Online content viewable at: https://www.thieme-connect.com/

Background Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a minimally invasive resection technique that allows definite diagnosis and treatment for complex colorectal lesions ≤ 30 mm unsuitable for conventional endoscopic resection. This study reports clinical outcomes from the Dutch colorectal eFTR registry. Methods Consecutive patients undergoing eFTR in 20 hospitals were prospectively included. The primary outcome was technical success, defined as macroscopic complete en bloc resection. Secondary outcomes were: clinical success, defined as tumor-free resection margins (R0 resection); full-thickness resection rate; and adverse events. Results Between July 2015 and October 2018, 367 procedures were included. Indications were difficult polyps (non-lifting sign and/or difficult location; n = 133), primary resection of suspected T1 colorectal cancer (CRC; n = 71), re-resection after incomplete resection of T1 CRC (n = 150), and subepithelial tumors (n = 13). Technical success was achieved in 308 procedures (83.9 %). In 21 procedures (5.7 %), eFTR was not performed because the lesion could not be reached or retracted into the cap. In the remaining 346 procedures, R0 resection was achieved in 285 (82.4 %) and full-thickness resection in 288 (83.2 %). The median diameter of resected specimens was 23 mm. Overall adverse event rate was 9.3 % (n = 34/367): 10 patients (2.7 %) required emergency surgery for five delayed and two immediate perforations and three cases of appendicitis. Conclusion eFTR is an effective and relatively safe en bloc resection technique for complex colorectal lesions with the potential to avoid surgery. Further studies assessing the role of eFTR in early CRC treatment with long-term outcomes are needed.

No abstract

Background and study aims  Colorectal polyps involving the appendiceal orifice (AO) are difficult to resect with conventional polypectomy techniques and therefore often require surgical intervention. These appendiceal polyps could potentially be removed with endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) performed with a full-thickness resection device (FTRD). The aim of this prospective observational case study was to evaluate feasibility, technical success and safety of eFTR procedures involving the AO. Patients and methods  This study was performed between November 2016 and December 2017 in a tertiary referral center by two experienced endoscopists. All patients referred for eFTR with a polyp involving the AO that could not be resected by EMR due to more than 50 % circumferential involvement of the AO or deep extension into the AO were included. The only exclusion criterion was lesion diameter > 20 mm. Results  Seven patients underwent eFTR for a polyp involving the AO. All target lesions could be reached with the FTRD and retracted into the device. Technical success with an endoscopic radical en-bloc and full-thickness resection was achieved in all cases. Histopathological R0 resection was achieved in 85.7 % of patients (6/7). One patient who previously underwent an appendectomy developed a small abscess adjacent to the resection site, which was treated conservatively. Another patient developed secondary appendicitis followed by a laparoscopic appendectomy. Conclusion  This small exploratory study suggests that eFTR of appendiceal polyps is feasible and can offer a minimally invasive approach for radical resection of these lesions. However, more safety and long-term follow-up data are needed to evaluate this evolving technique.

Daily oral vitamin D2 doses up to 2000 IU were inadequate to maintain optimal 25OHD but were well tolerated. The finding of lower incidence of elevated inflammatory markers and cytokines among participants receiving higher vitamin D2 doses merits further study.

SR for large, complex colorectal polyps is still frequently performed and has remained stable. A small percentage of patients underwent ER attempts before SR, and referral for an additional ER attempt only occurred in a minority of cases. To increase ER attempts, implementation of a regional multidisciplinary referral network should be considered.

Background Not all benign colonic polyps are suitable for endoscopic resection, although criteria for endoscopic non-resectability vary worldwide. Clinical decision-making largely depends on endoscopic treatment options, as well as postoperative risks after surgical resection. This systematic review aimed to determine postoperative outcomes and the characteristics of surgically resected benign colonic polyps. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies investigating the outcomes of surgical resection for benign colonic polyps since 1980. Studies were considered eligible when at least one postoperative outcome (morbidity and/or mortality) was reported. Meta-analyses were conducted for the primary outcome measures (morbidity and mortality) for studies that included patients only after the year 2000. Results Of the 4210 studies retrieved, 26 studies describing 139 897 patients were included. The most common indications for surgical resection were polyp location in the right-sided colon, non-pedunculated morphology, and large polyp size. The pooled 1-month complication and mortality rates of studies that included patients after the year 2000 were 24 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 15 % – 36 %) and 0.7 % (95 %CI 0.6 % – 0.8 %), respectively. Conclusion The postoperative morbidity and mortality after colonic resection for benign polyps are substantial. Referral to an advanced interventional endoscopist should be considered before referral for surgery to evaluate the possibilities for endoscopic treatment of large, non-pedunculated, and/or colonic polyps in difficult locations without suspicion of submucosal malignant invasion.

Introduction Endoscopists with a high adenoma detection rate (ADR) and proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSPDR) detect these polyps more frequently, which may be attributable to better recognition of their endoscopic features. Little is known about the association between endoscopic lesion detection and differentiation skills. Therefore, we evaluated the correlation between the ADR, PSPDR, and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas and serrated polyps. Methods We performed an exploratory post-hoc analysis of the DISCOUNT-2 study, including complete colonoscopies after a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) performed by endoscopists who performed ≥ 50 colonoscopies. The correlations between the ADR, PSPDR, and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis were calculated using Pearson’s rho correlation coefficient. Results 24 endoscopists performed ≥ 50 colonoscopies, resulting in a total of 2889 colonoscopies. The overall ADR was 84.5 % (range 71.4 % – 95.3 %) and overall PSPDR was 13.7 % (4.3 % – 29.0 %). The sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas and serrated polyps were 94.5 % (83.3 % – 100 %) and 74.0 % (37.5 % – 94.1 %), respectively. No correlation could be demonstrated between the ADR and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas (−0.20; P = 0.35) or between the PSPDR and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for serrated polyps (−0.12; P = 0.57). Conclusions In a homogeneous FIT-positive population, no correlation between the ADR, PSPDR, and the sensitivity of optical diagnosis for adenomas and serrated polyps could be demonstrated. These exploratory results suggest that lesion detection and differentiation require different endoscopic skills. Further prospective studies are needed; until then, monitoring of both performance indicators is important to secure optimal efficacy of FIT-based colorectal cancer screening.