Adenoma recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection: propensity score analysis of old and new colonoscopes and Sydney recurrence tool implementation

Abstract

Background and study aims Risk factors for colorectal adenoma recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) have been well documented. We assessed the efficacy of the newer 190 colonoscope versus the standard 180 colonoscope for complete resection of lateral spreading lesions.

Patients and methods A single-center, retrospective study of patients who underwent EMR with Olympus 180 or 190 colonoscopes from January 1, 2010 to September 30, 2016. We included patients with lesions ≥ 20 mm and surveillance colonoscopy (SC1) after index EMR. A propensity score approach with inverse probability weighting was used to control for potential confounders. A secondary aim was to identify risk factors for recurrence and assess the applicability of the Sydney EMR recurrence tool (SERT) by grading each lesion of our cohort and analyzing associations with recurrence.

Results Two hundred ninety-one lesions met inclusion criteria for the study. Odds ratio (OR) for recurrence with the 190 colonoscope was 1.06 (P = .85). Adenoma size (P = .02) and use of argon plasma coagulation (APC; P < .001) were risk factors for recurrence. Lesions with SERT scores > 0 had a higher recurrence risk during follow-up (32 % vs 21 %; OR 1.71; P = .05). Lesions with SERT scores = 0 reached a plateau for recurrence at 12 and 18 months in Kaplan-Meier curves.

Conclusions The use of 190 colonoscopes did not measurably affect adenoma recurrence at SC1. Recurrence was associated with adenoma size, complementary APC for resection, and SERT scores > 0. Lesions with SERT scores = 0 that remain negative for recurrence at 18 months may return to routine surveillance.

• References

• 1 ASGE TechnicalCommittee. High-definition and high-magnification endoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 919-927
• 2 Moss A, Bourke MJ, Williams SJ. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection outcomes and prediction of submucosal cancer from advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia. Gastroenterol 2011; 140: 1909-1918
• 3 Desomer L, Tutticci N, Tate DJ. et al. 1002: A standardized imaging protocol is accurate in detecting recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: AB190
• 4 Leung WK, Lo OS, Liu KS. et al. Detection of colorectal adenoma by narrow band imaging (HQ190) vs. high-definition white light colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 855-863
• 5 Wallace MB, Crook JE, Coe S. et al. Accuracy of in vivo colorectal polyp discrimination by using dual-focus high-definition narrow-band imaging colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 1072-1087
• 6 Cohen J. The benefit of narrow-band imaging after EMR of laterally spreading lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 527-529
• 7 Briedigkeit A, Sultanie O, Sido B. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection of colorectal adenomas > 20 mm: Risk factors for recurrence. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 8: 276-281
• 8 Jang ES, Kim JW, Jung YJ. et al. Clinical and endoscopic predictors of colorectal adenoma recurrence after colon polypectomy. Turk J Gastroenterol 2013; 24: 476-482
• 9 Jang HW, Park SJ, Hong SP. et al. Risk factors for recurrent high-risk polyps after the removal of high-risk polyps at initial colonoscopy. Yonsei Med J 2015; 56: 1559-1565
• 10 Margagnoni G, Angeletti S, D'Ambra G. et al. Outcome and risk of recurrence for endoscopic resection of colonic superficial neoplastic lesions over 2 cm in diameter. Dig Liver Dis 2016; 48: 399-403
• 11 Zhan T, Hielscher T, Hahn F. et al. Risk factors for local recurrence of large, flat colorectal polyps after endoscopic mucosal resection. Digestion 2016; 93: 311-317
• 12 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 e646
• 13 The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: S3-43
• 14 Karita M, Tada M, Okita K. et al. Endoscopic therapy for early colon cancer: the strip biopsy resection technique. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 128-132
• 15 Knabe M, Pohl J, Gerges C. et al. Standardized long-term follow-up after endoscopic resection of large, nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a prospective two-center study. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 183-189
• 16 Klein A, Jayasekeran V, Hourigan LF. et al. 812b A multi-center randomized control trial of thermal ablation of the margin of the post endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) mucosal defect in the prevention of adenoma recurrence following EMR: Preliminary results from the “SCAR” study. Gastroenterol 2016; 150: S1266-S1267
• 17 Ortiz AM, Bhargavi P, Zuckerman MJ. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection recurrence rate for colorectal lesions. South Med J 2014; 107: 615-621
• 18 Longcroft-Wheaton G, Duku M, Mead R. et al. Risk stratification system for evaluation of complex polyps can predict outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection. Dis Colon Rectum 2013; 56: 960-966
• 19 Buchner AM, Guarner-Argente C, Gisberg GG. Outcomes of EMR of defiant colorectal lesions directed to an endoscopy referral center. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 255-263
• 20 Woodward TA, Heckman MG, Cleveland P. et al. Predictors of complete endoscopic mucosal resection of flat and depressed gastrointestinal neoplasia of the colon. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 650-654
• 21 Belderbos TDG, Leenders M, Moons LMG. et al. Local recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 388-402
• 22 Hwang JH, Konda V, Abu DayyehBK. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 215-226
• 23 Holmes I, Kim HG, Yang DH. 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
• 24 Tsiamoulos ZP, Bourikas LA, Saunders BP. Endoscopic mucosal ablation: a new argon plasma coagulation/injection technique to assist complete resection of recurrent, fibrotic colon polyps (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 400-404
• 25 Tsiamoulos ZP, Rameshshanker R, Gupta S. et al. Augmented endoscopic resection for fibrotic or recurrent colonic polyps using an ablation and cold avulsion technique. Endoscopy 2016; 48: E248-E249
• 26 Holt BA, Bourke MJ. Wide field endoscopic resection for advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia: Current status and future directions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 10: 969-979
• 27 Lingenfelder T, Fischer K, Sold MG. et al. Combination of water-jet dissection and needle-knife as a hybrid knife simplifies endoscopic submucosal dissection. Surg Endosc 2009; 23: 1531-1535
• 28 Fahrtash-Bahin F, Holt BA, Jayasekeran V. et al. Snare tip soft coagulation achieves effective and safe endoscopic hemostasis during wide-field endoscopic resection of large colonic lesions (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 158-163.e151
• 29 Burgess NG, Metz AJ, Williams SJ. et al. Risk factors for intraprocedural and clinically significant delayed bleeding after wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection of large colonic lesions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 651-661.e653
• 30 Szura M, Pasternak A, Bucki K. et al. Two-stage optical system for colorectal polyp assessments. Surg Endosc 2016; 30: 204-214
• 31 Kandel P, Brand EC, Chen WC. et al. 690 diagnostic accuracy of optical detection of colorectal neoplasia after endoscopic mucosal resection: Prospective double blind comparison of high definition white light, narrow band imaging and near focus. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: AB101-AB102
• 32 Bhurwal A, Bartel MJ, Heckman MG. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection: learning curve for large nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 959-968 e957