥20 mm) at academic hospitals in Australia from September 2008 through September 2016. We collected data on patient and lesion characteristics, outcomes of procedures, and histology findings. We excluded serrated lesions from the analysis of covert SMIC due to their distinct phenotype and biologic features. RESULTS: We analyzed 2277 lesions (mean size, 36.9 mm) from 2106 patients (mean age, 67.7 years; 53.2% male). SMIC was evident in 171 lesions (7.6%). Factors associated with SMIC included Kudo pit pattern V, a depressed component (0-IIc), rectosigmoid location, 0-Is or 0-IIa+Is Paris classification, non-granular surface morphology, and increasing size. After exclusion of lesions that were obviously SMIC or serrated, factors associated with covert SMIC were rectosigmoid location (odds ratio, 1.87; P = .01), combined Paris classification, surface morphology (odds ratios, 3.96-22.5), and increasing size (odds ratio, 1.16/10 mm; P = .012). CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective study of 2106 patients who underwent EMR for large sessile or flat colorectal polyps or laterally spreading lesions, we associated rectosigmoid location, combined Paris classification and surface morphology, and increasing size with increased risk for covert malignancy. Rectosigmoid 0-Is and 0-IIa+Is non-granular lesions have a high risk for malignancy, whereas proximally located 0-Is or 0-IIa granular lesions have a low risk. These findings can be used to inform decisions on which patients should undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection, EMR, or surgery. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02000141.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Among patients with large colorectal sessile polyps or laterally spreading lesions, it is important to identify those at risk for submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC). Lesions with overt endoscopic evidence of SMIC are referred for surgery, although those without these features might still contain SMIC that is not visible on endoscopic inspection (covert SMIC). Lesions with a high covert SMIC risk might be better suited for endoscopic submucosal dissection than for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). We analyzed a group of patients with large colon lesions to identify factors associated with SMIC, and examined lesions without overt endoscopic high-risk signs to determine factors associated with covert SMIC. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of consecutive patients referred for EMR of large sessile or flat colorectal polyps or laterally spreading lesions (≥20 mm) at academic hospitals in Australia from September 2008 through September 2016. We collected data on patient and lesion characteristics, outcomes of procedures, and histology findings. We excluded serrated lesions from the analysis of covert SMIC due to their distinct phenotype and biologic features. RESULTS: We analyzed 2277 lesions (mean size, 36.9 mm) from 2106 patients (mean age, 67.7 years; 53.2% male). SMIC was evident in 171 lesions (7.6%). Factors associated with SMIC included Kudo pit pattern V, a depressed component (0-IIc), rectosigmoid location, 0-Is or 0-IIa+Is Paris classification, non-granular surface morphology, and increasing size. After exclusion of lesions that were obviously SMIC or serrated, factors associated with covert SMIC were rectosigmoid location (odds ratio, 1.87; P = .01), combined Paris classification, surface morphology (odds ratios, 3.96-22.5), and increasing size (odds ratio, 1.16/10 mm; P = .012). CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective study of 2106 patients who underwent EMR for large sessile or flat colorectal polyps or laterally spreading lesions, we associated rectosigmoid location, combined Paris classification and surface morphology, and increasing size with increased risk for covert malignancy. Rectosigmoid 0-Is and 0-IIa+Is non-granular lesions have a high risk for malignancy, whereas proximally located 0-Is or 0-IIa granular lesions have a low risk. These findings can be used to inform decisions on which patients should undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection, EMR, or surgery. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02000141.
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; Bryan Dustin Pooler; David H Kim; Cesare Hassan; Kristina A Matkowskyj; Richard B Halberg Journal: Gastroenterol Clin North Am Date: 2018-06-29 Impact factor: 3.806
Authors: Fernando A Angarita; Adina E Feinberg; Stanley M Feinberg; Robert H Riddell; J Andrea McCart Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2017-12-28 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Peter V Draganov; Hiroyuki Aihara; Michael S Karasik; Saowanee Ngamruengphong; Abdul Aziz Aadam; Mohamed O Othman; Neil Sharma; Ian S Grimm; Alaa Rostom; B Joseph Elmunzer; Salmaan A Jawaid; Donevan Westerveld; Yaseen B Perbtani; Brenda J Hoffman; Alexander Schlachterman; Amanda Siegel; Roxana M Coman; Andrew Y Wang; Dennis Yang Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 22.682