Simple optical evaluation criteria reliably identify the post-endoscopic mucosal resection scar for benign large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps without tattoo placement

Abstract

Background Recognition of the post-endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) scar is critical for large (≥ 20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyp (LNPCP) management. The utility of intraluminal tattooing to facilitate scar identification is unknown.

Methods We evaluated the ability of simple easy-to-use optical evaluation criteria to detect the post-EMR scar, with or without tattoo placement, in a prospective observational cohort of LNPCPs referred for endoscopic resection. The primary outcome was scar identification, further stratified by lesion size (20–39 mm, ≥ 40 mm) and histopathology (adenomatous, serrated).

Results 1023 LNPCPs underwent both successful EMR and first surveillance colonoscopy (median size 35 mm, IQR 30–50 mm); 124 (12.1 %) had an existing tattoo or a tattoo placed at the index EMR. The post-EMR scar was identified in 1020 patients (99.7 %). The presence of a tattoo did not affect scar identification (100.0 % vs. 99.7 %; P > 0.99). There was no difference for LNPCPs 20–39 mm, LNPCPs ≥ 40 mm, adenomatous LNPCPs, and serrated LNPCPs (all P > 0.99).

Conclusions The post-EMR scar can be reliably identified with simple easy-to-use optical evaluation criteria, without the need for universal tattoo placement.

^* Joint first authors

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 12. November 2020

Angenommen: 30. März 2021

Accepted Manuscript online:
30. März 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
26. Mai 2021

• References

• 1 Moss A, Williams SJ, Hourigan LF. et al. Long-term adenoma recurrence following wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (WF-EMR) for advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia is infrequent: results and risk factors in 1000 cases from the Australian Colonic EMR (ACE) study. Gut 2015; 64: 57-65
• 2 Klein A, Tate DJ, Jayasekeran V. et al. Thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins reduces adenoma recurrence after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection. Gastroenterology 2018; 156: 604-613.e3
• 3 Ferlitsch M, Moss A, Hassan C. et al. Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 270-297
• 4 Kaltenbach T, Anderson JC, Burke CA. et al. Endoscopic removal of colorectal lesions – Recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 1095-1129
• 5 Backes Y, Seerden TCJ, van Gestel R. et al. Tumor seeding during colonoscopy as a possible cause for metachronous colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2019; 157: 1222-1232.e1224
• 6 Desomer L, Tutticci N, Tate DJ. et al. A standardized imaging protocol is accurate in detecting recurrence after EMR. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 518-526
• 7 Bourke MJ, Bhandari P. How I remove polyps larger than 20 mm. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 90: 877-880
• 8 Klein A, Bourke MJ. How to perform high-quality endoscopic mucosal resection during colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2017; 152: 466-471
• 9 Anderson MA, Ben-Menachem T, Gan SI. et al. Management of antithrombotic agents for endoscopic procedures. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 1060-1070
• 10 Bassan MS, Holt B, Moss A. et al. Carbon dioxide insufflation reduces number of postprocedure admissions after endoscopic resection of large colonic lesions: a prospective cohort study. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 90-95
• 11 Burgess NG, Bassan MS, McLeod D. et al. Deep mural injury and perforation after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection: a new classification and analysis of risk factors. Gut 2017; 66: 1779-1789
• 12 Klein A, Bourke MJ. Key performance indicators are needed for polypectomy. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 5: 6-8
• 13 Burgess NG, Hourigan LF, Zanati SA. et al. Risk stratification for covert invasive cancer among patients referred for colonic endoscopic mucosal resection: a large multicenter cohort. Gastroenterology 2017; 153: 732-742.e731