Revising the definition of vertical margin involvement following endoscopic polypectomy may reduce unnecessary surgery in patients with malignant colorectal polyps.
endoscopic polypectomy
malignant polyp
nodal metastasis
vertical margin
Journal
JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology
ISSN: 2397-9070
Titre abrégé: JGH Open
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 101730833
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
23
07
2019
accepted:
27
08
2019
entrez:
10
6
2020
pubmed:
10
6
2020
medline:
10
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Endoscopically resected malignant colorectal polyps (MCPs) present a dilemma regarding whether the risk of residual disease justifies a major bowel resection. Overtreatment is common, and the vast majority of patients who undergo resection have no residual tumor. The aim of this study was to investigate whether revising the definition of vertical margin involvement following MCP polypectomy could reduce unnecessary surgery. This was a cohort study of consecutive patients with MCPs treated at a tertiary hospital between 2004 and 2018. Data on demographics, index colonoscopy, polyp pathology, and any subsequent surgical resection were analyzed. Polypectomy resection margins were reviewed and measured to the nearest decimal place. The ability of existing guidelines (requiring a margin clearance of ≥ 1 mm) to predict residual disease was compared to a revised version requiring a margin clearance of ≥ 0.1 mm. A total of 129 patients with an MCP were included. Of these 129 patients, 77 (60%) underwent surgical resection, of which 62 (81%) had no residual tumor. Existing guidelines, requiring a margin clearance of ≥ 1 mm, classified 28 patients as being at "low risk" for residual disease. Of these, four underwent surgery, but none had residual tumor ( Revising the definition of vertical margin involvement leads to more patients being correctly classified as being at low risk of residual disease. This has the potential to reduce unnecessary surgery in patients with MCPs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS
OBJECTIVE
Endoscopically resected malignant colorectal polyps (MCPs) present a dilemma regarding whether the risk of residual disease justifies a major bowel resection. Overtreatment is common, and the vast majority of patients who undergo resection have no residual tumor. The aim of this study was to investigate whether revising the definition of vertical margin involvement following MCP polypectomy could reduce unnecessary surgery.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
This was a cohort study of consecutive patients with MCPs treated at a tertiary hospital between 2004 and 2018. Data on demographics, index colonoscopy, polyp pathology, and any subsequent surgical resection were analyzed. Polypectomy resection margins were reviewed and measured to the nearest decimal place. The ability of existing guidelines (requiring a margin clearance of ≥ 1 mm) to predict residual disease was compared to a revised version requiring a margin clearance of ≥ 0.1 mm.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 129 patients with an MCP were included. Of these 129 patients, 77 (60%) underwent surgical resection, of which 62 (81%) had no residual tumor. Existing guidelines, requiring a margin clearance of ≥ 1 mm, classified 28 patients as being at "low risk" for residual disease. Of these, four underwent surgery, but none had residual tumor (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Revising the definition of vertical margin involvement leads to more patients being correctly classified as being at low risk of residual disease. This has the potential to reduce unnecessary surgery in patients with MCPs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32514442
doi: 10.1002/jgh3.12261
pii: JGH312261
pmc: PMC7273713
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
387-393Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors. JGH Open: An open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology published by Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Références
ANZ J Surg. 2017 May;87(5):350-355
pubmed: 27062541
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2019 Mar;404(2):231-242
pubmed: 30206683
Gastroenterology. 2004 Aug;127(2):385-94
pubmed: 15300569
Dis Colon Rectum. 2005 Aug;48(8):1588-96
pubmed: 15937622
Gut. 2018 Feb;67(2):299-306
pubmed: 27789658
Colorectal Dis. 2013 Aug;15 Suppl 2:1-38
pubmed: 23848492
World J Gastroenterol. 2010 Jul 7;16(25):3103-11
pubmed: 20593495
Endoscopy. 2013 Oct;45(10):827-34
pubmed: 23884793
Gut. 2012 Oct;61(10):1439-46
pubmed: 22156981
Colorectal Dis. 2013 Feb;15(2):169-76
pubmed: 22709241
Dis Colon Rectum. 1995 Dec;38(12):1286-95
pubmed: 7497841
Gastroenterology. 1985 Aug;89(2):328-36
pubmed: 4007423
Gut. 1998 Nov;43(5):669-74
pubmed: 9824349
J Clin Pathol. 2016 Apr;69(4):292-9
pubmed: 26424814
Int J Clin Oncol. 2018 Feb;23(1):1-34
pubmed: 28349281