Download PDF
Endoscopy 2018; 50(07): 684-692
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-124081
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

The size, morphology, site, and access score predicts critical outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon

Mayenaaz Sidhu   *
 1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
David J. Tate   *
 1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
 2   Westmead Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
Lobke Desomer
 1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
Gregor Brown
 3   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
 4   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Epworth Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
,
Luke F. Hourigan
 5   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Greenslopes Private Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
 6   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
,
Eric Y. T. Lee
 1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
Alan Moss
 7   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Footscray Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
 8   Department of Medicine, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
,
Spiro Raftopoulos
 9   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australia
,
Rajvinder Singh
10   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Lyell McEwan Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
,
Stephen J. Williams
 1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
Simon Zanati
 3   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
 7   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Footscray Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
,
Nicholas Burgess
 1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
,
Michael J. Bourke
 1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
 2   Westmead Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 01 September 2017

accepted after revision 19 November 2017

Publication Date:
25 January 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

See also:

If endoscopic mucosal resection is so great for large benign colon polyps, why is so much surgery still being done?Endoscopy 2018; 50(07): 657-659
DOI: 10.1055/a-0589-0451

Corrected by:

Correction: The size, morphology, site, and access score predicts critical outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection in the colonEndoscopy 2018; 50(07): C7-C7
DOI: 10.1055/a-0602-1390

Abstract

Background The SMSA (size, morphology, site, access) polyp scoring system is a method of stratifying the difficulty of polypectomy through assessment of four domains. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of SMSA to predict critical outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).

Methods We retrospectively applied SMSA to a prospectively collected multicenter database of large colonic laterally spreading lesions (LSLs) ≥ 20 mm referred for EMR. Standard inject-and-resect EMR procedures were performed. The primary end points were correlation of SMSA level with technical success, adverse events, and endoscopic recurrence.

Results 2675 lesions in 2675 patients (52.6 % male) underwent EMR. Failed single-session EMR occurred in 124 LSLs (4.6 %) and was predicted by the SMSA score (P < 0.001). Intraprocedural and clinically significant postendoscopic bleeding was significantly less common for SMSA 2 LSLs (odds ratio [OR] 0.36, P < 0.001 and OR 0.23, P < 0.01) and SMSA 3 LSLs (OR 0.41, P  < 0.001 and OR 0.60, P = 0.05) compared with SMSA 4 lesions. Similarly, endoscopic recurrence at first surveillance was less likely among SMSA 2 (OR 0.19, P < 0.001) and SMSA 3 (OR 0.33, P < 0.001) lesions compared with SMSA 4 lesions. This also extended to second surveillance among SMSA 4 LSLs.

Conclusion SMSA is a simple, readily applicable, clinical score that identifies a subgroup of patients who are at increased risk of failed EMR, adverse events, and adenoma recurrence at surveillance colonoscopy. This information may be useful for improving informed consent, planning endoscopy lists, and developing quality control measures for practitioners of EMR, with potential implications for EMR benchmarking and training.

* These authors contributed equally to this work.


Table e 5

 

  • References

  • 1 Ahlenstiel G, Hourigan LF, Brown G. et al. Actual endoscopic versus predicted surgical mortality for treatment of advanced mucosal neoplasia of the colon. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 668-676
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Jayanna M, Burgess NG, Singh R. et al. Cost analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection vs surgery for large laterally spreading colorectal lesions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 14: 271-278.e1-2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Keswani RN, Law R, Ciolino JD. et al. Adverse events after surgery for nonmalignant colon polyps are common and associated with increased length of stay and costs. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 296-303.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Moss A, Bourke MJ, Williams SJ. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection outcomes and prediction of submucosal cancer from advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 1909-1918
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH. et al. Systematic review: distribution of advanced neoplasia according to polyp size at screening colonoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2010; 31: 210-217
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Bahin FF, Rasouli KN, Byth K. et al. Prediction of clinically significant bleeding following wide-field endoscopic resection of large sessile and laterally spreading colorectal lesions: a clinical risk score. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 1115-1122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gupta S, Miskovic D, Bhandari P. et al. A novel method for determining the difficulty of colonoscopic polypectomy. Frontline Gastroenterol 2013; 4: 244-248
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Tutticci N, Bourke MJ. Advanced endoscopic resection in the colon: recent innovations, current limitations and future directions. Exp Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 8: 161-177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Moss A, Field A, Bourke MJ. et al. 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 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.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Burgess NG, Williams SJ, Hourigan LF. et al. A management algorithm based on delayed bleeding after wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection of large colonic lesions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 1525-1533
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Desomer L, Tutticci N, Tate DJ. et al. A standardized imaging protocol is accurate in detecting recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 85: 518-526
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Santos CEOD, Malaman D, Pereira-Lima JC. Endoscopic mucosal resection in colorectal lesion: a safe and effective procedure even in lesions larger than 2 cm and in carcinomas. Arq Gastroenterol 2011; 48: 242-247
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Rutter MD, Nickerson C, Rees CJ. et al. Risk factors for adverse events related to polypectomy in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 90-97
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Metz AJ, Bourke MJ, Moss A. et al. Factors that predict bleeding following endoscopic mucosal resection of large colonic lesions. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 506-511
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Choung BS, Kim SH, Ahn DS. et al. Incidence and risk factors of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding: a retrospective cohort study. J Clin Gastroenterol 2014; 48: 784-789
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Sansone S, Ragunath K, Bianco MA. et al. Clinical utility of the SMSA grading tool for the management of colonic neoplastic lesions. Dig Liver Dis 2017; 49: 518-522
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Valori R, Rey J-F, Atkin WS. et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First edition – Quality assurance in endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. Endoscopy 2012; 44: SE88-SE105
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Copeland GP, Jones D, Walters M. POSSUM: a scoring system for surgical audit. Br J Surg 1991; 78: 355-360
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Prytherch DR, Whiteley MS, Higgins B. et al. POSSUM and Portsmouth POSSUM for predicting mortality. Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity. Br J Surg 1998; 85: 1217-1220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Bahin FF, Tate DJ, Klein A. et al. Cold forceps avulsion followed by snare tip soft coagulation (CAST) is an effective and safe strategy for the management of recurrent non-lifting large laterally spreading and sessile colorectal lesions. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 30: 29
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kudo S-E, Kashida H. Flat and depressed lesions of the colorectum. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005; 3: S33-S36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar