Dataset Information

Recurrence rates after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal laterally spreading tumors.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (pEMR) is routinely employed for large laterally spreading tumors (LSTs). Recurrence rates following pEMR are still unclear, especially when cap-assisted EMR (EMR-c) is performed. We assessed the recurrence rates and recurrence risk factors post-pEMR for large colorectal LSTs, including both wide-field EMR (WF-EMR) and EMR-c.

Methods

This was a single-center, retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent pEMR for colorectal LSTs ≥20 mm at our institution between 2012 and 2020. Patients had a post-resection follow-up period of at least 3 months. A risk factor analysis was carried out using the Cox regression model.

Results

The analysis included 155 pEMR: 51 WF-EMR and 104 EMR-c, with a median lesion size of 30 (range: 20-80) mm and a median endoscopic follow up of 15 (range: 3-76) months. Overall, disease recurrence occurred in 29.0% of cases; there was no significant difference in recurrence rates between WF-EMR and EMR-c. Recurrent lesions were safely managed by endoscopic removal, and at risk analysis lesion size was the only significant risk factor for recurrence (mm; hazard ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.06, P=0.02).

Conclusions

Recurrence of large colorectal LSTs after pEMR occurs in 29% of cases. This rate is mainly dependent on lesion size, and the use of a cap during pEMR has no effect on recurrence. Prospective controlled trials are needed to validate these results.

SUBMITTER: Michielan A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9932858 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar-Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Recurrence rates after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal laterally spreading tumors.

Michielan Andrea A Merola Elettra E Vieceli Filippo F Rogger Teresa Marzia TM Crispino Federica F Sartori Chiara C Decarli Nicola Libertà NL de Pretis Giovanni G de Pretis Nicolò N

Annals of gastroenterology 20230120 2

<h4>Background</h4>Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (pEMR) is routinely employed for large laterally spreading tumors (LSTs). Recurrence rates following pEMR are still unclear, especially when cap-assisted EMR (EMR-c) is performed. We assessed the recurrence rates and recurrence risk factors post-pEMR for large colorectal LSTs, including both wide-field EMR (WF-EMR) and EMR-c.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a single-center, retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent pEMR for colore ...[more]

PMID: 36864943

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe optimal method to remove sessile colorectal lesions sized 10-20 mm remains uncertain. Piecemeal and incomplete resection are major limitations in current practice, such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and cold or hot snare polypectomy. Recently, EMR with circumferential precutting (EMR-P) has emerged as an effective technique, but the quality of current evidence in comparative studies of conventional EMR (CEMR) and EMR-P is limited.AimTo investigate whether EMR-P is superior to CEMR in removing sessile colorectal polyps.MethodsThis multicenter randomized controlled trial involved seven medical institutions in China. Patients with colorectal polyps sized 10-20 mm were enrolled and randomly assigned to undergo EMR-P or CEMR. EMR-P was performed following submucosal injection, and a circumferential mucosa incision (precutting) was conducted using a snare tip. Primary outcomes included a comparison of the rates of en bloc and R0 resection, defined as one-piece resection and one-piece resection with histologically assessed clear margins, respectively.ResultsA total of 110 patients in the EMR-P group and 110 patients in the CEMR group were finally evaluated. In the per-protocol analysis, the proportion of en bloc resections was 94.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 88.2%-97.4%] in the EMR-P group and 86% (95%CI: 78.2%-91.3%) in the CEMR group (P = 0.041), while subgroup analysis showed that for lesions > 15 mm, EMR-P also resulted in a higher en bloc resection rate (92.0% vs 58.8% P = 0.029). The proportion of R0 resections was 81.1% (95%CI: 72.6%-87.4%) in the EMR-P group and 76.6% (95%CI: 68.8%-84.4%) in the CEMR group (P = 0.521). The EMR-P group showed a longer median procedure time (6.4 vs 3.0 min; P < 0.001). No significant difference was found in the proportion of patients with adverse events (EMR-P: 9.1%; CEMR: 6.4%; P = 0.449).ConclusionIn this study, EMR-P served as an alternative to CEMR for removing nonpedunculated colorectal polyps sized 10-20 mm, particularly polyps > 15 mm in diameter, with higher R0 and en bloc resection rates and without increasing adverse events. However, EMR-P required a relatively longer procedure time than CEMR. Considering its potential benefits for en bloc and R0 resection, EMR-P may be a promising technique in colorectal polyp resection.

Dataset Information

Recurrence rates after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal laterally spreading tumors.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Recurrence rates after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal laterally spreading tumors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets