Outcome after colorectal full-thickness resection and management of recurrence

Abstract

Background and study aims Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) allows treatment of “difficult to resect” lesions not amenable to conventional endoscopic methods. Efficacy and safety of the system have already been proven in numerous studies. Follow-up data on outcome of colorectal eFTR and management of recurrences are still rare.

Patients and methods All patients undergoing colorectal eFTR at our institution with at least one endoscopic follow-up examination were retrospectively analyzed. The primary endpoint was the rate of recurrent or residual lesions (RRLs) and the secondary endpoint was the rate of late adverse events (AEs). We further aimed to identify risk factors for RRLs and to describe their management.

Results Between November 2014 and 2021, 141 patients underwent eFTR at University Medical Center Freiburg. Ninety-one patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Indications for eFTR were non-lifting adenoma (n = 65), subepithelial tumors (n = 18) and early carcinoma (n = 8). The median follow-up period was 17 months (range, 2–86). The overall RRL rate was 9.9% (9/91). A significant proportion of RRLs (6/9, 66%) were detected late. All RRLs occurred in the group of non-lifting adenoma, corresponding to a RRL rate of 13.8% in this subgroup. Thirty-three percent (3/9) were initially treated by hybrid eFTR. Of the RRLs, 66.6% could were successfully treated endoscopically. On χ2 analysis, the hybrid eFTR technique (P = 0.006) was associated with a higher rate of RRL. No late AEs occurred.

Conclusions The rate of RRL after colorectal eFTR is low and the majority could be treated endoscopically. For non-lifting adenomas and early carcinomas, close follow-up is mandatory to detect late recurrence. Long-term outcomes after hybrid eFTR need further investigation.

Keywords

Endoscopy Lower GI Tract - Polyps / adenomas / ... - Endoscopic resection (polypectomy, ESD, EMRc, ...) - Colorectal cancer

Publication History

Received: 05 February 2024

Accepted after revision: 17 July 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
30 July 2024

Article published online:
23 August 2024

• References

• 1 Meier B, Stritzke B, Kuellmer A. et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic full-thickness resection in the colorectum: Results from the German Colonic FTRD Registry. Am J Gastroenterol 2020; 115: 1998-2006
• 2 Zwager LW, Bastiaansen BAJ, Bronzwaer MES. et al. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) of colorectal lesions: results from the Dutch colorectal eFTR registry. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 1014-1023
• 3 Schmidt A, Beyna T, Schumacher B. et al. Colonoscopic full-thickness resection using an over-the-scope device: a prospective multicentre study in various indications. Gut 2018; 67: 1280-1289
• 4 Tate DJ, Desomer L, Klein A. et al. Adenoma recurrence after piecemeal colonic EMR is predictable: the Sydney EMR recurrence tool. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 647-656.e6
• 5 Holmes I, Friedland S. Endoscopic mucosal resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for large polyps: A @estern colonoscopist’s view. Clin Endosc 2016; 49: 454-456
• 6 Tate DJ, Bahin FF, Desomer L. et al. Cold-forceps avulsion with adjuvant snare-tip soft coagulation (CAST) is an effective and safe strategy for the management of non-lifting large laterally spreading colonic lesions. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 52-62
• 7 Holmes I, Kim HG, Yang D-H. et al. Avulsion is superior to argon plasma coagulation for treatment of visible residual neoplasia during EMR of colorectal polyps (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 822-829
• 8 Lee E-J, Lee JB, Lee SH. et al. Endoscopic treatment of large colorectal tumors: comparison of endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic mucosal resection-precutting, and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 2220-2230
• 9 Tajika M, Niwa Y, Bhatia V. et al. Comparison of endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for large colorectal tumors. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 23: 1042-1049
• 10 Saito Y, Fukuzawa M, Matsuda T. et al. Clinical outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal tumors as determined by curative resection. Surg Endosc 2010; 24: 343-352
• 11 Fleischmann C, Probst A, Ebigbo A. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection in europe: results of 1000 neoplastic lesions from the German Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Registry. Gastroenterology 2021; 161: 1168-1178
• 12 Kuellmer A, Mueller J, Caca K. et al. Endoscopic full-thickness resection for early colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 1180-1189.e1
• 13 Klein A, Tate DJ, Jayasekeran V. et al. Thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins reduces adenoma recurrence after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection. Gastroenterology 2019; 156: 604-613.e3
• 14 Rex DK, Haber GB, Khashab M. et al. Snare Tip soft coagulation vs argon plasma coagulation vs no margin treatment after large nonpedunculated colorectal polyp resection: A randomized trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024; 22: 552-561.e4
• 15 Belderbos T, Leenders M, Moons L. et al. Local recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 388-402
• 16 Mahadev S, Vareedayah AA, Yuen S. et al. Outcomes of a hybrid technique using EMR and endoscopic full-thickness resection for polyps not amenable to standard techniques (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 94: 358-367.e1
• 17 Bauermeister M, Mende M, Hornoff S. et al. Hybrid resection of large colorectal adenomas combining EMR and FTRD. Scand J Gastroenterol 2021; 56: 978-983
• 18 Meier B, Elsayed I, Seitz N. et al. Efficacy and safety of combined EMR and endoscopic full-thickness resection (hybrid EFTR) for large nonlifting colorectal adenomas. Gastrointest Endosc 2023; 98: 405-411
• 19 Meier B, Albrecht H, Wiedbrauck T. et al. Full-thickness resection of neuroendocrine tumors in the rectum. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 68-72