Metachronous neoplasms in patients with laterally spreading tumours during surveillance

Background Laterally spreading tumours represent a major challenge for endoscopic detection and resection. Objective To examine synchronous and metachronous neoplasms in patients with laterally spreading tumours. Methods We prospectively collected colonoscopy and histopathology data from patients who underwent colonoscopy in our centre at up to 6 years’ follow-up. Post-resection surveillance outcomes between laterally spreading tumours, flat colorectal neoplasms 10 mm or greater, and large polypoid colorectal neoplasms, polypoid colorectal neoplasms 10 mm or greater, were compared. Results Between 2008 and 2012, 8120 patients underwent colonoscopy for symptoms (84.6%), screening (6.7%) or surveillance (8.7%). At baseline, 151 patients had adenomatous laterally spreading tumours and 566 patients had adenomatous large polypoid colorectal neoplasms. Laterally spreading tumour patients had more synchronous colorectal neoplasms than large polypoid colorectal neoplasm patients (mean 3.34 vs. 2.34, P < 0.001). Laterally spreading tumour patients significantly more often developed metachronous colorectal neoplasms (71.6% vs. 54.2%, P = 0.0498) and colorectal neoplasms with high grade dysplasia/submucosal invasion than large polypoid colorectal neoplasm patients (36.4% vs. 15.8%, P < 0.001). After correction for age and gender, laterally spreading tumour patients were more likely than large polypoid colorectal neoplasm patients to develop a colorectal neoplasm with high grade dysplasia or submucosal invasion (hazard ratio 2.9, 95% confidence interval 1.8–4.6). The risk of metachronous colorectal cancer was not significantly different in laterally spreading tumours compared to large polypoid colorectal neoplasm patients. Conclusion Patients with laterally spreading tumours developed more metachronous colorectal neoplasms with high grade dysplasia/submucosal invasion than large polypoid colorectal neoplasm patients. Based on these findings endoscopic treatment and surveillance recommendations for patients with laterally spreading tumours should be optimised.

How to identify patients who are less likely to have metachronous neoplasms after a colon cancer: a predictive model

Background Patients with prior colon cancer have increased risk of metachronous colorectal neoplasms; therefore, endoscopic surveillance is indicated. Current recommendations are not risk-stratified. We investigated predictive factors for colorectal neoplasms to build a model to spare colonoscopies for low-risk patients. Methods This was a multicenter, retrospective study including patients who underwent surgery for colon cancer in 2001 – 2008 (derivation cohort) and 2009 – 2013 (validation cohort). A predictive model for neoplasm occurrence at second surveillance colonoscopy was developed and validated. Results 421 and 203 patients were included in derivation and validation cohort, respectively. At second surveillance colonoscopy, 112 (26.6 %) and 55 (27.1 %) patients had metachronous neoplasms in derivation and validation groups; three cancers were detected in the latter. History of left-sided colon cancer (OR 1.64, 95 %CI 1.02 – 2.64), ≥ 1 advanced adenoma at index colonoscopy (OR 1.90, 95 %CI 1.05 – 3.43), and ≥ 1 adenoma at first surveillance colonoscopy (OR 2.06, 95 %CI 1.29 – 3.27) were independently predictive of metachronous colorectal neoplasms at second surveillance colonoscopy. For patients without such risk factors, diagnostic accuracy parameters were: 89.3 % (95 %CI 82.0 %-94.3 %) and 78.2 % (95 %CI 65.0 %-88.2 %) sensitivity, and 28.5 % (95 %CI 23.5 %-33.9 %) and 33.8 % (95 %CI 26.2 %-42.0 %) specificity in derivation and validation group, respectively. No cancer would be missed. Conclusions Patients with prior left-sided colon cancer or ≥ 1 advanced adenoma at index colonoscopy or ≥ 1 adenoma at first surveillance colonoscopy had a significantly higher risk of neoplasms at second surveillance colonoscopy; patients without such factors had much lower risk and could safely skip the second surveillance colonoscopy. A prospective, multicenter validation study is needed.