» Articles » PMID: 30783739

Endoscopic Resection of Colorectal Circumferential and Near-circumferential Laterally Spreading Lesions: Outcomes and Risk of Stenosis

Overview
Date 2019 Feb 21
PMID 30783739
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: Almost any colorectal superficial neoplastic lesion can be treated by endoscopic resection (ER) but very little is known about outcomes of ER leaving circumferential or near-circumferential mucosal defects. We report the outcomes of ER leaving ≥ 75% circumferential mucosal defects performed in a western expert centre.

Methods: Five hundred eighty-seven ERs of large colorectal lesions ≥ 20 mm were grouped according to the extent of the mucosal defect and comparisons made between those with < 75% and ≥ 75% defects. Independent predictors of stenosis were identified.

Results: Forty-seven patients had ER leaving ≥ 75% circumference defect, most located at or distal to the rectosigmoid, with ≥ 90% defects in 5 and 100% in 11. There were no significant colonic muscle injuries in patients with ≥ 75% defect and no differences in post-procedure bleeding (OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.2-13.7, p = 0.64) between patients with ≥ 75% and < 75% defects. Stenosis developed in 9 patients. ≥ 90% circumference defect was the only independent risk factor for stenosis (OR 286, p < 0.001). Three of 4 patients with asymptomatic stenosis had successful expectant management. The remainder were treated with dilatation. Recurrence was more likely in those with ≥ 75% defect (OR 7.9, 95% CI 3.8-16.4, p < 0.001) but was managed with further ER in all but 2 cases.

Conclusion: ER of colorectal lesions resulting in defects ≥ 75% of the luminal circumference is challenging but safe and effective when performed in an expert centre. The only independent predictor of stenosis is ≥ 90% circumference defect but some patients improve with expectant management; therefore, pre-emptive intervention may not be warranted.

References
1.
Wada Y, Kudo S, Kashida H, Ikehara N, Inoue H, Yamamura F . Diagnosis of colorectal lesions with the magnifying narrow-band imaging system. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009; 70(3):522-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.01.040. View

2.
Cairns S, Scholefield J, Steele R, Dunlop M, Thomas H, Evans G . Guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance in moderate and high risk groups (update from 2002). Gut. 2010; 59(5):666-89. DOI: 10.1136/gut.2009.179804. View

3.
Hassan C, Repici A, Sharma P, Correale L, Zullo A, Bretthauer M . Efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut. 2015; 65(5):806-20. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308481. View

4.
Ohara Y, Toyonaga T, Tanaka S, Ishida T, Hoshi N, Yoshizaki T . Risk of stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection for large rectal neoplasms. Endoscopy. 2015; 48(1):62-70. DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1392514. View

5.
Pimentel-Nunes P, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Ponchon T, Repici A, Vieth M, De Ceglie A . Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy. 2015; 47(9):829-54. DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1392882. View