Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Endoscopic mucosal resection in elderly patients

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of early superficial colorectal carcinomas is nowadays accepted as the gold standard treatment for this type of neoplasia.

Aim

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mucosectomy in elderly patients considering the predictive value of submucosal infiltration.

Methods

A retrospective study of all patients referred for EMR of sessile colorectal polyps classified IIa by the Paris classification between April 2013 and April 2015. A total of 50 patients (30 males (60 %); age range = 44–86; mean age = 67.7) were enrolled. Patients were divided in two groups considering 65 years as cutoff to individuate the elderly patients.

Results

EMR was performed in 53 lesions: 39 were performed en bloc and 14 by piecemeal technique. 30 % of lesions were in the rectum; 11 % in the sigmoid colon; 15 % in the descending colon; 6 % in the transverse colon; 24 % in the ascendant colon; and 14 % in the cecum. The mean size of the resected specimens was 20 mm (range 8–80 mm). The rate of complete resection was 79.2 %, incomplete 13.2 %, not estimable 7 %. Ten patients underwent surgery because of an incomplete resection and/or histological evaluation.

Conclusions

Colon EMR is safe and effective in elderly patients. Endoscopy is still helped in the correct indication for surgery in high-risk surgical patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

EMR:

Endoscopic submucosal resection

LN:

Lymph node

SM:

Submucosa

NLS:

Non-lifting sign

APC:

Argon plasma coagulator

References

  1. Othman MO, Wallace MB (2011) Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in 2011, a Western perspective. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 35:288–294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Repici A, Pellicano R, Strangio G et al (2009) Endoscopic mucosal resection for early colorectal neoplasia: pathologic basis, procedures, and outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum 52:1502–1515

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hurlstone DP, Cross SS, Adam I et al (2004) Endoscopic morphological anticipation of submucosal invasion in flat and depressed colorectal lesions: clinical implications and subtype analysis of the kudo type V pit pattern using high-magnification-chromoscopic colonoscopy. Colorectal Dis 6:369–375

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Moss A, Bourke MJ, Williams SJ et al (2011) Endoscopic mucosal resection outcomes and prediction of submucosal cancer from advanced colonic mucosalneoplasia. Gastroenterology 140:1909–1918

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Abdelmessih R, Packey CD, Lawlor G (2016) Endoscopy in the elderly: a cautionary approach, when to stop. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 14:305–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Uno Y, Munakata A (1994) The non-lifting sign of invasive colon cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 40:485–489

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Faiz O, Haji A, Bottle A et al (2011) Elective colonic surgery for cancer in the elderly: an investigation into postoperative mortality in English NHS hospitals between 1996 and 2007. Colorectal Dis 13:779–785. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2010.02290.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pommergaard HC, Burcharth J, Rosenberg J et al (2016) Advanced age is a risk factor for proximal adenoma recurrence following colonoscopy and polypectomy. Br J Surg 103:e100–e105. doi:10.1002/bjs.10069

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions (2003) esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 58(6 Suppl):S3–S43

    Google Scholar 

  10. Adolph RJ (1990) The elderly, the very elderly and traditional practice patterns. J Am Coll Cardiol 16:793

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Watanabe T, Itabashi M, Shimada Y et al (2012) Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2010 for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 17:1–29. doi:10.1007/s10147-011-0315-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Xie HQ, Zhong WZ (2016) Outcomes of colonic endoscopic mucosal resection for large polyps in elderly patients. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 26:707–709

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Se Kudo, Lambert R, Allen JI et al (2008) Nonpolypoid neoplastic lesions of the colorectal mucosa. Gastrointest Endosc 68(4 Suppl):S3–S47. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2008.07.052

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cipolletta L, Rotondano G, Bianco MA et al (2014) Endoscopic resection for superficial colorectal neoplasia in Italy: a prospective multicentre study. Italian Colorectal Endoscopic Resection (ICER) Study Group. Dig Liver Dis 46:146–151. doi:10.1016/j.dld.2013.09.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Perrotta S, Quarto G, Desiato V et al (2013) TEM in the treatment of recurrent rectal cancer in elderly. BMC Surg 13(Suppl. 2):S56. doi:10.1186/1471-2482-13-S2-S56

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Quarto G, Sivero L, Benassai G et al (2014) TEM in the treatment of recurrent rectal cancer in elderly. Ann Ital Chir 85:101–104

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Compagna R, Serra R, Sivero L et al (2015) Tailored treatment of intestinal angiodysplasia in elderly. Open Med. doi:10.1515/med-2015-009

    Google Scholar 

  18. Quarto G, Sivero L, Benassai G et al (2013) Early rectal cancer: local excision by Trans-anal Endoscopic Microsurgery (T.E.M.). Ann Ital Chir 84:437–439

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Luglio G, Sivero L, Tarquini R et al (2013) Functional results after TME for rectal cancer: J-pouch versus coloplasty. A single institution prospective study. Chirurgia (Turin) 26:283–286

    Google Scholar 

  20. Giglio MC, Persico M, Quarto G et al (2013) Intersphinteric resection for rectal cancer: role in fecal continence and quality of life. Ann Ital Chir 84:287–290

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Luglio G, Tarquini R, Sivero L et al (2013) Risultati funzionali e oncologici dopo escissione locale transanale per cancro del retto. Uno studio prospettico. Chirurgia 26:337–340

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gentile M, de Rosa M, Cestaro G et al (2014) Internal Delorme vs. STARR procedure for correction of obstructed defecation from rectocele and rectal intussusception. Ann Ital Chir 85:177–183

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cardin F, Andreotti A, Zorzi M et al (2012) Usefulness of a fast track list for anxious patients in a upper GI endoscopy. BMC Surg 12(Suppl 1):S11. doi:10.1186/1471-2482-12-S1-S11

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Sivero L, Galloro G, Formisano C et al (2013) Morphological and molecular features of apoptosis and its role in colorectal cancer prevention. Chirurgia (Turin) 26:269–273

    Google Scholar 

  25. Amato B, Donisi M, Rispoli C et al (2013) Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program in the elderly: is it feasible? Chirurgia (Turin) 26:307–330

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ishiguro A, Uno Y, Ishiguro Y et al (1999) Correlation of lifting versus non-liftingand microscopic depth of invasion in early colorectal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 50:329–333

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgical Sciences, “Sapienza” University of Rome, V.le Regina Elena n°324, 00161, Rome, Italy

    Stefano Pontone, Rossella Palma, Cristina Panetta, Daniele Pironi, Chiara Eberspacher, Rita Angelini, Paolo Pontone, Antonio Catania, Angelo Filippini & Salvatore Sorrenti

Authors
  1. Stefano Pontone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rossella Palma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cristina Panetta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniele Pironi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Chiara Eberspacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rita Angelini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Paolo Pontone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Antonio Catania
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Angelo Filippini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Salvatore Sorrenti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefano Pontone.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors listed have contributed sufficiently to the project to be included as authors, and to the best of our knowledge, no conflict of interest, financial or other exists.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Funding

The authors declare that they have received no funding for the study.

Informed consent

Informed consent to the endoscopic procedure and to the processing of own personal data was obtained from each individual study participant. In accordance with Italian Drug Agency (AIFA) guidelines, observational studies using retrospective data or materials do not require formal approval by the local ethics committee. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pontone, S., Palma, R., Panetta, C. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection in elderly patients. Aging Clin Exp Res 29 (Suppl 1), 109–113 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-016-0661-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-016-0661-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation