Early Surveillance Endoscopy Should Be Performed Selectively After Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery for Rectal Lesions.

Introduction Local recurrence (LR) rates after transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) are unclear, and the utility of early postoperative surveillance for low-risk lesions is unknown. This study aimed to define LR after TEM for benign polyps and invasive adenocarcinoma, describe risk factors for LR, and evaluate the utility of early surveillance endoscopy. Methods This retrospective cohort study was conducted at two hospitals in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Adult patients who underwent TEM between 2009 and 2020 were evaluated for inclusion. The primary outcome was the rate of LR on surveillance endoscopy. Other outcomes included risk factors for LR and diagnostic yield of surveillance endoscopy. Results Among 357 patients who underwent TEM for benign polyps, LR was 10.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.8-15.2) at three years. Positive margin was correlated with LR on multivariate analysis (hazard ratio (HR) 8.01, 95% CI 2.78-23.08). TEM defect closure was associated with lower LR on multivariate analysis (HR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06-0.59). Among 124 patients who underwent TEM for rectal adenocarcinoma, LR was 15.0% (95% CI 6.0-24.0) at three years. The first surveillance endoscopy had a 1.4% yield for low-risk patients (benign lesion, negative margins, and closed TEM defect) and 6.9% for all others. Conclusions LR at three years after TEM was 10.5% for benign polyps and 15.0% for adenocarcinomas. Early surveillance endoscopy can be considered low yield in some patients after TEM, which can be informative for shared decision-making regarding whether to proceed with early endoscopy in a low-risk subgroup of patients.

Routine pathologic evaluation of circular stapler anastomotic rings is not useful after resection for colorectal cancer: retrospective study and systematic review with meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Circular staplers are commonly used for reconstruction after radical resection for colorectal cancer. Pathological analysis of the anastomotic rings is common practice, although the benefits are unclear. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of routine histopathological analysis of anastomotic rings in an original series and in a systematic review of the literature. METHOD: The retrospective study was performed at two university-associated academic hospitals in Winnipeg, Canada, including patients investigated for colorectal cancers (within 30 cm of the anal verge) who underwent resection between 2007 and 2020. The systematic review involved Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, selecting for adult human studies involving analysis of anastomotic rings in elective colorectal cancer resections. The main outcome measure was the proportion of patients with cancer in the anastomotic ring specimens. The frequency of benign pathology findings and changes to patient management were also examined. RESULTS: Out of 673 eligible patients, 487 were included in the retrospective analysis. No patients had cancer within the anastomotic ring specimens. Twenty-five patients (5.1 per cent) had benign pathological findings within the anastomotic ring specimens, and patient management was never affected. In the systematic review, 27 articles were included in the final analysis out of 5848 records reviewed. The rate of cancer within anastomotic ring specimens was 0.34 per cent, and the rate of change in patient management was 0.19 per cent. CONCLUSION: The likelihood of finding cancer within anastomotic rings is rare and their histopathological examination seldom changes patient management.