Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 30, Suppl. 2, 2012
Issue release date: November 2012
Dig Dis 2012;30(suppl 2):74–80
(DOI:10.1159/000341898)

The ‘Difficult’ Polyp: Pitfalls for Endoscopic Removal

Jung M.
Klinik für Innere Medizin und Gastroenterologie, Katholisches Klinikum Mainz, Akademisches Lehrkrankenhaus der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Mainz, Germany

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information











I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Abstract

Adenomatous polyps are early neoplasias of colorectal cancer (adenoma-carcinoma sequence). The majority of adenomas or early invasive cancers (T1sm1) can be resected by endoscopy. Endoscopic resection techniques include classic loop polypectomy, endoscopic mucosectomy with preceding lifting of the (almost flat) lesion, endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal microsurgical resection, an alternative to endoscopic submucosal dissection in the rectum. Endoscopic polyp removal should always aim to resect the lesion in ‘one piece’ and avoid, whenever possible, ‘piecemeal resection’. One-piece polypectomy is the basis for a precise histopathological analysis and for proving complete removal of the lesion. Preceding injection of saline solution into the submucosa to lift the targeted polyp is a therapeutic modality to remove even-flat and flat-depressed adenomas. In addition, a positive lifting sign is regarded as a criterion of lower superficial malignancy. Lifting of a polyp can be negatively influenced by an already advanced cancer (T1sm3/T2) in the deep parts of the submucosa as well as by scars and connective tissue in the upper two layers of the colorectal wall. Hence, a negative lifting sign may lead to incorrect macroscopic evaluation of the lesion before removal. Endoscopic submucosal dissection is mostly performed in large laterally spreading tumors in the rectum and in the preanal region. The technique has a relatively long learning curve and is somewhat time consuming. A ‘difficult polyp’ may be characterized by: (1) the size (>3 cm), pedunculated or sessile (Ip/Is); (2) morphological type (classification of Paris 2003), in particular the flat type II lesions IIa–c flat, flat depressed; laterally spreading tumors and the large sessile-serrated lesions; and (3) the difficult assessment of the grade of malignancy before removal [e.g. dysplasia-associated lesions or masses (DALMs), sporadic adenoma, colitis carcinoma]. Chromoendoscopy (with indigo carmine) represents an adequate method to differentiate advanced flat and depressed type II lesions from those with lower malignancy, and to better identify DALMs and sporadic adenomas in patients with long-lasting ulcerative colitis. To reduce the risk of resection (hemorrhage 0–6%, perforation 0.2%; Munich Polyp Study 2005) the application of hemoclips to visible vessels or injection of adrenaline (1:10,000) in the polyp stalk before removal are methods to prevent bleeding. In case of immediate bleeding, the treatment with hemoclips, injection (adrenaline or fibrin sealant) or endoloops are efficacious to manage this problem. Small perforations can be treated at once by the application of hemoclips, or, in case of larger or difficult leakages by Ovesco clips to avoid surgical interventions.



Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;S8(suppl 6):S3–S43.
  2. Kato H, Haga S, Endo S, Hashimoto M, et al: Lifting of lesions during endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of early colorectal cancer: implications for the assessment of resectability. Endoscopy 2001;33:568–573.
  3. Saito Y, Uraoka T, Yamaguchi Y, Hotta K, et al: A prospective multicentre study of 1111 colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissections (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:1217–1225.
  4. Barends RM, van den Broek FJC, Dekker E, Bemelman WA, et al: Systematic review of endoscopic mucosal resection versus transanal endoscopic microsurgery for large rectal adenomas. Endoscopy 2011;43:941–955.
  5. Kobayashi N, Saito Y, Sano Y, Uragami N, et al: Determining the treatment strategy for colorectal neoplastic lesions: endoscopic assessment or the non-lifting sign for diagnosing invasion depth? Endoscopy 2007;39:701–705.
  6. Kudo S, Rubio CA, Teixeira CR, et al: Pit pattern in colorectal neoplasms: endoscopic magnifying view. Endoscopy 2001;33:367–373.
  7. Kudo S, Kashida H, Tamura T, et al: Colonoscopic diagnosis and management of nonpolypoid early colorectal cancer. World J Surg 2000;24:1081–1090.
  8. Kudo S, Lambert R, Allen JI, Fujii H, et al: Nonpolypoid neoplastic lesions of the colorectal mucosa. Gastrointest Endosc 2008;68:S3–S47.
  9. Barretton GB, Aust DE: Intraepitheliale Neoplasie/Dysplasie – Diagnose bei Colitis ulcerosa. Pathologe 2008;29(suppl 2):280–285.
  10. Laquière A, Barrioz T: Polypectomie et mucosectomie. Acta Endosc 2001;41:276–280.

    External Resources

  11. Heldwein W, Dollhopf M, Rösch T, Meining A, et al: The Munich Polypectomy Study (MUPS): prospective analysis of complications and risk factors in 4000 colonic snare polypectomies. Endoscopy 2005;37:1116–1122.
  12. Kim BC, Chang HJ, Su Han K, Sohn DK, et al: Clinicopathological differences of laterally spreading tumors of the colorectum according to gross appearance. Endoscopy 2011;43:100–107.
  13. Harvey NT, Ruszkiewicz A: Serrated neoplasms of the colorectum. World J Gastroenterol 2007;13:3792–3798.
  14. Kiesslich R, Fritsch J, Holtmann M, et al: Methylene blue-aided chromoendoscopy for the detection of intraepithelial neoplasia and colon cancer in ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology 2003;124:880–888.
  15. Bressler B, Paszat LF, Chen Z, et al: Rates of new or missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy and their risk factors: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology 2007;132:96–102.
  16. Farrar WD, Sawhney MS, Nelson DB, et al: Colorectal cancers found after a complete colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;4:1259–1264.
  17. Robertson DJ, Greenberg ER, Beach M, et al: Colorectal cancer in patients under close colonoscopic surveillance. Gastroenterology 2005;129:34–41.
  18. Leaper M, Johnston MJ, Barclay M, et al: Reasons for failure of diagnose colorectal carcinoma at colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2004;36:499–503.
  19. Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, et al: Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2533–2541.
  20. Simmons DT, Harewood GC, Baron TH: Impact of endoscopist withdrawal speed on polyp yield: implications for optimal colonoscopy withdrawal time. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006;24:965–971.
  21. Bretagne JF: Performance de la coloscopie: le temps de retrait est-il un bon marqueur? Acta Endosc 2010;40:S11–S13.
  22. Kashida H, Kudo S: Early colorectal cancer: concept, diagnosis, and management. Int J Clin Oncol 2006;11:1–8.
  23. Kiesslich R, Jung M, DiSario JA, et al: Perspectives of chromo and magnifying endoscopy: how, how much, when, and whom should we stain? J Clin Gastroenterol 2004;38:7–13.
  24. Chiu HM, Chang CY, Chen CC, Lee YC, et al: A prospective comparative study of narrow-band imaging, chromoendoscopy, and conventional colonoscopy in the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasms. Gut 2007;56:373–379.
  25. Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, Polkowski M, et al: Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1795–1803.
  26. http://www.ovesco.com/procedures/index.htm.


Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50