Clinical outcomes and learning curve of Tip-in endoscopic mucosal resection for 15-25 mm colorectal neoplasms among non-experts.
colorectal cancer
colorectal neoplasm
endoscopic mucosal resection
learning curve
training
Journal
Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology
ISSN: 1440-1746
Titre abrégé: J Gastroenterol Hepatol
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 8607909
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Apr 2024
22 Apr 2024
Historique:
revised:
16
02
2024
received:
27
12
2023
accepted:
26
03
2024
medline:
22
4
2024
pubmed:
22
4
2024
entrez:
22
4
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Tip-in endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has a high en bloc resection rate for large colorectal neoplasms. However, non-experts' performance in Tip-in EMR has not been investigated. We investigated whether Tip-in EMR can be achieved effectively and safely even by non-experts. This retrospective study included consecutive patients who underwent Tip-in EMR for 15-25 mm colorectal nonpedunculated neoplasms at a Japanese tertiary cancer center between January 2014 and December 2020. Baseline characteristics, treatment outcomes, learning curve of non-experts, and risk factors of failing self-achieved en bloc resection were analyzed. A total of 597 lesions were analyzed (438 by experts and 159 by non-experts). The self-achieved en bloc resection (69.8% vs 88.6%, P < 0.001) and self-achieved R0 resection (58.3% vs 76.5%, P < 0.001) rates were significantly lower in non-experts with <10 cases of experience than in experts, but not in non-experts with >10 cases. Adverse event (P = 0.165) and local recurrence (P = 0.892) rates were not significantly different between experts and non-experts. Risk factors of failing self-achieved en bloc resection were non-polypoid morphology (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.6-7.3, P = 0.001), lesions with an underlying semilunar fold (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.6-7.3, P < 0.001), positive non-lifting sign (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.2-8.0, P = 0.023), and non-experts with an experience of ≤10 cases (OR 3.6, 95% CI 2.1-6.3, P < 0.001). The clinical outcomes of Tip-in EMR for 15-25 mm lesions performed by non-experts were favorable.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIM
OBJECTIVE
Tip-in endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has a high en bloc resection rate for large colorectal neoplasms. However, non-experts' performance in Tip-in EMR has not been investigated. We investigated whether Tip-in EMR can be achieved effectively and safely even by non-experts.
METHODS
METHODS
This retrospective study included consecutive patients who underwent Tip-in EMR for 15-25 mm colorectal nonpedunculated neoplasms at a Japanese tertiary cancer center between January 2014 and December 2020. Baseline characteristics, treatment outcomes, learning curve of non-experts, and risk factors of failing self-achieved en bloc resection were analyzed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 597 lesions were analyzed (438 by experts and 159 by non-experts). The self-achieved en bloc resection (69.8% vs 88.6%, P < 0.001) and self-achieved R0 resection (58.3% vs 76.5%, P < 0.001) rates were significantly lower in non-experts with <10 cases of experience than in experts, but not in non-experts with >10 cases. Adverse event (P = 0.165) and local recurrence (P = 0.892) rates were not significantly different between experts and non-experts. Risk factors of failing self-achieved en bloc resection were non-polypoid morphology (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.6-7.3, P = 0.001), lesions with an underlying semilunar fold (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.6-7.3, P < 0.001), positive non-lifting sign (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.2-8.0, P = 0.023), and non-experts with an experience of ≤10 cases (OR 3.6, 95% CI 2.1-6.3, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The clinical outcomes of Tip-in EMR for 15-25 mm lesions performed by non-experts were favorable.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Références
Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N. Engl. J. Med. 1993; 329: 1977–1981.
Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O'Brien MJ et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long‐term prevention of colorectal‐cancer deaths. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012; 366: 687–696.
Yoshida N, Naito Y, Inada Y et al. Multicenter study of endoscopic mucosal resection using 0.13% hyaluronic acid solution of colorectal polyps less than 20 mm in size. Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 2013; 28: 985–991.
Adler J, Toy D, Anderson JC, Robertson DJ, Pohl H. Metachronous neoplasias arise in a higher proportion of colon segments from which large polyps were previously removed, and can be used to estimate incomplete resection of 10‐20 mm colorectal polyps. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2019; 17: 2277–2284.
Pohl H, Srivastava A, Bensen SP et al. Incomplete polyp resection during colonoscopy‐results of the complete adenoma resection (CARE) study. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 74–80.e1.
Hotta K, Fujii T, Saito Y, Matsuda T. Local recurrence after endoscopic resection of colorectal tumors. Int. J. Colorectal Dis. 2009; 24: 225–230.
Oka S, Tanaka S, Saito Y et al. Local recurrence after endoscopic resection for large colorectal neoplasia: a multicenter prospective study in Japan. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2015; 110: 697–707.
le Clercq CM, Winkens B, Bakker CM, Keulen ETP, Beets GL, Masclee AAM, Sanduleanu S. Metachronous colorectal cancers result from missed lesions and non‐compliance with surveillance. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2015; 82: 325–333.e2.
le Clercq CM, Bouwens MW, Rondagh EJ et al. Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers are preventable: a population‐based study. Gut 2014; 63: 957–963.
Farrar WD, Sawhney MS, Nelson DB, Lederle FA, Bond JH. Colorectal cancers found after a complete colonoscopy. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2006; 4: 1259–1264.
Robertson DJ, Lieberman DA, Winawer SJ et al. Colorectal cancers soon after colonoscopy: a pooled multicohort analysis. Gut 2014; 63: 949–956.
King WW, Draganov PV, Wang AY et al. Endoscopic resection outcomes and predictors of failed en bloc endoscopic mucosal resection of colorectal polyps ≤ 20 mm among advanced endoscopy trainees. Endosc. Int. Open 2021; 9: E1820–e1826.
Choi JM, Lee C, Park JH et al. Complete resection of colorectal adenomas: what are the important factors in fellow training? Dig. Dis. Sci. 2015; 60: 1579–1588.
Kobayashi N, Takeuchi Y, Ohata K et al. Outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasms: Prospective, multicenter, cohort trial. Dig. Endosc. 2022; 34: 1042–1051.
Shigita K, Oka S, Tanaka S et al. Long‐term outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial colorectal tumors. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2017; 85: 546–553.
Ohata K, Kobayashi N, Sakai E et al. Long‐term outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection for large colorectal epithelial neoplasms: a prospective, multicenter, cohort trial from Japan. Gastroenterology 2022; 163: 1423–1434.e2.
Hotta K, Oyama T, Shinohara T, Miyata Y, Takahashi A, Kitamura Y, Tomori A. Learning curve for endoscopic submucosal dissection of large colorectal tumors. Dig. Endosc. 2010; 22: 302–306.
Imai K, Hotta K, Yamaguchi Y et al. Preoperative indicators of failure of en bloc resection or perforation in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: implications for lesion stratification by technical difficulties during stepwise training. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2016; 83: 954–962.
Imai K, Hotta K, Ito S et al. A risk‐prediction model for en bloc resection failure or perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection of colorectal neoplasms. Dig. Endosc. 2020; 32: 932–939.
Imai K, Hotta K, Ono H. Tip‐in endoscopic mucosal resection: simple, efficacious trick for endoscopic mucosal resections of large colorectal polyps. Dig. Endosc. 2021; 33: 203.
Chien H, Imai K, Hotta K et al. Tip‐in EMR for R0 resection for a large flat colonic tumor. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2016; 84: 743.
Imai K, Hotta K, Ito S et al. Tip‐in endoscopic mucosal resection for 15‐ to 25‐mm colorectal adenomas: a single‐center, randomized controlled trial (STAR trial). Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2021; 116: 1398–1405.
Takada K, Hotta K, Imai K et al. Tip‐in EMR as an alternative to endoscopic submucosal dissection for 20‐ to 30‐mm nonpedunculated colorectal neoplasms. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2022; 96: 849–856.e3.
Oh CK, Cho YS, Lee SH, Lee BI. Anchoring endoscopic mucosal resection versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2022.
Kato M, Uedo N, Hokimoto S, Ieko M, Higuchi K, Murakami K, Fujimoto K. Guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy in patients undergoing antithrombotic treatment: 2017 appendix on anticoagulants including direct oral anticoagulants. Dig. Endosc. 2018; 30: 433–440.
The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2003; 58: S3–S43.
Kudo S, Tamura S, Nakajima T, Yamano H, Kusaka H, Watanabe H. Diagnosis of colorectal tumorous lesions by magnifying endoscopy. Gastrointest. Endosc. 1996; 44: 8–14.
Hosotani K, Imai K, Hotta K et al. Diagnostic performance for T1 cancer in colorectal lesions ≥10 mm by optical characterization using magnifying narrow‐band imaging combined with magnifying chromoendoscopy; implications for optimized stratification by Japan Narrow‐band Imaging Expert Team classification. Dig. Endosc. 2021; 33: 425–432.
Burgess NG, Bassan MS, McLeod D, Williams SJ, Byth K, Bourke MJ. Deep mural injury and perforation after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection: a new classification and analysis of risk factors. Gut 2017; 66: 1779–1789.
Ito S, Hotta K, Imai K et al. Risk factors of post‐endoscopic submucosal dissection electrocoagulation syndrome for colorectal neoplasm. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2018; 33: 2001–2006.
Japanese classification of colorectal, appendiceal, and anal carcinoma: the 3d English edition [secondary publication]. J. Anus. Rectum. Colon 2019; 3: 175–195.
Kitajima K, Fujimori T, Fujii S et al. Correlations between lymph node metastasis and depth of submucosal invasion in submucosal invasive colorectal carcinoma: a Japanese collaborative study. J. Gastroenterol. 2004; 39: 534–543.
Ueno H, Mochizuki H, Hashiguchi Y et al. Risk factors for an adverse outcome in early invasive colorectal carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2004; 127: 385–394.
Matsuda T, Fujii T, Sano Y et al. Five‐year incidence of advanced neoplasia after initial colonoscopy in Japan: a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009; 39: 435–442.
Hashiguchi Y, Muro K, Saito Y et al. Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2019 for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Int. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020; 25: 1–42.
Chaput de Saintonge DM, Vere DW. Why don't doctors use cusums? Lancet 1974; 1: 120–121.
Williams SM, Parry BR, Schlup MM. Quality control: an application of the cusum. BMJ 1992; 304: 1359–1361.
Wohl H. The cusum plot: its utility in the analysis of clinical data. N. Engl. J. Med. 1977; 296: 1044–1045.
Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy‐to‐use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013; 48: 452–458.
Yamashina T, Uedo N, Akasaka T et al. Comparison of underwater vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection of intermediate‐size colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2019; 157: 451–461.e2.