Quality of endoscopy reporting at index colonoscopy significantly impacts outcome of subsequent EMR in patients with > 20 mm colon polyps

Abstract

Background and study aims Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is safe and cost-effective in management of patients with colon polyps. However, very little is known about the actions of the referring endoscopist following identification of these lesions at index colonoscopy, and the impact of those actions on the outcome of subsequent referral for EMR. The aim of this study was to identify practices at index colonoscopy that lead to failure of subsequent EMR.

Patients and methods Two hundred and eighty-nine consecutive patients with biopsy-proven non-malignant colon polyps (> 20 mm) referred for EMR were analyzed to identify practices that could be improved from the time of identifying the lesion at index colonoscopy until completion of therapy.

Results EMR was abandoned at colonoscopy at the EMR center in 71 of 289 patients (24.6 %). Reasons for abandoning EMR included diagnosis of invasive carcinoma (n = 9; 12.7 %), tethered lesions (n = 21; 29.6 %) from prior endoscopic interventions, and overly large (n = 22; 31 %) and inaccessible lesions (n = 17; 24 %) for complete and safe resection whose details were not recorded in the referring endoscopy report, or polyposis syndromes (n = 2; 2.8 %) that were not recognized.

Conclusions In our practice, one in four EMR attempts were abandoned as a result of inadequate diagnosis or management by the referring endoscopist, which could be improved by education on optical diagnosis of polyps, comprehensive documentation of the procedure and avoidance of interventions that preclude resection.

• References

• 1 Lee TJW, Rees CJ, Nickerson C. et al. Management of complex colonic polyps in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Br J Surg 2013; 100: 1633-1639
• 2 Le RoyF, Manfredi S, Hamonic S. et al. Frequency of and risk factors for the surgical resection of nonmalignant colorectal polyps: a population-based study. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 263-270
• 3 van Nimwegen LJ, Moons LMG, Geesing JMJ. et al. Extent of unnecessary surgery for benign rectal polyps in the Netherlands. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 562-570.e1
• 4 Hassan C, Repici A, Sharma P. et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut 2016; 65: 806-820
• 5 Raju GS, Lum PJ, Ross WA. et al. Outcome of EMR as an alternative to surgery in patients with complex colon polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 315-325
• 6 Raju GS, Lum PJ, Slack RS. et al. Natural language processing as an alternative to manual reporting of colonoscopy quality metrics. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 512-519
• 7 Arebi N, Swain D, Suzuki N. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection of 161 cases of large sessile or flat colorectal polyps. Scand J Gastroenterol 2007; 42: 859-866
• 8 Moss A, Bourke MJ, Metz AJ. A randomized, double-blind trial of succinylated gelatin submucosal injection for endoscopic resection of large sessile polyps of the colon. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 2375-2382
• 9 Ah Soune P, Ménard C, Salah E. et al. Large endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal tumors exceeding 4 cm. World J Gastroenterol 2010; 16: 588-595
• 10 Buchner AM, Guarner-Argente C, Ginsberg GG. Outcomes of EMR of defiant colorectal lesions directed to an endoscopy referral center. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 255-263
• 11 Dior M, Coriat R, Tarabichi S. et al. Does endoscopic mucosal resection for large colorectal polyps allow ambulatory management?. Surg Endosc 2013; 27: 2775-2781
• 12 Gómez V, Racho RG, Woodward TA. et al. Colonic endoscopic mucosal resection of large polyps: Is it safe in the very elderly?. Dig Liver Dis 2014; 46: 701-705
• 13 Longcroft-Wheaton G, Mead R. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection of colonic polyps: a large prospective single centre series. Gut 2011; 60: A14-A15
• 14 Friedland S, Banerjee S, Kochar R. et al. Outcomes of repeat colonoscopy in patients with polyps referred for surgery without biopsy-proven cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 101-107
• 15 Hayashi N, Tanaka S, Hewett DG e tal. Endoscopic prediction of deep submucosal invasive carcinoma: validation of the narrow-band imaging international colorectal endoscopic (NICE) classification. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 625-632
• 16 Zhang Q-W, Teng L-M, Zhang X-T. et al. Narrow-band imaging in the diagnosis of deep submucosal colorectal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 564-580
• 17 Daram SR, Tang S-J, Raju GS. A primer on endoscopic movie production (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 161-164
• 18 Whitson MJ, Bodian CA, Aisenberg J. et al. Is production pressure jeopardizing the quality of colonoscopy? A survey of U.S. endoscopists’ practices and perceptions. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 641-648
• 19 Tang S-J, Raju G. Endoscopic photography and image documentation. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 925-931
• 20 Roorda AK, Triadafilopoulos G. A fellow’s guide to generating the endoscopy procedure report. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 803-805
• 21 Moss A, Bourke MJ, Pathmanathan N. Safety of colonic tattoo with sterile carbon particle suspension: a proposed guideline with illustrative cases. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 214-218
• 22 Lin AY, O’Mahoney PRA, Milsom JW. et al. Dynamic article: full-thickness excision for benign colon polyps using combined endoscopic laparoscopic surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 2016; 59: 16-21
• 23 Veerappan SG, Ormonde D, Yusoff IF. et al. Hot avulsion: a modification of an existing technique for management of nonlifting areas of a polyp (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 884-888
• 24 Backes Y, Kappelle WFW, Berk L. et al. T1 CRC Working Group. Colorectal endoscopic full-thickness resection using a novel, flat-base over-the-scope clip: a prospective study. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 1092-1097
• 25 Kuwai T, Yamaguchi T, Imagawa H. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection of early colorectal neoplasms with a monopolar scissor-type knife: short- to long-term outcomes. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 913-918
• 26 Tate DJ, Desomer L, Hourigan LF. et al. Two-stage endoscopic mucosal resection is a safe and effective salvage therapy after a failed single-session approach. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 888-898
• 27 Hosotani K, Imai K, Hotta K. et al. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for complete R0 removal of a residual adenoma at a perforated scar in a patient with colostomy. Endoscopy 2017; 49: E121-E122
• 28 Javia S, Dedania B, Wang X. et al. Endoscopic full-thickness resection of a non-lifting large laterally spreading flat colonic polyp. Endoscopy 2017; 49: E171-E172
• 29 Agrawal D, Chak A, Champagne BJ. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection with full-thickness closure for difficult polyps: a prospective clinical trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 1082-1088
• 30 Meier B, Caca K, Schmidt A. Hybrid endoscopic mucosal resection and full-thickness resection: a new approach for resection of large non-lifting colorectal adenomas (with video). Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 4268-4274
• 31 Kandiah K, Subramaniam S, Bhandari P. Polypectomy and advanced endoscopic resection. Frontline Gastroenterol 2017; 8: 110-114