Endoscopy 2022; 54(11): 1062-1070
DOI: 10.1055/a-1790-5539
Original article

Relevance of polyp size for primary endoscopic full-thickness resection of suspected T1 colorectal cancers

Paul Didden
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
,
Rixta A. H. van Eijck van Heslinga
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
,
Matthijs P. Schwartz
2   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands
,
L. R. Arensman
3   Department of Pathology, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands
,
Frank P. Vleggaar
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
,
Wilmar de Graaf
4   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
,
Arjun D. Koch
4   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
,
Michael Doukas
5   Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, The Netherlands
,
Miangela M. Lacle
6   Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
,
Leon M. G. Moons
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
› Institutsangaben


Abstract

Background En bloc local excision of suspected T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) provides optimal tumor risk assessment with curative intent. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) with an over-the-scope device has emerged as a local excision technique for T1 CRCs, but data on the upper size limit for achieving a histological complete (R0) resection are lacking. We aimed to determine the influence of polyp size on the R0 rate.

Methods eFTR procedures for suspected T1 CRCs performed between 2015 and 2021 were selected from the endoscopy databases of three tertiary centers. The main outcome was R0 resection, defined as tumor- and dysplasia-free margins (≥ 0.1 mm) for both the deep and lateral resection margins. Regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for R1/Rx resection, mainly focusing on endoscopically estimated polyp size.

Results 136 patients underwent eFTR for suspected T1 CRC (median size 15 mm [IQR 13–18 mm]; 83.1 % cancer). The rates of technical success and R0 resection were 87.5 % (119/136; 95 %CI 80.9 %–92.1 %) and 79.7 % (106/136; 95 %CI 72.1 %–85.7 %), respectively. Increasing polyp size was significantly associated with R1/Rx resection (risk ratio 2.35 per 5-mm increase, 95 %CI 1.80–3.07; P < 0.001). The R0 rate was 89.9 % (80/89) for polyps ≤ 15 mm, 71.4 % (25/35) for 16–20 mm, and 11.1 % (1/9) for those > 20 mm.

Conclusions eFTR is associated with a 90 % R0 rate for T1 CRCs of ≤ 15 mm. Performing eFTR for polyps 16–20 mm should depend on access, their mobility, and the availability of alternative resection techniques. eFTR for > 20-mm polyps results in a high R1 rate and should not be recommended.

Supplementary material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 13. Juli 2021

Angenommen nach Revision: 07. März 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
07. März 2022

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
23. Juni 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 
  • References

  • 1 Amri R, Bordeianou LG, Sylla P. et al. Impact of screening colonoscopy on outcomes in colon cancer surgery. JAMA Surg 2013; 148: 747-754
  • 2 Toes-Zoutendijk E, Kooyker AI, Elferink MA. et al. Stage distribution of screen-detected colorectal cancers in the Netherlands. Gut 2018; 67: 1745-1746
  • 3 Dang H, Dekkers N, le Cessie S. et al. Risk and time pattern of recurrences after local endoscopic resection of T1 colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 20: e298-e314
  • 4 Argiles G, Tabernero J, Labianca R. et al. Localised colon cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2020; 31: 1291-1305
  • 5 Backes Y, Schwartz MP, Ter Borg F. et al. Multicentre prospective evaluation of real-time optical diagnosis of T1 colorectal cancer in large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps using narrow band imaging (the OPTICAL study). Gut 2019; 68: 271-279
  • 6 Bisschops R, East JE, Hassan C. et al. Advanced imaging for detection and differentiation of colorectal neoplasia: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2019. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 1155-1179
  • 7 Shaukat A, Kaltenbach T, Dominitz JA. et al. Endoscopic recognition and management strategies for malignant colorectal polyps: Recommendations of the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2020; 159: 1916-1934.e1912
  • 8 Shaukat A, Kaltenbach T, Dominitz JA. et al. Endoscopic recognition and management strategies for malignant colorectal polyps: Recommendations of the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 92: 997-1015.e1011
  • 9 Suh JH, Han KS, Kim BC. et al. Predictors for lymph node metastasis in T1 colorectal cancer. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 590-595
  • 10 Yasue C, Chino A, Takamatsu M. et al. Pathological risk factors and predictive endoscopic factors for lymph node metastasis of T1 colorectal cancer: a single-center study of 846 lesions. J Gastroenterol 2019; 54: 708-717
  • 11 Kim B, Kim EH, Park SJ. et al. The risk of lymph node metastasis makes it unsafe to expand the conventional indications for endoscopic treatment of T1 colorectal cancer: A retrospective study of 428 patients. Medicine (Baltimore) 2016; 95: e4373
  • 12 Nakadoi K, Tanaka S, Kanao H. et al. Management of T1 colorectal carcinoma with special reference to criteria for curative endoscopic resection. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 27: 1057-1062
  • 13 Ha RK, Han KS, Sohn DK. et al. Histopathologic risk factors for lymph node metastasis in patients with T1 colorectal cancer. Ann Surg Treat Res 2017; 93: 266-271
  • 14 Ronnow CF, Arthursson V, Toth E. et al. Lymphovascular infiltration, not depth of invasion, is the critical risk factor of metastases in early colorectal cancer: retrospective population-based cohort study on prospectively collected data, including validation. Ann Surg 2022; 275: e148-e154
  • 15 Backes Y, Elias SG, Groen JN. et al. Histologic factors associated with need for surgery in patients with pedunculated T1 colorectal carcinomas. Gastroenterology 2018; 154: 1647-1659
  • 16 Vermeer NCA, Backes Y, Snijders HS. et al. National cohort study on postoperative risks after surgery for submucosal invasive colorectal cancer. BJS Open 2019; 3: 210-217
  • 17 Overwater A, Kessels K, Elias SG. et al. Endoscopic resection of high-risk T1 colorectal carcinoma prior to surgical resection has no adverse effect on long-term outcomes. Gut 2018; 67: 284-290
  • 18 Schmidt A, Beyna T, Schumacher B. et al. Colonoscopic full-thickness resection using an over-the-scope device: a prospective multicentre study in various indications. Gut 2018; 67: 1280-1289
  • 19 Kuellmer A, Mueller J, Caca K. et al. Endoscopic full-thickness resection for early colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 1180-1189.e1181
  • 20 Zwager LW, Bastiaansen BAJ, Bronzwaer MES. et al. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) of colorectal lesions: results from the Dutch colorectal eFTR registry. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 1014-1023
  • 21 Brierley JD, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. 8. Oxford: Wiley; 2016
  • 22 Nagtegaal ID, Odze RD, Klimstra D. et al. The 2019 WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Histopathology 2020; 76: 182-188
  • 23 Dawson H, Galuppini F, Trager P. et al. Validation of the International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference 2016 recommendations on tumor budding in stage I-IV colorectal cancer. Hum Pathol 2019; 85: 145-151
  • 24 Fukuda H, Takeuchi Y, Shoji A. et al. Curative value of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for submucosally invasive colorectal cancer. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 36: 2471-2478
  • 25 Fuccio L, Repici A, Hassan C. et al. Why attempt en bloc resection of non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas? A systematic review of the prevalence of superficial submucosal invasive cancer after endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gut 2018; 67: 1464-1474
  • 26 Watanabe D, Toyonaga T, Ooi M. et al. Clinical outcomes of deep invasive submucosal colorectal cancer after ESD. Surg Endosc 2018; 32: 2123-2130
  • 27 Fleischmann C, Probst A, Ebigbo A. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection in Europe: Results of 1000 neoplastic lesions from the German Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Registry. Gastroenterology 2021; 161: 1168-1178
  • 28 Allaix ME, Arezzo A, Morino M. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal cancer: T1 and beyond? An evidence-based review. Surg Endosc 2016; 30: 4841-4852
  • 29 Kikuchi R, Takano M, Takagi K. et al. Management of early invasive colorectal-cancer – risk of recurrence and clinical guidelines. Dis Colon Rectum 1995; 38: 1286-1295
  • 30 Plumb AA, Nickerson C, Wooldrage K. et al. Terminal digit preference biases polyp size measurements at endoscopy, computed tomographic colonography, and histopathology. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 899-908
  • 31 Gopalswamy N, Shenoy VN, Choudhry U. et al. Is in vivo measurement of size of polyps during colonoscopy accurate?. Gastrointest Endosc 1997; 46: 497-502