At a population level, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), the European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG), and the European Society of Pathology (ESP) suggest endoscopic screening for gastric cancer (and precancerous conditions) in high-risk regions (age-standardized rate [ASR] > 20 per 100 000 person-years) every 2 to 3 years or, if cost-effectiveness has been proven, in intermediate risk regions (ASR 10-20 per 100 000 person-years) every 5 years, but not in low-risk regions (ASR < 10).ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that irrespective of country of origin, individual gastric risk assessment and stratification of precancerous conditions is recommended for first-time gastroscopy. ESGE/EHMSG/ESP suggest that gastric cancer screening or surveillance in asymptomatic individuals over 80 should be discontinued or not started, and that patients' comorbidities should be considered when treatment of superficial lesions is planned.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that a high quality endoscopy including the use of virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE), after proper training, is performed for screening, diagnosis, and staging of precancerous conditions (atrophy and intestinal metaplasia) and lesions (dysplasia or cancer), as well as after endoscopic therapy. VCE should be used to guide the sampling site for biopsies in the case of suspected neoplastic lesions as well as to guide biopsies for diagnosis and staging of gastric precancerous conditions, with random biopsies to be taken in the absence of endoscopically suspected changes. When there is a suspected early gastric neoplastic lesion, it should be properly described (location, size, Paris classification, vascular and mucosal pattern), photodocumented, and two targeted biopsies taken.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP do not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection unless there are signs of deep submucosal invasion or if the lesion is not considered suitable for endoscopic resection.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for differentiated gastric lesions clinically staged as dysplastic (low grade and high grade) or as intramucosal carcinoma (of any size if not ulcerated or ≤ 30 mm if ulcerated), with EMR being an alternative for Paris 0-IIa lesions of size ≤ 10 mm with low likelihood of malignancy.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP suggest that a decision about ESD can be considered for malignant lesions clinically staged as having minimal submucosal invasion if differentiated and ≤ 30 mm; or for malignant lesions clinically staged as intramucosal, undifferentiated and ≤ 20 mm; and in both cases with no ulcerative findings.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommends patient management based on the following histological risk after endoscopic resection: Curative/very low-risk resection (lymph node metastasis [LNM] risk < 0.5 %-1 %): en bloc R0 resection; dysplastic/pT1a, differentiated lesion, no lymphovascular invasion, independent of size if no ulceration and ≤ 30 mm if ulcerated. No further staging procedure or treatment is recommended.Curative/low-risk resection (LNM risk < 3 %): en bloc R0 resection; lesion with no lymphovascular invasion and: a) pT1b, invasion ≤ 500 µm, differentiated, size ≤ 30 mm; or b) pT1a, undifferentiated, size ≤ 20 mm and no ulceration. Staging should be completed, and further treatment is generally not necessary, but a multidisciplinary discussion is required. Local-risk resection (very low risk of LNM but increased risk of local persistence/recurrence): Piecemeal resection or tumor-positive horizontal margin of a lesion otherwise meeting curative/very low-risk criteria (or meeting low-risk criteria provided that there is no submucosal invasive tumor at the resection margin in the case of piecemeal resection or tumor-positive horizontal margin for pT1b lesions [invasion ≤ 500 µm; well-differentiated; size ≤ 30 mm, and VM0]). Endoscopic surveillance/re-treatment is recommended rather than other additional treatment. High-risk resection (noncurative): Any lesion with any of the following: (a) a positive vertical margin (if carcinoma) or lymphovascular invasion or deep submucosal invasion (> 500 µm from the muscularis mucosae); (b) poorly differentiated lesions if ulceration or size > 20 mm; (c) pT1b differentiated lesions with submucosal invasion ≤ 500 µm with size > 30 mm; or (d) intramucosal ulcerative lesion with size > 30 mm. Complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments (surgery) in multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP suggest the use of validated endoscopic classifications of atrophy (e. g. Kimura-Takemoto) or intestinal metaplasia (e. g. endoscopic grading of gastric intestinal metaplasia [EGGIM]) to endoscopically stage precancerous conditions and stratify the risk for gastric cancer.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that biopsies should be taken from at least two topographic sites (2 biopsies from the antrum/incisura and 2 from the corpus, guided by VCE) in two separate, clearly labeled vials. Additional biopsy from the incisura is optional.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that patients with extensive endoscopic changes (Kimura C3 + or EGGIM 5 +) or advanced histological stages of atrophic gastritis (severe atrophic changes or intestinal metaplasia, or changes in both antrum and corpus, operative link on gastritis assessment/operative link on gastric intestinal metaplasia [OLGA/OLGIM] III/IV) should be followed up with high quality endoscopy every 3 years, irrespective of the individual's country of origin.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that no surveillance is proposed for patients with mild to moderate atrophy or intestinal metaplasia restricted to the antrum, in the absence of endoscopic signs of extensive lesions or other risk factors (family history, incomplete intestinal metaplasia, persistent H. pylori infection). This group constitutes most individuals found in clinical practice.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend H. pylori eradication for patients with precancerous conditions and after endoscopic or surgical therapy.ESGE/EHMSG/ESP recommend that patients should be advised to stop smoking and low-dose daily aspirin use may be considered for the prevention of gastric cancer in selected individuals with high risk for cardiovascular events.

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) offers excellent efficacy and safety. Referral biopsies are commonly obtained prior to EMR despite their potential adverse effects. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of referral biopsy as compared with optical evaluations and the polyp's final pathology.

We analyzed a cohort from two centers that included adult patients referred for EMR of LNPCPs between 2017 and 2022. The NICE classification system was used for optical classification. We compared procedural outcomes of lesions with or without a referral biopsy and diagnostic accuracy of referral biopsy and optical evaluation to the final histopathology of the resected polyp.

Of 605 EMR procedures, 398 (65.8%) had referral biopsies. Polyp size was larger in the biopsy group. No significant differences were observed in en-bloc resection rate, adequate lifting, procedural bleeding, or surveillance recurrence rates. Optical biopsies had higher diagnostic concordance with final histology (Cohen's Kappa 0.62 vs. 0.55) and enhanced sensitivity for sessile serrated polyps/hyperplastic polyps (SSP/HP) and cancer as compared to referral biopsies (0.75 vs. 0.72, p < 0.01, and 0.19 vs. 0.0, p < 0.01, respectively). Optical evaluation was more accurate in non-biopsied lesions.

Referral biopsies do not offer additional diagnostic accuracy and may reduce the accuracy of optical evaluation for LNPCPs.

Submucosal fibrosis is associated with adverse events of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The present study mainly aimed to establish a predictive model for submucosal fibrosis in patients with early gastric cancer (EGC) undergoing ESD.

Eligible patients with EGC, identified at Qilu Hospital of Shandong University from April 2013 to December 2023, were retrospectively included and randomly split into a training set and a validation set in a 7:3 ratio. Logistic regression analyses were used to pinpoint the risk factors for submucosal fibrosis. A nomogram was developed and confirmed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration plots, Hosmer-Lemeshow (H-L) tests, and decision curve analysis (DCA) curves. Besides, a predictive model for severe submucosal fibrosis was further conducted and tested.

A total of 516 cases in the training group and 220 cases in the validation group were recruited. The nomogram for submucosal fibrosis contained the following items: tumour location (long axis), tumour location (short axis), ulceration, and biopsy pathology. ROC curves showed high efficiency with an area under the ROC of 0.819 in the training group, and 0.812 in the validation group. Calibration curves and H-L tests indicated good consistency. DCA proved the nomogram to be clinically beneficial. Furthermore, the four items were also applicable for a nomogram predicting severe fibrosis, and the model performed well.

The predictive models, initially constructed in this study, were validated as convenient and feasible for endoscopists to predict submucosal fibrosis and severe fibrosis in patients with EGC undergoing ESD.

Inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] patients are at increased risk of developing colorectal neoplasia [CRN]. In this review, we aim to provide an up-to-date overview and future perspectives on CRN management in IBD. Advances in endoscopic surveillance and resection techniques have resulted in a shift towards endoscopic management of neoplastic lesions in place of surgery. Endoscopic treatment is recommended for all CRN if complete resection is feasible. Standard [cold snare] polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection should be performed depending on lesion complexity [size, delineation, morphology, surface architecture, submucosal fibrosis/invasion] to maximise the likelihood of complete resection. If complete resection is not feasible, surgical treatment options should be discussed by a multidisciplinary team. Whereas [sub]total and proctocolectomy play an important role in management of endoscopically unresectable CRN, partial colectomy may be considered in a subgroup of patients in endoscopic remission with limited disease extent without other CRN risk factors. High synchronous and metachronous CRN rates warrant careful mucosal visualisation with shortened intervals for at least 5 years after treatment of CRN.

The detection rate of dysplastic colorectal polyps has significantly increased with improved screening programs. Treatment of dysplastic polyps attempt to limit morbidity of a procedure while also considering the risk of occult lymph node metastasis. Therefore, a variety of methods have been developed to predict the rate of lymph node metastasis to help identify the optimal treatment of patients. These include both the endoscopic and pathologic assessment of the lesion. In order to reduce the morbidity of surgery for patients with low-risk lesions, multiple endoscopic therapies have been developed, including endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, and transanal endoscopic surgery.

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a promising but challenging procedure. It is not widely performed due to its technical difficulty. We aimed to find the predictive factors associated with technical difficulty in colorectal ESD before the procedure. Clinical data from patients who underwent ESD for colorectal tumors in 5 hospitals in Honam province of South Korea between 2015 and 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. Technically difficult colorectal ESD procedure was defined in 3 points. Long procedure time (longer than 60 minutes), occurrence of perforation, and failure of en bloc resection. Factors associated with technically difficult ESD were included as main outcome measure. 1446 patients were identified and their data were analyzed. Median procedure time was 30.0 minutes and median long axis of the tumor was 20.1 mm. Technically difficult procedures including long procedure time were 231 cases (16.0%), perforation occurred in 34 cases (2.3%), and en bloc resection was done in 1292 cases (89.3%). Tumor size larger than 35 mm (odd ratio [OR]: 1.474, P = .047), central depression or ulceration in the lesion (OR: 1.474, P = .013), previous endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or polypectomy procedure (OR: 2.428, P = .020) were associated with technically difficult ESD. Descending colon-located tumor (OR: 5.355, P < .001), and use of IT knife (OR: 4.157, P = .003) were associated with perforation. Recognizing factors associated with technically difficult ESD can help in planning the ESD procedure beforehand.

Severe submucosal fibrosis is a crucial technical difficulty encountered during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). We aimed to identify predictors of severe submucosal fibrosis in patients with UC.

We retrospectively included 55 tumors resected using ESD from 48 consecutive patients with UC. We analyzed the clinicopathological characteristics and treatment outcomes between the F0/1 (none to mild submucosal fibrosis) group (n = 28) and F2 (severe submucosal fibrosis) group (n = 27).

No significant difference was found between the F0/1 and F2 groups in en bloc resection rate (100% vs. 96%, P = 0.49), the R0 resection rate (100% vs. 93%, P = 0.24), and the dissection speed (0.18 vs. 0.13 cm2 /min, P = 0.07). Intraoperative perforation was more common in the F2 group (30%) than in the F0/1 group (8%; P = 0.01). Multivariable analysis showed that a longer duration of UC (≥10 years; odds ratio [OR] 6.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-31.03; P = 0.03) and scarring of background mucosa of the tumor (OR 39.61; 95% CI 3.91-400.78; P < 0.01) were independent predictors of severe submucosal fibrosis.

Long UC duration and scarring background mucosa were predictors of severe submucosal fibrosis associated with perforation during ESD.

Since two-photon microscopy (TPM) can obtain high-resolution images at cellular and subcellular level and moxifloxacin has multiphoton fluorescence characteristic, our study aimed to explore the feasibility and diagnostic value of moxifloxacin-assisted TPM in different human colorectal diseases, including low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN), high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIN) and cancer tissues. Excitation power for TPM imaging with and without moxifloxacin was (2.74 ± 0.16) mW and (0.28 ± 0.02) mW, respectively (p < 0.05). Whether labeled with moxifloxacin or not, images of normal, LGIN, HGIN and cancer tissues all reached the strongest signal at 30 μm from the mucosa. Normalized fluorescence intensity of TPM images with moxifloxacin was approximately 10 times stronger than that without moxifloxacin. Fluorescence signal was differed significantly in normal, LGIN, HGIN and cancer tissues with or without moxifloxacin (p < 0.05). Besides, moxifloxacin-assisted TPM could present variant tissue features with different colorectal diseases, such as the crypt opening, glandular structure, adjacent glandular space and fluorescence distribution.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an effective treatment for colorectal tumors. However, lesions that cannot be lifted after submucosal injection are not indication for ESD. This is because the procedure is difficult, and the lesions are often considered as tumor invasion or submucosal fibrosis. The aims of this study are to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ESD for non-lifting lesions and to analyze the causes of non-lifting phenomenon.

This retrospective study included 29 patients with non-lifting colon lesions resected by ESD from February 2018 to September 2021. Cases were observed for demographics, endoscopic findings, treatment outcomes, adverse events and endoscopic follow-up. We studied the pathological features of lesions to explore the reasons for non-lifting.

Among 29 cases of non-lifting lesions, 20 lesions (69.0%) were 30 mm in diameter or larger. Most of lesions (96.6%) were non-lifting in center, and only one lesions (3.4%) had non-lifting of one side. The en bloc and curative resection rates of ESD were 100 and 86.2%, respectively. There was one (3.4%) delayed bleeding, no perforations and other complications. No tumor recurrence occurred during the follow-up period. For pathological features, 16 (55.2%) non-lifting lesions had submucosal fibrosis and only 4 cases (13.8%) had deep submucosal invasion. There were 9 cases (31.0%) of non-lifting lesions due to musculo-fibrous of muscularis propria anomaly (MMPA).

MMPA is another reason for non-lifting signs besides invasive carcinomas and submucosal fibrosis. ESD should be considered in patients with large non-lifting adenoma instead of surgery.

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the first-line treatment for large sessile and flat colorectal polyps in Western centres, however recurrence after EMR continues to be a challenge. The aim of this study is to assess efficacy, safety and recurrence rate of EMR in a tertiary centre and to identify risk factors for recurrence at first surveillance endoscopy (SE1).

We performed a retrospective study of 165 sessile and flat colorectal lesions ≥15 mm, treated by EMR between 2017-2019. We used multivariate logistic regression to identify independent risk factors for recurrence at SE1.

EMR was performed for 165 colorectal polyps in 142 patients with technical success in 158 cases (95,2%). SE1 data for 117 of 135 eligible cases (86,7%) showed recurrent adenoma in 19 cases (16,2%) after a median time of 6,2 months (IQR 5-9,9). This was primarily treated endoscopically (78,9%). Independent risk factors for recurrence at SE1 were lesion size ≥40 mm (OR 4,03; p=0,018) and presence of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) (OR 3,89; p=0,034). Early adverse event occurred in 4 patients (2,4%), with 3 bleeding complications and one perforation. Twelve patients (7,2%) presented with delayed bleeding of which 3 required transfusion, with radiological intervention in one case. All other complications were managed either conservatively (n=8) or endoscopically (n=5).

EMR is a safe and effective treatment for large sessile and flat colorectal lesions with low recurrence rates. Lesion size ≥40 mm and presence of HGD were identified as risk factors for early recurrence, highlighting the importance of compliance to follow-up in these cases.

1: ESGE suggests performing segmental biopsies (at least two from each segment), which should be placed in different specimen containers (ileum, cecum, ascending, transverse, descending, and sigmoid colon, and rectum) in patients with clinical and endoscopic signs of colitis.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 2: ESGE recommends taking two biopsies from the right hemicolon (ascending and transverse colon) and, in a separate container, two biopsies from the left hemicolon (descending and sigmoid colon) when microscopic colitis is suspected.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 3: ESGE recommends pancolonic dye-based chromoendoscopy or virtual chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsies of any visible lesions during surveillance endoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 4: ESGE suggests that, in high risk patients with a history of colonic neoplasia, tubular-appearing colon, strictures, ongoing therapy-refractory inflammation, or primary sclerosing cholangitis, chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsies can be combined with four-quadrant non-targeted biopsies every 10 cm along the colon. Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that, if pouch surveillance for dysplasia is performed, visible abnormalities should be biopsied, with at least two biopsies systematically taken from each of the afferent ileal loop, the efferent blind loop, the pouch, and the anorectal cuff.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 6: ESGE recommends that, in patients with known ulcerative colitis and endoscopic signs of inflammation, at least two biopsies be obtained from the worst affected areas for the assessment of activity or the presence of cytomegalovirus; for those with no evident endoscopic signs of inflammation, advanced imaging technologies may be useful in identifying areas for targeted biopsies to assess histologic remission if this would have therapeutic consequences. Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 7: ESGE suggests not biopsying endoscopically visible inflammation or normal-appearing mucosa to assess disease activity in known Crohn's disease.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that adequately assessed colorectal polyps that are judged to be premalignant should be fully excised rather than biopsied.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 9: ESGE recommends that, where endoscopically feasible, potentially malignant colorectal polyps should be excised en bloc rather than being biopsied. If the endoscopist cannot confidently perform en bloc excision at that time, careful representative images (rather than biopsies) should be taken of the potential focus of cancer, and the patient should be rescheduled or referred to an expert center.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 10: ESGE recommends that, in malignant lesions not amenable to endoscopic excision owing to deep invasion, six carefully targeted biopsies should be taken from the potential focus of cancer.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) are the most effective endoscopic resection methods for T1 rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ESD and TEM for rectal NETs ≤20 mm.

Patients with rectal NETs ≤20 mm who underwent ESD or TEM were enrolled in this retrospective observational study. ESD and TEM groups were matched for pathologic tumor size and EMR history. We evaluated between-group differences in R0 resection rate, adverse event rate, procedure time, and hospital stay.

We included 285 patients (ESD = 226, TEM = 59) in the final cohort, with 104 patients in the matched groups (ESD = 52, TEM = 52). The R0 resection rate was significantly higher for TEM (ESD 71.2% vs TEM 92.3%, P = .005). However, the median procedure time (ESD 22 [range, 11-65] vs TEM 35 [17-160] minutes, P < .001) and hospital stay (ESD 2.5 range 1-5] vs TEM 4 [3-8] days, P < .001) were significantly shorter for ESD. In the subgroup analysis of patients divided by tumor size <10 mm (ESD = 218, TEM = 49) and 10 to 20 mm (ESD = 8, TEM = 10)], there was no significant between-group difference in the R0 resection rate (83.5% vs 93.9%, P = .063 and 37.5% vs 80%, P = .145, respectively) or the rate of recurrence.

Although TEM showed a better overall R0 resection rate for rectal NETs ≤20 mm, ESD could be a viable treatment modality concerning adverse events, procedure time, and hospital stay for rectal NETs <10 mm with similar R0 resection rates in comparison with TEM.

Submucosal fibrosis greatly hinders the success of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). This study determined ESD outcomes in patients with esophageal submucosal fibrosis and further explored the predictors.

We retrospectively analyzed 163 patients with superficial squamous esophageal neoplasia. The degree of submucosal fibrosis was classified as follows: F0, none; F1, mild; and F2, severe. ESD outcomes as a function of the degree of submucosal fibrosis and biopsy were determined. The potential predictors of submucosal fibrosis were analyzed.

En bloc resection, R0 resection, and procedure time were significantly different between the F0-F2 groups (P = 0.009, P = 0.002, and P < 0.001, respectively). Perforation and immediate bleeding rates of F2 were significantly higher than the F0/F1 groups (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). However, the nonbiopsy group vs the biopsy group and the delayed ESD group (postbiopsy >21 days) vs the early ESD group (postbiopsy ≤21 days) showed no statistical differences regarding the en bloc resection, R0 resection, and ESD complications (all P > 0.05). Further analysis indicated that it was not the biopsy history and delayed ESD (both P > 0.05), rather submucosal invasion vs intramucosal tumor (odds ratio = 4.534, P = 0.003) and current smoker vs nonsmoker (odds ratio = 2.145, P = 0.043) were independent risk factors for endoscopic submucosal fibrosis.

Esophageal submucosal fibrosis was shown to be closely related to unsatisfactory ESD outcomes. Biopsy history and delayed ESD had no adverse effect on submucosal fibrosis and ESD outcomes. Submucosal invasion and current cigarette smoking were predictors of submucosal fibrosis.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been a valuable treatment of choice for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). However, the vertical margin may remain positive after ESD because the neuroendocrine tumors develop in a submucosal tumor (SMT)-like way. Endoscopic submucosal dissection with myectomy (ESD-ME), a new method for rectal NETs, may overcome this problem.

From August 2013 to August 2020, the medical records of 69 patients (72 rectal neuroendocrine tumors) who received endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or endoscopic submucosal dissection with myectomy (ESD-ME) for rectal NETs were investigated retrospectively. The characteristics of the patients and tumors, the rate of complete resection, and the rate of complications were analyzed retrospectively.

The ESD-ME group contained 27 patients (12 males, 15 females; age range 29-72 years) and the ESD group contained 42 patients (21 males, 21 females; age range 29-71 years). Both groups had similar mean rectal neuroendocrine tumor diameters (ESD-ME 6.1 ± 1.8 mm, ESD 6.7 ± 2.6 mm; P = 0.219). The procedure time was not different significantly between groups (ESD-ME 21.1 ± 6.3, ESD 19.3 ± 3.1; P = 0.115). The endoscopic complete resection rate did not differ significantly between the ESD-ME and ESD groups (100% for each). The histological complete resection rate was 100% (27 of 27) in the ESD-ME group and 81.0% (34 of 42) in the ESD group (P = 0.043). Delayed bleeding occurred in 1 ESD-ME patient (3.7%) and in 2 ESD patients (4.8%) (P = 1.000). Perforation occurred in 1 ESD-ME patient (3.7%) and the patient was successfully managed by conservative measure, and there was no perforation after ESD (P = 0.391).

When compared with ESD, ESD-ME resulted in a higher histological complete resection rate, had a similar complication rate, and took similar time to perform. ESD-ME can be considered an effective and safe resection method for rectal NETs < 16 mm in diameter without metastasis.

Submucosal fibrosis observed during colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an important factor related to incomplete resection. Biopsy is generally accepted as having the potential to elicit submucosal fibrosis, but few reports have presented definitive proof. This study investigated the relation between submucosal fibrosis and colorectal ESD outcomes and assessed factors related to fibrosis, including pretreatment biopsy.

After reviewing 369 records of colorectal ESD performed between January 2011 and December 2016, we assessed the relation between fibrosis and ESD outcomes. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed fibrosis risk factors.

Severe fibrosis was related significantly to ESD outcomes such as the mean procedure time (p < 0.001), en bloc resection rate (p < 0.001), and R0 resection rate (p = 0.011). Multivariate analyses indicated residual lesions (ORs 175.4, p < 0.001), pretreatment biopsy (ORs 8.30, p = 0.002), nongranular-type laterally spreading tumors (LST-NG; ORs 5.86, p = 0.025), and invasive carcinoma (ORs 5.83, p = 0.03) as independent risk factors of severe fibrosis. In each macroscopic type, LST-NG was more strongly related to fibrosis induced by pretreatment than granular-type laterally spreading tumors with adjust ORs of 50.8 and 4.69.

Pretreatment biopsy causes submucosal fibrosis resulting in prolonged procedure times and incomplete resection. These findings suggest important benefits of avoiding biopsy before ESD.

"Endoscopically unresectable" benign polyps identified during screening colonoscopy are often referred for segmental colectomy. Application of advanced endoscopic techniques can increase endoscopic polyp resection, sparing patients the morbidity of colectomy. This retrospective case-control study aimed to evaluate the success of colon preserving resection of "endoscopically unresectable" benign polyps using advanced endoscopic techniques including endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, endoluminal surgical intervention, full-thickness laparo-endoscopic excision, and combined endo-laparoscopic resection.

A prospectively maintained institutional database identified 95 patients referred for "endoscopically unresectable" benign polyps from 2015 to 2018. Cases were compared to 190 propensity score matched controls from the same database undergoing elective laparoscopic colectomy for other reasons. Primary outcome was rate of complete endoscopic polyp removal. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, unplanned 30-day readmission and reoperation, 30-day mortality, and post-procedural complications.

Advanced endoscopic techniques achieved complete polyp removal without colectomy in 66 patients (70%). Failure was most commonly associated with previously attempted endoscopic resection and occult malignancy. Compared with matched colectomy controls, endoscopic polyp resection resulted in significantly shorter hospital length of stay (1.13 ± 2.41 vs 3.89 ± 4.57 days; p < 0.001), lower unplanned 30-day readmission (1.1% vs 7.7%; p < 0.05), and fewer postoperative complications (4.2% vs 33.9%; p < 0.001). Unplanned 30-day reoperation (2.1% vs 4.4%; p = 0.34) and 30-day mortality (0% vs 0.6%; p = 0.75) trended lower.

Endoscopic resection of complex polyps can be highly successful, and it is associated with favorable outcomes and decreased morbidity when compared with segmental colon resection. Attempting colon preservation using these techniques is warranted.

 Although the problem of whether to perform a biopsy before endoscopic treatment for colorectal laterally spreading tumor (LST) troubles clinicians, about 50 % of lesions still undergo a preceding biopsy. We aimed to explore factors affecting the non-lifting sign in LST and examine the influence of "biopsy-related factors", such as the number of biopsy specimens and the interval after biopsy on non-lifting sign in cases with a history of biopsy.

 Clinical data of 159 LSTs regarding age, gender, history of biopsy, tumor location, tumor size, the depth of submucosal invasion, tumor configuration, histologic type, location with respect to the fold, and result of non-lifting sign testing were investigated retrospectively. For patients with a history of biopsy, the period after biopsy and the number of biopsy specimens also were analyzed.

 Among 159 cases of LST, 112 were positive and 47 were negative for lifting signs. Biopsy history (p = 0.008), tumor size (p = 0.010), and location with respect to the fold (p = 0.022) were identified as factors affecting the non-lifting sign in multivariate analyses. In 75 LST cases with a history of biopsy, only the number of biopsies (p = 0.003) was identified as a factor affecting the non-lifting sign in multivariate analyses.

 For LST, lesions with larger size, being across the fold, and biopsy history were predictive factors for non-lifting signs. Reducing the number of biopsies would reduce the occurrence of non-lifting signs when biopsy is necessary. The impact of the interval after the biopsy on the non-lifting sign will require further study.

Background and study aims  Colonic lesions may not be amenable to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) due to previous manipulation, submucosal invasion, or lesion flatness. In 2018, we described Dissection-enabled Scaffold Assisted Resection (DeSCAR) to be safe for the endoscopic resection of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions 1 In this study, we expand our original cohort to describe our expanded experience with patients undergoing DeSCAR and assess the efficacy, safety, and feasibility of DeSCAR for endoscopic resection of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions. Patients and methods  We retrospectively reviewed 57 patients from 2015-2019 who underwent DeSCAR for colonic lesions with incomplete lifting and/or previous manipulation. Cases were reviewed for location, prior manipulation, rates of successful resection, adverse events, and endoscopic follow up to assess for residual lesions. Results  Fifty-seven lesions underwent DeSCAR. Of the patients, 51 % were female, and average patient age was 69 years. Lesions were located in the cecum (n = 16), right colon (n = 27), left colon (n = 10), and rectum (n = 4). Average lesion size was 27.7 mm. Previous manipulation occurred in 54 cases (72 % biopsy, 44 % resection attempt, 18 % intralesional tattoo). The technical success rate for resection of non-lifting lesions was 98 %. There were two delayed bleeding episodes (one required endoscopic intervention) and one small perforation (managed by endoscopic hemoclip closure). Endoscopic follow up was available in 31 patients (54 %) with no residual adenoma in 28 patients (90 % of those surveilled). Conclusions  Our expanded experience with DeSCAR demonstrates high safety, feasibility, and effectiveness for the endoscopic management of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions.

The first choice of treatment for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) ≤10 mm in size is endoscopic resection. However, because rectal NETs usually invade the submucosal layer, achieving R0 resection is difficult. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has a high R0 resection rate, and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) was recently introduced to ensure a negative resection margin easily and safely. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UEMR versus ESD for rectal NETs ≤10 mm in size.

This retrospective observational study enrolled 115 patients with rectal NETs ≤10 mm in size who underwent ESD or UEMR between January 2015 and July 2019 at the National Cancer Center, Korea. The differences in R0 resection rate, adverse event rate, and procedure time between the ESD and UEMR groups were evaluated.

Of the 115 patients, 36 underwent UEMR and 79 underwent ESD. The R0 resection rate was not different between the UEMR and ESD groups (UEMR vs ESD, 86.1% vs 86.1%, P = .996). The procedure time was significantly shorter with UEMR (UEMR vs ESD, 5.8 ± 2.9 vs 26.6 ±13.4 minutes, P < .001). Two patients (2.5%, 2/79) experienced adverse events in the ESD group and but there were no adverse events in the UEMR group; however, this difference was not statistically significant.

UEMR is a safe and effective technique that should be considered when removing small rectal NETs. Further studies are warranted to define its role compared with ESD.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables removal of broad-based colorectal polyps or lateral spreading tumors with a higher rate of en bloc resection and a lower risk of local recurrence. However, it is technically demanding. Over the past 20 years, various equipment and innovative techniques have been developed to reduce the difficulty of ESD. The information in the literature is scattered. Our aim is to provide a comprehensive review on the setup and technical aspects of colorectal ESD.

We searched the PubMed database and systemically reviewed all original and review articles related to colorectal ESD. Further manual search according to reference lists of identified articles were done. The selected articles were categorized and reviewed. Original figures were created to help readers understand some of the ESD techniques.

A total of 216 articles were identified, in which 25 of them were review articles and 191 of them were original articles. They were categorized and reviewed. An in-depth appraisal of the setting, equipment, and technical aspects of colorectal ESD was performed.

Although ESD is a technically demanding procedure that requires expert endoscopic skills, it can be mastered. With good peri-procedural preparation, sufficient knowledge of the equipment, and thorough understanding of the useful endoscopic tricks and maneuvers, colorectal ESD can be performed smoothly and safely.

Background and study aims  Given that positive lateral margins indicate possible residual carcinoma, salvage endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) should be considered for curative therapy. Presence of submucosal fibrosis, however, makes the procedure difficult to perform. We present our case series to discuss the feasibility of salvage ESD and the timing of the procedure.

Biopsies are routinely obtained in the workup of large colorectal polyps before endoscopic resection.

This study aimed to examine how reliable biopsies are in terms of reflecting the true histopathology of large colorectal polyps, in the clinical routine.

This is a retrospective study.

Data from patients undergoing polypectomy of large colorectal polyps at the endoscopy unit, Skåne University Hospital Malmö, between January 2014 and December 2016 were scrutinized.

A total of 485 colorectal lesions were biopsied within 1 year before complete endoscopic removal. Biopsy-obtained specimens were compared with completely resected specimens in terms of concordance and discordance and if the final result was upgraded or downgraded.

The primary outcome measured was the concordance between biopsy-obtained specimens and completely resected specimens.

Median lesion size was 3 cm (range 1-11). In 189 cases (39%), biopsies did not provide a correct dysplastic grade compared with final pathology after complete resection. One hundred forty-three cases (29%) and 46 cases (9%) were upgraded and downgraded. The percentage of cases with discordant biopsy results was 40% in cases with 1 biopsy taken and 38% in cases where multiple biopsies had been sampled. Time from biopsy to complete resection did not influence the erroneous outcome of biopsies. Notably, the percentage of discordant biopsy results was 37% and 35% in lesions measuring 1 to 2 cm and 2 to 4 cm. However, this percentage increased to 48% in colorectal lesions larger than 4 cm.

This study was designed to reflect the clinical routine, the number of biopsies obtained and forceps technique were hence not standardized, which constitutes a limitation.

This study demonstrates that cancer-negative forceps biopsies of large colorectal polyps, referred for endoscopic resection, are not reliable. Considering that endoscopic resection of lesions containing superficial cancer is plausible, the clinical value of forceps biopsies in lesions suitable for endoscopic resection is questionable. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A984. LAS BIOPSIAS CON FÓRCEPS NO SON CONFIABLES EN EL ESTUDIO DE LAS LESIONES COLORRECTALES GRANDES REFERIDAS PARA RESECCIÓN ENDOSCÓPICA: ¿DEBERÍAN ABANDONARSE?: Las biopsias se obtienen de forma rutinaria en el estudio de pólipos colorrectales grandes previo a resección endoscópica.

Analizar que tan confiables son las biopsias en cuanto a reflejar la verdadera histopatología de los pólipos colorrectales grandes, en la rutina clínica. DISEÑO:: Este es un estudio retrospectivo.

Los datos de pacientes sometidos a polipectomía de pólipos colorrectales grandes en la unidad de endoscopia, en Skåne University Hospital Malmö, entre enero de 2014 y diciembre de 2016 fueron examinados.

Un total de 485 lesiones colorrectales se biopsiaron dentro de un año antes de la resección endoscópica completa. Las muestras obtenidas mediante biopsia se compararon con las muestras completas resecadas en términos de concordancia y discordancia, y si el resultado final ascendió o disminuyó de categoría.

Concordancia entre muestras obtenidas mediante biopsia y muestras completamente resecadas.

La mediana de tamaño de lesiones fue de 3 cm (rango 1-11). En 189 casos (39%) las biopsias no proporcionaron un grado de displasia correcto en comparación con la patología final después de la resección completa. 143 casos (29%) y 46 casos (9%) ascendieron y descendieron de categoría, respectivamente. El porcentaje de casos con resultados de biopsia discordantes fue del 40% en los casos con una sola biopsia tomada y del 38% en los casos en los que se tomaron múltiples biopsias. El tiempo desde la biopsia hasta la resección completa no influyó en el resultado erróneo de las biopsias. Notablemente, el porcentaje de resultados de biopsia discordantes fue de 37% y 35% en lesiones que midieron 1-2 cm y 2-4 cm, respectivamente. Sin embargo, este porcentaje aumentó a 48% en lesiones colorrectales mayores de 4 cm.

Este estudio se diseñó para reflejar la rutina clínica, el número de biopsias obtenidas y la técnica de fórceps no fueron estandarizadas, lo que constituye una limitación.

Este estudio demuestra que las biopsias con fórceps negativas a cáncer, de pólipos colorrectales grandes referidas para resección endoscópica, no son confiables. Teniendo en cuenta que la resección endoscópica de lesiones que contienen cáncer superficial es posible, el valor clínico de las biopsias con fórceps en lesiones aptas para la resección endoscópica es cuestionable. Vea el Resumen en video en http://links.lww.com/DCR/A984.

Injudicious attempts at resection and extensive sampling of large colorectal adenomas prior to referral for endoscopic resection (ER) are common. This has deleterious effects, but little is known about the outcomes following ER. We retrospectively analysed the outcomes of ER of large adenomas previously subjected to substantial manipulation.

ER of large (≥ 2 cm) colorectal adenomas were grouped according to level of manipulation: prior attempted resection, heavy manipulation (≥ six biopsies or tattoo under lesion) or minimal manipulation (< six biopsies). Outcomes were compared between groups. Independent predictors of outcomes were identified using multiple logistic regression.

Five hundred forty-two lesions (mean size 53.7 mm) were included. Two hundred sixty-five (49%) had been subjected to prior attempted resection or heavy manipulation, 151 (28%) to minimal manipulation, and 126 (23%) were not previously manipulated. ESD techniques were used more frequently than EMR after substantial manipulation. There were no differences in initial success of ER (99%, 98%, 98%, p = 0.71). Prior attempted resection was independently associated with recurrence (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.5, p = 0.03) and negatively associated with en bloc resection (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.1-0.7, p = 0.004). Regardless of level of prior manipulation, there were no differences in sustained endoscopic cure with > 95% of patients overall free from recurrence and avoiding surgery at last follow-up.

There is a substantial burden of injudicious lesion manipulation before referral, which makes recurrence more likely and en bloc resection less likely. However, with appropriate expertise, sustained successful endoscopic treatment is achievable for the vast majority of patients treated in a specialist unit.

Background and study aims  Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables en bloc removal of colorectal neoplasms regardless of size. Submucosal fibrosis is a significant factor for technical difficulty and poor outcomes. We assessed the predictive factors for severe submucosal fibrosis and the ESD outcomes. Patients and methods  Patients undergoing ESD from January 2006 to September 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. The degree of submucosal fibrosis was classified into three types: no fibrosis (F0), mild fibrosis (F1), and severe fibrosis (F2). F0 and F1 cases were grouped as non-severe fibrosis for comparison with the severe fibrosis group. Predictors of severe submucosal fibrosis and ESD outcomes were evaluated. Results  ESD was performed in 524 lesions (60 % male; mean age, 67.8 years). Eighty lesions with severe fibrosis (15.3 %) were observed. The overall en bloc resection rate and curative resection rate were 94.3 % and 77.7 %, respectively. Rates of en bloc resection (91.2 % vs. 94.8 %, P  = 0.2) and perforation (7.5 % vs. 5.6 %, P  = 0.45) were no different between severe fibrosis and non-severe fibrosis groups. However, incidences of non-curative resection and low resection speed were significantly higher in the severe fibrosis group. Among protruding lesions, tumor height and volume were significantly greater in the severe counterparts. A diameter ≥ 40 mm, endoscopic finding of the tumor beyond fold, and fold convergence were independent risk factors for severe fibrosis. Conclusions  Severe submucosal fibrosis is a significant risk factor for non-curative resection and a long procedural time. Tumor size and morphology might help to predict the severity of fibrosis.

It is believed that preoperative biopsy sampling for superficial-type colorectal tumors should be avoided because submucosal fibrosis caused by biopsy sampling makes EMR impossible. However, few studies have reported the influence of biopsy sampling on colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). This study aimed to examine the effect of biopsy sampling on submucosal fibrosis and treatment outcomes of ESD for laterally spreading tumors (LSTs).

Between April 2005 and September 2015, 441 consecutive patients underwent colorectal ESD in Osaka City University Hospital. Using propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), we retrospectively evaluated risk factors for severe submucosal fibrosis and treatment outcomes for patients with LSTs, with or without preoperative biopsy sampling.

A total of 428 LSTs resected using ESD were enrolled. After matching, there were 136 matched pairs of lesions that did or did not undergo biopsy sampling. Preoperative biopsy sampling increased severe fibrosis compared with that in the non-biopsy sampling group (20.6% vs 11.0%; P = .03) and was significantly associated with severe fibrosis after matching (odds ratio [OR], 2.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-4.10; P = .03). After adjustment with IPTW, biopsy sampling also increased the risk of severe fibrosis (OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.17-4.63; P = .02). However, no significant differences were observed between the 2 groups in treatment outcomes.

Preoperative biopsy sampling for colorectal LSTs might cause severe submucosal fibrosis but has no adverse influence on clinical outcomes of ESD.

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are often used for benign and Sm1 large non-pedunculated rectal polyps (LNPRPs), although other surgical techniques including transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEMS) and transanal minimal invasive surgery remain available. This review covers the role of pre-excisional imaging and selective biopsy of LNPRPs. Areas covered: Polyps between 2 and 3 cm with favorable features (Paris 1, Kudo III/IV pit patterns, and non-lateral spreading type [LST]) may have a one-stage EMR without biopsy and imaging, provided adequate expertise is available with other technologies such as magnifying chromoendoscopy. Higher-risk polyps (moderate/severe dysplasia, 0-IIa+c morphology, nongranular LST, Kudo pit pattern V or submucosal carcinoma, or those >3 cm) should have pre-EMR/ESD imaging with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and/or endorectal ultrasound (ERUS) ± biopsies and photographs prior to multidisciplinary team discussion. Expert commentary: In some centers, EMR and ESD are considered the primary modality of treatment, with TEMS as a back-up, while elsewhere, TEMS is the main modality for excision of significant polyps and early colorectal cancer lesions. Likewise, the exact roles of ERUS and MRI will depend on availability of local expertise, although it is suggested that the techniques are complementary.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an effective treatment modality for superficial squamous esophageal neoplasia (SSEN). However, submucosal fibrosis is an important obstacle to successful ESD. The aim of this study was to determine the ESD outcome in relationship to the degree of submucosal fibrosis of SSEN and to identify factors for predicting submucosal fibrosis.

We retrospectively analyzed endoscopic and pathologic factors related to submucosal fibrosis in 41 patients with SSEN who underwent ESD. Also, en bloc resection rate, complication rate, and procedure time according to the degree of submucosal fibrosis were evaluated. Masson's trichrome staining was used to evaluate histologic submucosal fibrosis.

A depressed type tumor (vs. nondepressed type tumor, P = 0.002), length of tumor greater than 20 mm (vs. length of tumor ≤ 20 mm, P = 0.036), and delayed ESD after initial biopsy (vs. immediate ESD after initial biopsy, P = 0.005) were independent factors predictive of submucosal fibrosis. The severity of submucosal fibrosis was significantly associated with a higher complication rate such as bleeding and perforation. Also, as the severity of the submucosal fibrosis increased, the amount of time required for the ESD procedure increased.

Length of tumor greater than 20 mm and endoscopic depressed type are endoscopic predictive factors of submucosal fibrosis in SSEN. Moreover, to avoid submucosal fibrosis, ESD should be attempted immediately after biopsy for the diagnosis of SSEN.

As a result of previous manipulation or submucosal invasion, GI lesions referred for EMR frequently have flat areas of visible tissue that cannot be snared. Current methods for treating residual tissue may lead to incomplete eradication or not allow complete tissue sampling for histologic evaluation. Our aim is to describe dissection-enabled scaffold-assisted resection (DeSCAR), a new technique combining circumferential ESD with EMR for removal of superficial non-lifting or residual "islands" with suspected submucosal involvement/fibrosis.

From 2015 to 2017, lesions referred for EMR were retrospectively reviewed. Cases were identified where lifting and/or snaring of the lesion was incomplete and the DeSCAR technique was undertaken. Cases were reviewed for location, previous manipulation, rates of successful hybrid resection, and adverse events.

Twenty-nine lesions underwent DeSCAR because of non-lifting or residual "islands" of tissue. Fifty-two percent of the patients were male and 48% were female; average age was 66 years (standard deviation ±9.9 years). Lesions were located in the cecum (n = 10), right side of the colon (n = 12), left side of the colon (n = 4), and rectum (n = 3). Average size was 31 mm (standard deviation ±20.6 mm). Previous manipulation had occurred in 28 of 29 cases (83% biopsy, 34% resection attempt, 52% tattoo). The technical success rate for resection of non-lifting lesions was 100%. There was one episode of delayed bleeding but no other adverse events.

DeSCAR is a feasible and safe alternative to argon plasma coagulation and avulsion for the endoscopic management of non-lifting or residual GI lesions, providing en bloc resection of tissue for histologic review. Further studies are needed to demonstrate long-term eradication and for comparison with other methods.

Optical diagnosis of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) and T1 CRC with deep submucosal invasion is important in guiding the treatment strategy. The use of advanced imaging is not standard clinical practice in Western countries. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted comparing the accuracy of narrow band imaging (NBI), magnifying chromoendoscopy (MCE), and gross morphological features (GMF) seen with conventional view for the optical diagnosis of T1 CRC and deep submucosal invasion.

A literature search identified studies on the optical diagnosis of T1 CRC and deep invasion using NBI, MCE, or GMF. Pooled estimates (PE) of sensitivity and specificity across studies reporting on NBI or MCE were compared using a random effects bivariate meta-regression approach, and a paired analysis focusing on studies that performed both techniques within the same patient was performed.

Thirty-three studies with 31,568 polyps were included. For the optical diagnosis of T1 CRC, both NBI (4 studies; PE 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-0.91) and MCE (5 studies; PE 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.94) yielded higher sensitivity as compared with GMF (3 studies; range 0.21-0.46). No significant preference for NBI or MCE was found (sensitivity relative risk (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.79-1.09, P=0.37; specificity RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86-1.11, P=0.74). Similarly, for the optical diagnosis of deep invasion, both NBI (13 studies; PE 0.77, 95% CI 0.68-0.84) and MCE (17 studies; PE 0.81, 95% 0.75-0.87) yielded higher sensitivity as compared with GMF (6 studies; range 0.18-0.88), and no significant preference for either NBI or MCE was found (sensitivity RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76-1.11, P=0.36; specificity RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96-1.04, P=0.92).

This review supports the use of advanced imaging techniques in preference to GMF to reduce the risk of performing piecemeal resection for T1 CRCs or unnecessary surgical referral for lesions amendable to endoscopic resection. A preference for either NBI or MCE could not be observed.

Little is known about the long-term outcome of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) following curative resection. The present study addressed the long-term outcome of locally or radically resected T1 CRCs.

A total of 430 patients with T1 CRC who underwent local or radical resection were considered. Unfavourable histological factors were defined as positive resection margin, deep submucosal invasion, vascular invasion, Grade 3 and budding. The patients were classified as low-risk (unfavourable histological factor negative, n = 65) or high-risk (unfavourable histological factor positive, n = 365).

Over a median follow-up of 78.4 months, disease recurred in 16 (3.7%) patients in the high-risk group, and no recurrence in the low-risk group. Resection type and vascular invasion were significantly associated with recurrence. In the vascular invasion (+) high-risk group, both 5-year disease-free survival rate and 5-year overall survival rate were significantly associated with resection type (radical 94.6%, local 43.8%, P < 0.001, and radical 99.1%, local 66.7%, P < 0.001). In the vascular invasion (-) high-risk group, 5-year disease-free survival rate was also significantly associated with resection type (radical 98.9%, local 84.7%, P = 0.001). However, 5-year overall survival rate was not associated with resection type (radical 98.9%, local 95.2%, P = 0.816).

Local resection may be effective and oncologically safe in low-risk T1 CRC. Although additional surgery should be recommended for the locally resected high-risk T1 CRC cases, intensive surveillance without additional surgery and timely salvage operation may offer another treatment option, if vascular invasion is negative.

Although endoscopic submucosal dissection has been shown to be safe and effective for colorectal tumors, its clinical outcomes vary.

The aim of this study is to assess the outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection according to clinical indications.

This is a prospective, multicenter, single-arm study.

The study was conducted at special hospitals for colorectal diseases and cancers.

The study population included consecutive patients aged 20 to 80 years who underwent colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection for 1) early colorectal cancer, 2) laterally spreading tumors ≥2 cm in diameter, and 3) submucosal tumors.

Procedures were performed by experienced colonoscopists.

The primary end points were en bloc and curative resection rates. En bloc resection was defined as endoscopic one-piece resection without tumor fragmentation. Curative resection was defined as en bloc resection and no pathologic requirement for additional surgery. Secondary end points included procedure time, complications, and hospital stay.

Of 321 patients, 317 (98.8%) underwent en bloc resection and 231 (72.0%) underwent curative resection. The mean procedure time was 46.2 minutes. Mean hospital stay after the procedure was 3.1 days. Perforation occurred in 2 patients (0.6%), and bleeding occurred in 10 (3.1%) patients. All patients with complications were treated by endoscopic clipping or nonoperative management. Fifteen patients (4.7%) underwent additional radical surgery owing to the risks of lymph node metastasis. Although tumor size was smaller and procedure time shorter in the submucosal tumor group than in the laterally spreading tumor or early colorectal cancer group, there were no differences in clinical outcomes including en bloc and curative resection rates. Submucosal fibrosis was the only factor affecting endoscopic submucosal dissection procedure-related complications.

Early outcomes in a limited population and the potential for selection bias were limitations of this study.

Outcomes of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection were acceptable in selected patients, with no difference in outcomes according to clinical indications. Because submucosal fibrosis can increase complications, it should be minimized before endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Secondary prevention of colorectal cancer relies on effective screening through colonoscopy and polypectomy. Resection of some polyps can present technical challenges particularly when polyps are large, flat, or behind colonic folds. Laparoscopy as an adjunct to endoscopy can aid in removing difficult colonic polyps without subjecting patients to radical segmental colectomy. Hybrid laparoendoscopic techniques are increasingly reported in literature as alternatives to segmental colectomy for the treatment of polyps that have a high likelihood of being benign. Laparoscopic-assisted colonoscopic polypectomy is the most frequently utilized technique; it harnesses the power of laparoscopy to aid endoscopic polypectomy by flattening folds, mobilizing flexures, and providing retraction. Colonoscopy-assisted laparoscopic wedge and transluminal resection are often reported in older studies and use the visualization provided by intraoperative colonoscopy to guide colonic resection that is limited to the area of the polyp. Laparoscopic-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a relatively recent technique that provides laparoscopic monitoring of EFTR of polyp as well as endoscopic closure of the ensuing defect. Minimally invasive segmental colectomy based on oncologic principles should be utilized when none of the previous techniques are suitable or when malignancy is strongly suspected. The combined use of laparoscopy and endoscopy can expand the endoscopist's armamentarium when dealing with the most challenging polyps, while serving the patients' best interest by limiting the extent of colon resection.

These guidelines provide an evidence-based framework for the management of patients with large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs), in addition to identifying key performance indicators (KPIs) that permit the audit of quality outcomes. These are areas not previously covered by British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Guidelines.A National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) compliant BSG guideline development process was used throughout and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to structure the guideline development process. A systematic review of literature was conducted for English language articles up to May 2014 concerning the assessment and management of LNPCPs. Quality of evaluated studies was assessed using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) Methodology Checklist System. Proposed recommendation statements were evaluated by each member of the Guideline Development Group (GDG) on a scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) with >80% agreement required for consensus to be reached. Where consensus was not reached a modified Delphi process was used to re-evaluate and modify proposed statements until consensus was reached or the statement discarded. A round table meeting was subsequently held to finalise recommendations and to evaluate the strength of evidence discussed. The GRADE tool was used to assess the strength of evidence and strength of recommendation for finalised statements.KPIs, a training framework and potential research questions for the management of LNPCPs were also developed. It is hoped that these guidelines will improve the assessment and management of LNPCPs.

Experience in gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been suggested as a prerequisite for performing colorectal ESD by some experts.

To evaluate the feasibility of performing colorectal ESD without experience in gastric ESD.

Between November 2009 and December 2013, ESD was attempted for 250 colorectal lesions by an endoscopist having extensive colonoscopy experience but no prior experience of gastric ESD. All attempts were categorized according to the chronological order of procedures: group 1, attempts 1-50; group 2, attempts 51-100; group 3, attempts 101-150; group 4, attempts 151-200; and group 5, attempts 201-250. Procedure-related outcomes were analyzed.

En bloc resection rate ≥80% was achieved after initial ten ESD attempts. The ESD success rate (72, 80, 90, 90, and 94% in group 1-5, respectively; p for trend = 0.001), perforation rate (14, 14, 6, 6, and 0% in group 1-5, respectively; p for trend = 0.003), and macroperforation rate (6, 6, 2, 2, and 0% in group 1-5, respectively; p for trend = 0.042) improved as experience accumulated. Performing >100 ESDs, rectal location, and absence of submucosal fibrosis were independent predictors of successful procedure.

Colorectal ESD can be safely and effectively performed by an endoscopist having extensive experience in colonoscopy-related procedures even without previous experience of gastric ESD. Meticulous case selection for ESD novice and active supervision by expert endoscopists during the initial learning period may minimize the risk of perforation.

Early colon cancer (ECC) has been defined as a carcinoma with invasion limited to the submucosa regardless of lymph node status and according to the Royal College of Pathologists as TNM stage T1 NX M0. As the potential risk of lymph node metastasis ranges from 6 to 17% and the preoperative assessment of lymph node metastasis is not reliable, the management of ECC is still controversial, varying from endoscopic to radical resection. A meeting on recent advances on the management of colorectal polyps endorsed by the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery (SICCR) took place in April 2014, in Genoa (Italy). Based on this material the SICCR decided to issue guidelines updating the evidence and to write a position statement paper in order to define the diagnostic and therapeutic strategy for ECC treatment in context of the Italian healthcare system.

Colorectal cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. The progression from adenoma to cancer is a well known phenomenon. Current clinical practice favors colonoscopy as the preferred modality for colorectal cancer screening. Many novel endoscopic technologies are emerging for the purposes of performing "optical biopsy" to allow real-time histologic diagnosis of polyps. High resolution microendoscopy is a low-cost endoscopic technology that has demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity in differentiating neoplastic and non-neoplastic polyps. With the ability to make real-time conclusions based on the endoscopic appearance of polyps, it is becoming increasingly possible to decrease the rate of unnecessary polypectomies and utilize a "resect and discard" strategy to decrease costs of pathology evaluation. Future directions for this technology include surveillance of premalignant conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease. Moreover, the low cost and relative ease of use of this technology lends itself to widespread applicability.

Small rectal carcinoid tumors (<10 mm) are often removed via endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). However, the use of ESD for tumors of an intermediate size (7-16 mm) is less well documented. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ESD compared with endoscopic mucosal resection using a cap (EMR-C) for the treatment of 7-16-mm rectal carcinoids.

From September 2007 to August 2012, 55 patients with large rectal carcinoid tumors were treated by EMR-C (30 cases) or ESD (25 cases). The en bloc resection rate, pathological complete response (pCR) rate, procedure time, and incidence rates of complications, local recurrence, and distant metastasis were evaluated.

The basic and clinical characteristics of the patients in the two groups did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). The mean procedure time was longer for ESD than EMR-C (24.79 ± 4.89 vs. 9.52 ± 2.14 min, p < 0.001). The rates of en bloc resection and pCR were higher with ESD than with EMR-C (100 vs. 83.33 %, and 100 vs. 70.00 %, respectively). No patients in the EMR-C group experienced complications. However, in the ESD group, two cases of perforation occurred, and one patient experienced delayed bleeding. These complications were successfully managed via endoscopical therapy. Five cases of local recurrence were detected after EMR-C, whereas no patients experienced recurrence after ESD.

Compared with EMR-C, ESD appears to be a more favorable therapeutic option for the treatment of rectal carcinoid tumors less than 16 mm in diameter based on improved rates of pCR and local recurrence.

This article describes the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme and the management of large colonic polyps, many of which are diagnosed and managed successfully during bowel cancer screening, in addition to non-endoscopic management options.

Endoscopic manipulations, including biopsy sampling, tattoo application on the lesion itself, and sampling of the lesion with a polypectomy snare, are frequently performed on large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions ≥ 20 mm (LNCL) before referral for endoscopic resection.

To assess the effect of prior manipulations on the technical difficulty and recurrence rates of subsequent endoscopic treatment.

Retrospective study.

Two referral centers.

Patients with LNCL referred for endoscopic resection.

Endoscopic resection.

En-bloc resection rate, rate of successful complete endoscopic resection without the need for ablation of visible residual, recurrence rate on follow-up, independent predictive factors for en-bloc resection, complete resection without ablation of visible residual, and recurrence.

A total of 132 lesions was analyzed: 46 lesions without any prior manipulation, 44 with prior biopsy sampling only, and 42 with prior advanced manipulation including tattoo and/or snare sampling. The en-bloc resection rate was 34.8% for nonmanipulated lesions, 15.9% for lesions with prior biopsy sampling, and 4.8% for lesions with prior advanced manipulation (P = .001). Complete endoscopic resection without the need for ablation of visible residual was performed in 93.5% of nonmanipulated lesions, 68.2% of lesions with prior biopsy sampling, and 50% of lesions with prior advanced manipulation (P < .001). Recurrence rates were 7.7%, 40.7%, and 53.8% in the 3 groups (P = .001). In multivariate analysis, prior biopsy sampling was an independent predictor for inability to perform complete resection without ablation of visible residual (odds ratio .24, P < .05) and for recurrence (odds ratio 11.5, P = .004) compared with nonmanipulated lesions. Prior advanced manipulation was an independent predictor for inability to perform en-bloc resection (odds ratio .024, P = .001), for inability to perform complete resection without ablation of visible residual (odds ratio .081, P < .001), and for recurrence (odds ratio 18.8, P = .001).

Retrospective study.

Prior biopsy sampling and advanced manipulation have significant deleterious effects on endoscopic treatment of LNCL.