4.7 Article

A Surveillance Endoscopy Strategy Based on Local Recurrence Rates after Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 10, Issue 19, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10194591

Keywords

endoscopic submucosal dissection; recurrence; colorectal neoplasm; surveillance

Ask authors/readers for more resources

After colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), piecemeal resection and histological incomplete resection were identified as risk factors for local recurrence. Short-term surveillance endoscopy is recommended, especially for patients with early cancers.
Backgrounds: It is not clear when and how frequently surveillance endoscopy should be performed after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to suggest a surveillance endoscopy strategy by investigating the cumulative local recurrence rates and identifying risk factors for local recurrence after colorectal ESD. Methods: We reviewed the medical records of 770 patients who underwent colorectal ESD for 778 lesions at our institution from 2005 to 2016. We investigated the cumulative local recurrence rates and risk factors for local recurrence. Results: Local recurrence developed in 12 (1.5%) of 778 lesions during the follow-up period of 37.4 +/- 31.7 months. The one-, three-, and five-year cumulative local recurrence rates were 0.4%, 1.7%, and 2.2%, respectively. The risk factors for local recurrence were piecemeal resection (odds ratio (OR) 3.948, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.164-13.385; p = 0.028) and histological incomplete resection (OR 8.713, 95% CI 2.588-29.334; p < 0.001). Local recurrence tended to develop frequently after ESD of early cancers. Conclusions: Short-term surveillance endoscopy should be recommended after piecemeal ESD, histological incomplete resection, and ESD of early colorectal cancers. Surveillance endoscopy with longer intervals can be suggested after en bloc ESD with the histological complete resection of benign colorectal tumors.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available