Literature DB >> 29030001

The occurrence and characteristics of endoscopically unexpected malignant degeneration in large rectal adenomas.

Maxime E S Bronzwaer1, Gijsbert D Musters2, Renée M Barendse2, Lianne Koens3, Eelco J R de Graaf4, Pascal G Doornebosch4, Matthijs P Schwartz5, Esther C J Consten6, Erik J Schoon7, Ignace H J T de Hingh8, Pieter J Tanis2, Evelien Dekker1, Paul Fockens1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Large non-pedunculated rectal polyps are most commonly resected by endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). Despite pre-procedural diagnostics, unexpected rectal cancer is incidentally encountered within the resected specimen. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic assessment and procedural characteristics of lesions with and without unexpected submucosal invasion.
METHODS: A post-hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized trial (TREND study) was performed in which patients with a non-pedunculated rectal polyp of ≥3 cm without endoscopic suspicion of invasive growth were randomized between EMR and TEM.
RESULTS: Unexpected rectal cancer was detected in 13% (27/203) of patients; 15 after EMR and 12 after TEM. Most consisted of low-risk T1 cancers (78%, n = 18). There were no differences in the diagnostic assessment between lesions with and without unexpected submucosal invasion. Diagnostic biopsies revealed similar rates of high-grade dysplasia (28% [7/25] vs 18% [26/144]). When compared with EMR of adenomas, EMR procedures of unexpected cancers had a lower success rate of submucosal lifting (60% vs 93%, P < .001), were more often assessed as endoscopically incomplete (33% vs 10%, P = .01), and were more frequently terminated prematurely (60% vs 8%, P = .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic assessment of large non-pedunculated rectal polyps revealed similar characteristics between unexpected cancers and adenomas. Unexpected cancers during EMR were non-lifting in 40%, endoscopically assessed as incomplete in 33%, and terminated prematurely in 60%. In treatment-naive patients, these factors should raise suspicion of malignancy and need discussion in a multidisciplinary team meeting for decision on further treatment strategies.
Copyright © 2018 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29030001     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.09.046

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  3 in total

1.  Safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neoplasia: a multicenter North American experience.

Authors:  Dennis Yang; Hiroyuki Aihara; Yaseen B Perbtani; Andrew Y Wang; Abdul Aziz Aadam; Yutaka Tomizawa; Joo Ha Hwang; Baiming Zou; Nikola S Natov; Amanda Siegel; Milad Pourmousavi Khoshknab; Mouen A Khashab; Saowanee Ngamruengphong; Harshit S Khara; David L Diehl; Thibaut Maniere; Sherif Andrawes; Petros Benias; Nikhil A Kumta; Fariha Ramay; Raymond E Kim; Jason Samarasena; Kenneth Chang; Rintaro Hashimoto; Benjamin Tharian; Sumant Inamdar; Gloria Lan; Amrita Sethi; Michael J Nosler; Abdalaziz Tabash; Mohamed O Othman; Peter V Draganov
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2019-12-02

2.  Local full-thickness excision for sessile adenoma and cT1-2 rectal cancer: long-term oncological outcome.

Authors:  Maria A Gascon; Vicente Aguilella; Tomas Martinez; Luigi Antinolfi; Javier Valencia; Jose M Ramírez
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2022-06-22       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  Transanal endoscopic microsurgery after the attempt of endoscopic removal of rectal polyps.

Authors:  Monica Ortenzi; Alberto Arezzo; Roberto Ghiselli; Marco Ettore Allaix; Mario Guerrieri; Mario Morino
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2022-03-04       Impact factor: 3.453

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.