Journal
SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES
Volume 36, Issue 1, Pages 515-525Publisher
SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-021-08311-6
Keywords
Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (p-EMR); Colorectal neoplasia; Surveillance colonoscopy; Surveillance interval; Local recurrence
Categories
Funding
- National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund [21-25, 29-A-13]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
This study aimed to investigate the optimal surveillance interval after colorectal cancer p-EMR treatment. The results showed no significant difference in recurrence detection between 6-month and 3-month surveillance intervals. A strict surveillance protocol of 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up post-EMR can reduce the surgical recurrence rate.
Background and aims Colorectal neoplastic lesions (>= 20 mm) are commonly treated via piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (p-EMR) but have a high rate of local recurrence. We aimed to clarify the optimal surveillance interval after p-EMR for these neoplasias. Methods In this multicenter (15 participating institutions) prospective, randomized trial, 180 patients recruited over a 4-year period and were classified based on tumor location, tumor diameter, histological diagnosis, institution, and number of resected specimens. The patients underwent curative p-EMR followed by scheduled surveillance colonoscopy at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after p-EMR (group A; n = 90) or at 6, 12, and 24 months after p-EMR (group B; n = 90). The primary endpoint was cumulative local recurrence at 6 months after p-EMR. Secondary endpoints included local recurrence and the cumulative surgical resection rate of recurrent tumors during the 24-month follow-up period. Results The median tumor diameter was 25 mm (IQR 20-30). Six months after p-EMR, 12 and 6 local recurrences were noted in groups A and B, which corresponded to 13 and 8 recurrences, respectively, during the 24-month surveillance period. The primary and secondary endpoints of recurrence were not significantly different between the groups on either intention-to-treat or per-protocol analysis; no surgery case was observed in group B when a strict surveillance protocol of 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up post-EMR was followed. Conclusions For patients who underwent p-EMR for neoplastic lesions, additional postprocedural 3-month surveillance did not show superior results in detecting recurrence compared with a 6-month surveillance interval. Clinical trial registration: UMIN000015740.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available