Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Advanced SearchSave search
Original article Clinical endoscopy| Volume 85, ISSUE 3, P647-656.e6, March 01, 2017

Adenoma recurrence after piecemeal colonic EMR is predictable: the Sydney EMR recurrence tool

Published:November 28, 2016DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2016.11.027
Adenoma recurrence after piecemeal colonic EMR is predictable: the Sydney EMR recurrence tool
Previous ArticleEndoscopic morphologic features of ulcerative colitis–associated dysplasia classified according to the SCENIC consensus statement
Next ArticleMultitarget stool DNA test: clinical performance and impact on yield and quality of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening

      Background and Aims

      EMR is the primary treatment of large laterally spreading lesions (LSLs) in the colon. Residual or recurrent adenoma (RRA) is a major limitation. We aimed to identify a robust method to stratify the risk of RRA.

      Methods

      Prospective multicenter data on consecutive LSLs ≥20 mm removed by piecemeal EMR from 8 Australian tertiary-care centers were included (September 2008 until May 2016). A logistic regression model for endoscopically determined recurrence (EDR) was created on a randomly selected half of the cohort to yield the Sydney EMR recurrence tool (SERT), a 4-point score to stratify the incidence of RRA based on characteristics of the index EMR. SERT was validated on the remainder of the cohort.

      Results

      Analysis was performed on 1178 lesions that underwent first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1) (median 4.9 months, interquartile range [IQR] 4.9-6.2). EDR was detected in 228 of 1178 (19.4%) patients. LSL size ≥40 mm (odds ratio [OR] 2.47; P < .001), bleeding during the procedure (OR 1.78; P = .024), and high-grade dysplasia (OR 1.72; P = .029) were identified as independent predictors of EDR and allocated scores of 2, 1, and 1, respectively to create SERT. Lesions with SERT scores of 0 (SERT = 0) had a negative predictive value of 91.3% for RRA at SC1, and SERT was shown to stratify RRA to specific follow-up intervals by using Kaplan Meier curves (log-rank P < .001).

      Conclusions

      Guidelines recommend SC1 within 6 months of EMR. SERT accurately stratifies the incidence of RRA after EMR. SERT = 0 lesions could safely undergo first surveillance at 18 months, whereas lesions with SERT scores between 1 and 4 (SERT 1-4) require surveillance at 6 and 18 months. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01368289.)

      Abbreviations:

      EDR (endoscopically determined recurrence), HDR (histologically determined recurrence), LSL (laterally spreading lesion), RRA (residual or recurrent adenoma), SC1 (first surveillance colonoscopy after EMR), SERT (Sydney EMR recurrence tool)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      PDF Download and 24 Hours Online Access

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Register: Create an account
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Jayanna M.
        • Burgess N.G.
        • Singh R.
        • et al.
        Cost analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection vs surgery for large laterally spreading colorectal lesions.
        Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016; 14: 271-272
        View in Article
        • Ahlenstiel G.
        • Hourigan L.F.
        • 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
        View in Article
        • Khashab M.
        • Eid E.
        • Rusche M.
        • et al.
        Incidence and predictors of “late” recurrences after endoscopic piecemeal resection of large sessile adenomas.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2009; 70: 344-349
        View in Article
        • Moss A.
        • Williams S.J.
        • Hourigan L.F.
        • 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. 2014; 64: 57-65
        View in Article
        • Belderbos T.
        • Belderbos T.D.G.
        • Leenders M.
        • et al.
        Local recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Endoscopy. 2014; 46: 388-402
        View in Article
        • Hassan C.
        • Quintero E.
        • Dumonceau J.-M.
        • et al.
        Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.
        Endoscopy. 2013; 45: 842-864
        View in Article
        • Lieberman D.A.
        • Rex D.K.
        • Winawer S.J.
        • et al.
        Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.
        Gastroenterology. 2012; 143: 844-857
        View in Article
        • 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. 2015; 65: 806-820
        View in Article
        • Moss A.
        • Bourke M.J.
        • Williams S.J.
        • et al.
        Endoscopic mucosal resection outcomes and prediction of submucosal cancer from advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia.
        Gastroenterology. 2011; 140: 1909-1918
        View in Article
        • Bassan M.S.
        • 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
        View in Article
        • Holt B.A.
        • Bourke M.J.
        Wide field endoscopic resection for advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia: current status and future directions.
        Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012; 10: 969-979
        View in Article

      12. ERBE VIO 300 D, Product Information Guide. http://www.erbe-med.com/de/medical-technology/public/Products/Electrosurgery/Units-and-modules/VIO---300-D.707. Accessed September 7, 2016.

        View in Article
        • Moss A.
        • Field A.
        • Bourke M.J.
        • 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
        View in Article

      14. 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. Epub 2016 Jul 27.

        View in Article

      15. Bick BL, Ponugoti PL, Rex DK. High yield of synchronous lesions in referred patients with large lateral spreading colorectal tumors. Gastrointest Endosc. Epub 2016 Jun 23.

        View in Article
        • Fujiya M.
        • Tanaka K.
        • Dokoshi T.
        • et al.
        Efficacy and adverse events of EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of colon neoplasms: a meta-analysis of studies comparing EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2015; 81: 583-595
        View in Article
        • Gotoda T.
        • Yang H.K.
        The desired balance between treatment and curability in treatment planning for early gastric cancer.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2015; 82: 308-310
        View in Article

      18. Desomer L, Tutticci N, Tate DJ, et al. A standardized imaging protocol is accurate in detecting recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection. Gastrointest Endosc. Epub 2016 Jun 22.

        View in Article
        • Brooker J.C.
        • Saunders B.P.
        • Shah S.G.
        • et al.
        Treatment with argon plasma coagulation reduces recurrence after piecemeal resection of large sessile colonic polyps: a randomized trial and recommendations.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 55: 371-375
        View in Article

      Article Info

      Publication History

      Published online: November 28, 2016
      Accepted: November 23, 2016
      Received: September 14, 2016

      Footnotes

      DISCLOSURE: D. Tate received a scholarship from the Westmead Medical Research Foundation. These funds were not used for this study. The Cancer Institute New South Wales provided funding for a research nurse and data manager to assist with the administration of the study. There was no influence from the Institution regarding study design or conduct, data collection, management, analysis or interpretation, preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication.

      See CME section; p. 677.

      If you would like to chat with an author of this article, you may contact Dr Bourke at [email protected] .

      Identification

      DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2016.11.027

      Copyright

      © 2017 by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

      ScienceDirect

      Access this article on ScienceDirect
      We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content. To update your cookie settings, please visit the for this site.
      Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. except certain content provided by third parties. The content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals.


      RELX