High-risk: 7.0% Low-risk: 0.7% BACKGROUND & AIMS:Growing numbers of patients with T1 CRC are being treated with local endoscopic resection only and as a result, the need for optimization of surveillance strategies for these patients also increases. We aimed to estimate the cumulative incidence and time pattern of CRC recurrences for endoscopically treated patients with T1 CRC. METHODS:Using a systematic literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library (from inception till 15 May 2020), we identified and extracted data from studies describing the cumulative incidence of local or distant CRC recurrence for patients with T1 CRC treated with local endoscopic resection only. Pooled estimates were calculated using mixed-effect logistic regression models. RESULTS:Seventy-one studies with 5167 unique, endoscopically treated patients with T1 CRC were included. The pooled cumulative incidence of any CRC recurrence was 3.3% (209 events; 95% CI, 2.6%-4.3%; I 2 [ 54.9%), with local and distant recurrences being found at comparable rates (pooled incidences 1.9% and 1.6%, respectively). CRC-related mortality was observed in 42 out of 2519 patients (35 studies; pooled incidence 1.7%, 95% CI, 1.2%-2.2%; I 2 [ 0%), and the CRC-related mortality rate among patients with recurrence was 40.8% (42/103 patients). The vast majority of recurrences (95.6%) occurred within 72 months of follow-up. Pooled incidences of any CRC recurrence were 7.0% for high-risk T1 CRCs (28 studies; 95% CI, 4.9%-9.9%; I 2 [ 48.1%) and 0.7% (36 studies; 95% CI, 0.4%-1.2%; I 2 [ 0%) for low-risk T1 CRCs. CONCLUSIONS:Our meta-analysis provides quantitative outcome measures which are relevant to guidelines on surveillance after local endoscopic resection of T1 CRC.

Background and Aims: To optimize therapeutic decision-making in early invasive colorectal cancer (T1 CRC) patients, it is important to elicit the patient's perspective next to considering medical outcome. Because empirical data on patient-reported impact of different treatment options are lacking, we evaluated patients' quality of life, perceived time to recovery, and fear of cancer recurrence after endoscopic or surgical treatment for T1 CRC. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we selected patients with histologically confirmed T1 CRC who participated in the Dutch Bowel Cancer Screening Programme and received endoscopic or surgical treatment between January 2014 and July 2017. Quality of life was measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment 30-item Core Quality of Life Questionnaire and the 5-level EuroQoL 5-dimension questionnaire. We used the Cancer Worry Scale (CWS) to evaluate patients' fear of cancer recurrence. A question on perceived time to recovery after treatment was also included in the set of questionnaires sent to patients. Results: Of all 119 eligible patients, 92.4% responded to the questionnaire (endoscopy group, 55/62; surgery group, 55/57). Compared with the surgery group, perceived time to recovery was on average 3 months shorter in endoscopically treated patients after adjustment for confounders (19.9 days vs 111.3 days; P Z .001). The 2 treatment groups were comparable with regard to global quality of life, functioning domains, and symptom severity scores. Moreover, patients in the endoscopy group did not report more fear of cancer recurrence than those in the surgery group (CWS score, 0-40; endoscopy 7.6 vs surgery 9.7; P Z .140). Conclusions: From the patient's perspective, endoscopic treatment provides a quicker recovery than surgery, without provoking more fear of cancer recurrence or any deterioration in quality of life. These results contribute to the shared therapeutic decision-making process of clinicians and T1 CRC patients. (Gastrointest Endosc 2019;89:533-44.)

Background: In the recent years two innovative approaches have become available for minimally invasive en bloc resections of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions (polyps and early cancers). One is Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS), the other is Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD). Both techniques are standard of care, but a direct randomised comparison is lacking. The choice between either of these procedures is dependent on local expertise or availability rather than evidence-based. The European Society for Endoscopy has recommended that a comparison between ESD and local surgical resection is needed to guide decision making for the optimal approach for the removal of large rectal lesions in Western countries. The aim of this study is to directly compare both procedures in a randomised setting with regard to effectiveness, safety and perceived patient burden.

Background T1 rectal cancer (RC) patients are increasingly being treated by local resection alone but uniform surveillance strategies thereafter are lacking. To determine whether different local resection techniques influence the risk of recurrence and cancer-related mortality, a meta-analysis was performed. Methods A systematic search was conducted for T1RC patients treated with local surgical resection. The primary outcome was the risk of RC recurrence and RC-related mortality. Pooled estimates were calculated using mixed-effect logistic regression. We also systematically searched and evaluated endoscopically treated T1RC patients in a similar manner. Results In 2585 unique T1RC patients (86 studies) undergoing local surgical resection, the overall pooled cumulative incidence of recurrence was 9.1% (302 events, 95% CI 7.3–11.4%; I2 = 68.3%). In meta-regression, the recurrence risk was associated with histological risk status (p < 0.005; low-risk 6.6%, 95% CI 4.4–9.7% vs. high-risk 28.2%, 95% CI 19–39.7%) and local surgical resection technique (p < 0.005; TEM/TAMIS 7.7%, 95% CI 5.3–11.0% vs. other local surgical excisions 10.8%, 95% CI 6.7–16.8%). In 641 unique T1RC patients treated with flexible endoscopic excision (16 studies), the risk of recurrence (7.7%, 95% CI 5.2–11.2%), cancer-related mortality (2.3%, 95% CI 1.1–4.9), and cancer-related mortality among patients with recurrence (30.0%, 95% CI 14.7–49.4%) were comparable to outcomes after TEM/TAMIS (risk of recurrence 7.7%, 95% CI 5.3–11.0%, cancer-related mortality 2.8%, 95% CI 1.2–6.2% and among patients with recurrence 35.6%, 95% CI 21.9–51.2%). Conclusions Patients with T1 rectal cancer may have a significantly lower recurrence risk after TEM/TAMIS compared to other local surgical resection techniques. After TEM/TAMIS and endoscopic resection the recurrence risk, cancer-related mortality and cancer-related mortality among patients with recurrence were comparable. Recurrence was mainly dependent on histological risk status. Graphical abstract

Endoscopic treatment of large laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) with a focus of submucosally invasive colorectal cancer (T1 CRC) can be challenging. We evaluated outcomes of a hybrid resection technique using piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (pEMR) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) in patients with large colonic LSTs containing suspected T1 CRC. Six hybrid pEMR-eFTR procedures for T1 CRCs were registered in a nationwide eFTR registry between July 2015 and December 2019. In all cases, the invasive part of the lesion was successfully isolated with eFTR; with eFTR, histologically complete resection of the invasive part was achieved in 5 /6 patients (83.3 %). No adverse events occurred during or after the procedure. The median follow-up time was 10 months (range 6–27), with all patients having undergone ≥ 1 surveillance colonoscopy. One patient had a small adenomatous recurrence, which was removed endoscopically. In conclusion, hybrid pEMR-eFTR is a promising noninvasive treatment modality that seems feasible for a selected group of patients with large LSTs containing a small focus of T1 CRC.