Local recurrence and subsequent endoscopic treatment after endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection with or without precutting in the colorectum

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Precutting before endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection (EPMR) may increase colorectal polyp resection effectiveness. We aimed to identify risk factors for recurrence after conventional EPMR (CEPMR) and precut EPMR (PEPMR) and investigated endoscopic treatment outcomes for recurrent cases. METHODS: The medical records of patients with colorectal polyps treated by EPMR were analyzed. Patients without follow-up surveillance colonoscopies were excluded. RESULTS: Among 359 lesions, the local recurrence rate on the first surveillance colonoscopy was 5.8% (18/312) and 6.4% (3/47) after CEPMR and PEPMR, respectively. Among lesions without recurrence at the first surveillance colonoscopy, the rates of late recurrence on subsequent surveillance colonoscopy were 3.9% (6/152) and 0% after CEPMR and PEPMR, respectively. Larger tumor size was the only independent risk factor for recurrence (odds ratio, 7.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.95–32.30; P<0.001). Endoscopic treatment was performed for all 27 recurrences. A combination of ≥2 endoscopic treatment modalities was used in 19 of 27 recurrences (70.4%). Surveillance colonoscopies were performed in 20 of 27 recurrences after endoscopic treatment. One (5.0%) had a re-recurrence and was treated by surgical resection because recurrence occurred at the appendiceal orifice. Nineteen of 20 lesions (95.0%) could be cured endoscopically, although 3 of the 19 showed second or third recurrences and were treated by repeat endoscopic resection. CONCLUSIONS: The local recurrence rates after CEPMR and PEPMR were similar. Larger tumor size was an independent risk factor for local recurrence after EPMR. Endoscopic treatment of recurrences resulted in high cure rates, although combination methods were necessary in many cases.

Clinical study on the accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography colonography in colorectal neoplasia detection / 中华消化杂志

[Abstract ] Objective To compare the accuracy between regular computed tomography colonography (CTC)and dual-energy CTC in lesion detection.Methods Twenty-eight patients with clinical suspicious space occupying lesions of the colon were selected.All patients were underwent dual-energy mode contrast-enhanced CT scan and the data were reconstructed with colonography and dual-energy iodine maps methods.The diameter,enhanced computed tomography (CT)value and iodine value were measured.The results of colonoscopy and pathology were taken as gold standard.The sensitivity, specificity,accuracy,positive predictive value and negative predictive value of regular CTC and dual-energy CTC were compared.Variance analysis was performed for measurement data comparison among groups and chi-square test was used for count data analysis.Results Among 28 patients,colorectal lesions were detected in 24 cases by regular CTC,of which four cases were false-positive and one case was false-negative confirmed by colonoscopy and pathology.Colorectal lesions were detected in 20 cases by dual-energy CTC,of which no false-positive and one case was false negative confirmed by colonoscopy and pathology.The contrast enhanced CT value of polyps,adenoma,adenocarcinoma and stool was (38.54± 6.82),(49.16±7.31 ),(52.61 ±5 .93 )and (34.00±1 .41 )Hu,respectively.The enhanced value of adenoma and adenocarcinoma was significantly higher than that of polyps and stool,the differences were statistically significant among groups (F = 10.760,P = 0.001 ).There was no significant difference between polyps and stool (t=1 .44,P =0.188).The sensitivity of regular CTC and dual-energy CTC in lesion detection was 95 .6% (95 %cofidence interval(CI ):77.9%-99.2%)and 95 .6% (95 %CI :77.9%-99.2%),respectively.The specificity was 42.8% (95 %CI :15 .4%-93.5 %)and 100.0% (95 %CI :47.9%-100.0%).Conclusion Compared with traditional CTC,dual-energy CTC would distinguish lesions from stool,help differentiate between benign and malignant tumors and further increase the accuracy of CTC diagnosis.

Comparison between CT Colonography and Double-Contrast Barium Enema for Colonic Evaluation in Patients with Renal Insufficiency

OBJECTIVE: To compare the CT colonography (CTC) and double-contrast barium enema (DCBE) for colonic evaluation in patients with renal insufficiency. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two sequential groups of consecutive patients with renal insufficiency who had a similar risk for colorectal cancer, were examined by DCBE (n = 182; mean +/- SD in age, 51 +/- 6.4 years) and CTC (n = 176; 50 +/- 6.7 years), respectively. CTC was performed after colon cleansing with 250-mL magnesium citrate (n = 87) or 4-L polyethylene glycol (n = 89) and fecal tagging. DCBE was performed after preparation with 250-mL magnesium citrate. Patients with colonic polyps/masses of > or = 6 mm were subsequently recommended to undergo a colonoscopy. Diagnostic yield and positive predictive value (PPV) for colonic polyps/masses, examination quality, and examination-related serum electrolyte change were retrospectively compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Both the CTC and DCBE were positive for colonic polyps/masses in 28 (16%) of 176 and 11 (6%) of 182 patients, respectively (p = 0.004). Among patients with positive findings, 17 CTC and six DCBE patients subsequently underwent a colonoscopy and yielded a PPV of 88% (15 of 17 patients) and 50% (3 of 6 patients), respectively (p = 0.089). Thirteen patients with adenomatous lesions were detected in the CTC group (adenocarcinoma [n = 1], advanced adenoma [n = 6], and non-advanced adenoma [n = 6]), as compared with two patients (each with adenocarcinoma and advanced adenoma) in the DCBE group (p = 0.003). Six (3%) of 176 CTC and 16 (9%) of 182 DCBE examinations deemed to be inadequate (p = 0.046). Electrolyte changes were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with renal insufficiency, CTC has a higher diagnostic yield and a marginally higher PPV for detecting colorectal neoplasia, despite a similar diagnostic yield for adenocarcinoma, and a lower rate of inadequate examinations as compared with DCBE.

Correlations between the prevalence of colonic neoplasia and Helicobacter pylori infection / 대한내과학회지

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Helicobacter pylori infection is a recognized cause of chronic gastritis, peptic ulcer and gastric adenocarcinoma. However, both positive and negative associations with colorectal neoplasia have been reported. The aim of this study was to determine whether H. pylori infection is associated with an increased risk of colonic neoplasia in a Korean population. METHODS: We examined 1,590 subjects (1,297 men and 293 women) who underwent colonoscopy and serologic testing for IgG antibodies against H. pylori at the Health promotion Center in Kangbuk Samsung Hospital and at Samsung Medical Center. We compared the prevalence of colonic neoplasia in the seropositive subjects with that of the seronegative subjects. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of H. pylori in our study population was 56.2%. There were no significant differences of the baseline characteristics between the two groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the prevalence of colonic neoplasia between the seropositive group and the seronegative group (p=0.090). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that there is no significant association between H. pylori infection and colonic neoplasia.