Next Article in Journal
Modern Risk Stratification of Acute Myeloid Leukemia in 2023: Integrating Established and Emerging Prognostic Factors
Previous Article in Journal
Elevated Tumor Cell-Intrinsic STING Expression in Advanced Laryngeal Cancer
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 15
Issue 13
10.3390/cancers15133511
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Dilemmas in the Clinical Management of pT1 Colorectal Cancer

by
Diana Zaffalon
1,2,
Maria Daca-Alvarez
1,
Karmele Saez de Gordoa
3 and
María Pellisé
1,*
1
Gastroenterology Department, Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Hepáticas y Digestivas (CIBEREHD), Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Villarroel 170, 08036 Barcelona, Spain
2
Gastroenterology Department, Consorci Sanitari de Terrassa, Torrebonica, s/n, 08227 Terrassa, Spain
3
Pathology Department, Centre de Diagnostic Biomèdic, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Villarroel 170, 08036 Barcelona, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2023, 15(13), 3511; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15133511
Submission received: 18 May 2023 / Revised: 29 June 2023 / Accepted: 30 June 2023 / Published: 6 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Clinical Research of Cancer)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Population-based colorectal cancer screening programs have increased the incidence of pT1 colorectal cancer. These incipient invasive cancers have a very good prognosis and can be treated locally, but more than half of these cases are treated with surgery due to the presence of histological criteria associated with the presence of lymph node metastasis. Only 2–10.5% of those have lymph node metastasis, and the residual tumor is present in less than 20%, leading to overtreatment. Additional surgery increases the risk of morbidity and mortality, and recent evidence shows that it may not impact the prognosis for pT1. This article reviews the limitations of histological evaluation, treatment modalities and prognosis, adverse effects, and new possibilities of endoscopic treatment.

Abstract

Implementation of population-based colorectal cancer screening programs has led to increases in the incidence of pT1 colorectal cancer. These incipient invasive cancers have a very good prognosis and can be treated locally, but more than half of these cases are treated with surgery due to the presence of histological high-risk criteria. These high-risk criteria are suboptimal, with no consensus among clinical guidelines, heterogeneity in definitions and assessment, and poor concordance in evaluation, and recent evidence suggests that some of these criteria considered high risk might not necessarily affect individual prognosis. Current criteria classify most patients as high risk with an indication for additional surgery, but only 2–10.5% have lymph node metastasis, and the residual tumor is present in less than 20%, leading to overtreatment. Patients with pT1 colorectal cancer have excellent disease-free survival, and recent evidence indicates that the type of treatment, whether endoscopic or surgical, does not significantly impact prognosis. As a result, the protective role of surgery is questionable. Moreover, surgery is a more aggressive treatment option, with the potential for higher morbidity and mortality rates. This article presents a comprehensive review of recent evidence on the clinical management of pT1 colorectal cancer. The review analyzes the limitations of histological evaluation, the prognostic implications of histological risk status and the treatment performed, the adverse effects associated with both endoscopic and surgical treatments, and new advances in endoscopic treatment.

1. Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in Western countries and the second most frequent cause of cancer death for both sexes in Spain [1]. Endoscopic resection of CRC precursor lesions (polypectomy) decreases CRC incidence and mortality [2]. pT1 CRC is a tumor that generally grows inside a polyp and invades the muscularis mucosae but not beyond the submucosal layer. It represents the earliest stage of CRC. The incidence of T1 CRC is increasing due to screening programs, and 40% of all screen-detected cancers are stage T1 [3,4].
Polyps with intramucosal carcinoma do not metastasize because there are no lymphatic vessels above the muscularis mucosa. They are thus curable with endoscopic polypectomy. When the malignant cells penetrate the muscularis mucosa, the risk of lymphatic invasion and, therefore, of metastasis is believed to progressively increase as the tumor penetrates deeper into the submucosal layer. The optimal treatment for this type of lesion is controversial. Characteristically, the submucosa of the colon has few lymphatic vessels on the surface, which means that some incipient invasive cancers have a very good prognosis and can be treated locally. Thus, endoscopic resection of pT1 CRCs is an attractive option because it is more conservative in terms of organ preservation and is associated with lower morbidity, mortality, and costs than surgery. However, from an oncological point of view, this approach does not include the resection of the locoregional lymph nodes, and this would be a suboptimal treatment in patients with a significant probability of lymph node metastasis (LNM). Therefore, more than half of all cases of this early-stage cancer, potentially curable with endoscopic treatment, are treated with surgery in clinical practice, even though this is the treatment applied to the most advanced stages of CRC [3].
The ultimate decision on whether to proceed with additional surgery after primary endoscopic treatment for pT1 CRC is primarily based on histology. Current histological risk criteria for pT1 CRC are suboptimal, with no consensus among clinical guidelines. Moreover, recent evidence suggests that some of these criteria deemed high risk may not necessarily affect prognosis on their own. To our knowledge, no clinical trials have compared a wait-and-see strategy and secondary surgery after endoscopic resection. It must be taken into account that screening programs include healthy individuals and that the disease-free survival of patients with early-stage CRC is excellent, above 90% [5,6,7]. Using the current criteria, most patients are classified as high-risk, which leads to additional surgical treatment. This may reduce locoregional recurrence, lymphatic spread, and cancer-related death but also entails an increased risk of morbidity, mortality, and functional loss and added treatment-related costs that should be considered in the clinical scenario of early-stage cancer with a good prognosis.
In this review article, we analyze three of the many dilemmas regarding the clinical management of pT1 CRC.

2. Suboptimal Histological Criteria Lead to Overtreatment

The final treatment decision for pT1 CRC, namely, if additional surgery is required or not after primary endoscopic treatment, is primarily based on histology. The so-called histological high-risk factors are believed to confer an increased risk of LNM that ranges from 0.7% to 36.4% [8]. The factors associated with the presence of LNM vary among clinical guidelines. Currently, pT1 CRC with any of the following histological findings is considered high risk for LNM and is indicated for additional surgery: lymphovascular invasion (LVI), poorly differentiated histology (PD), presence of tumor budding (TB), positive vertical margin, or deep submucosal invasion (DSI).
There is consensus in the guidelines for three factors: PD, TB, and LVI. The other risk factors, DSI and positive vertical margin, are described in the guidelines, but recent evidence suggests that they should not be considered independent high-risk factors. The histological risk criteria according to the main clinical practice guidelines are summarized in Table 1 [9,10,11,12,13].

2.1. Risk Factors with Consensus

○
Lymphatic and/or vascular invasion: LVI is the risk factor most strongly correlated with LNM and poor outcome [14,15,16] but is also known for high interobserver variability [17]. LVI can be assessed using hematoxylin and eosin staining with or without immunohistochemistry. A meta-analysis reported a clear benefit of using immunohistochemistry for predicting LMN, with an increase in the detection of LVI from 14.3% to 35.7%, but it is used only in doubtful cases in clinical practice [18];
○
Poorly differentiated histology: Similar to LVI, PD is an established risk factor, with recent evidence suggesting that it is an independent risk factor associated with poor prognosis [16]. As with LVI, PD has high interobserver variability, with the lowest value of kappa (0.07) in a concordance study of histological assessment in pT1 CRC [19]. Due to highly variable reporting of the tumor grade according to the three-tiered system (G1–G3), the latest version of the WHO classification [20] recommends a two-tiered system, where G1 and G2 are combined as low grade and G3 is considered high grade. This change is based on the similar prognosis for G1 and G2 tumors and improved reproducibility. However, variability remains in how this new system is applied in clinical practice [21,22];
○
Tumor budding: Defined as a single tumor cell or cell cluster of four tumor cells or less extending at the invasive margin of the cancer. TB is an established predictor of LNM in pT1 CRC according to the guidelines [23]. Nevertheless, it is reported in less than 50% of published studies [22]. Also, TB and tumor grade are different concepts, and there is no consensus in the guidelines on the grade of TB that confers a worse prognosis.

2.2. Risk Factors without Consensus

○
Deep submucosal invasion: Recent evidence calls into question whether DSI confers a risk, given that it seems to not be an independent risk factor for LNM. A recent meta-analysis published by a Dutch T1 CRC group [24] that included 67 studies (21,238 patients) showed that DSI, as a solitary risk factor, only has an absolute risk of LNM of 2.6% and was not a significant predictor of LNM in a multivariable meta-analysis (odds ratio [OR], 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96–3.12), in contrast to a significant association of LNM with PD (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.39–3.28), high-grade TB (OR, 2.83; 95% CI, 2.06–3.88), and LVI (OR, 3.16; 95% CI, 1.88–5.33) (24). The authors concluded that DSI should be reconsidered as a strong indicator for oncological surgery;
○
Resection margin: A positive margin (R1) is considered a risk factor in most guidelines, although the definition of this item is controversial. The different definitions of an R1 margin include cancer that is within the diathermy margin, ≤0.1 mm from the margin, ≤1 mm from the margin, and ≤2 mm from the margin [22]. In addition, the definition of a positive margin may depend on the morphology (sessile or pedunculated polyp) [11,12,13]. The most common definition for R1 is <1 mm, based on studies showing a risk of residual disease of 6.1–21% [25], but recent evidence questions this suggestion, as it shows similar risk for residual disease in patients with resection margins between 0.1 mm (2.9%; 95% CI, 1.0–6.7%) and 1 mm (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.1–2.1%), in the absence of other histological risk factors [26].
Regarding the endoscopic resection technique, the risk of residual disease may be more strongly related to incomplete resection than margin status. Table 2 shows the risk of residual disease in patients with pT1 CRC treated by endoscopy with subsequent rescue treatment (surgery or local). Studies that report residual disease above 15% often have high rates of incomplete endoscopic resections (over 10%). Conversely, studies with lower residual disease values (0.6–8.2%) mostly exclude cases of incomplete resection. Additionally, the evaluation of the resection margin is influenced by the technique. Conventional polypectomy is usually confined to the superficial or middle submucosal layer and is usually fragmented when the polyp is greater than 20 mm. An indeterminate margin (Rx) is usually reported in fragmented resections, even if it is a complete resection. An Rx margin can be mistaken for an incomplete resection, with an indication for salvage surgery. A more conservative strategy would be close endoscopic surveillance, instead of additional surgery, in cases of a doubtful margin, but only if the endoscopic resection is considered complete and there are no other high-risk factors.
Suboptimal histological criteria have repercussions in clinical practice. By using the current clinicopathological criteria, 60–70% of pT1 CRC patients are classified as high risk, but the post-surgical pathological results show that only 2–10.5% have LNM and that residual tumor is present in less than 20% [6,27,28,29,30,31,32], which leads to overtreatment in more than 80% of cases. Associations between histological risk factors and the presence of LNM have been reported in several meta-analyses, with the limitation that they were based on retrospective studies with different definitions of histological risk factors [15,33]. Additionally, these factors can appear simultaneously, and it is, therefore, difficult to know the real weight of each individual one.
Current histopathological criteria have important limitations regarding their definitions, assessment, poor concordance, and lack of reproducibility. Davenport et al. reported a significant variation in the assessment of important prognostic parameters in pT1 CRC by four expert gastroenterology pathologists in the UK CRC screening program, with kappas ranging from 0.07 for tumoral differentiation to 0.15 for the Haggitt level, and 0.35 for LVI (poor to fair agreement) [19]. In the Dutch CRC screening cohort, a panel of experts reviewed pT1 CRC patients; discrepancies were identified in 53.0% of cases and could have led to alternative treatment approaches in 30.1% [17].
Table
Table 2. Risk of residual disease in patients with pT1 CRC treated with secondary surgery after endoscopic treatment. Retrospective study series.
Table 2. Risk of residual disease in patients with pT1 CRC treated with secondary surgery after endoscopic treatment. Retrospective study series.
AuthorYearNHistological Risk CriteriaResidual DiseaseEndoscopic ResectionResection Margin
Overwater
Dutch cohort
[6]		2018339High-risk histology52/339 (15.3%)Incomplete ER 39/339 (11.5%)NA
Richards
Scottish BSP cohort
[31]		2018186NA 141/186 (22%)Incomplete ER 189/485 (39%)NA
Eun Hye Oh
Korean cohort
[32]		2021464High-risk histology29/464 (6.8%)Incomplete ER 40/464 (8.6%)261/464 (56.3%) Rx/R1
29 cases of residual disease: Rx/R1
Levic
Danish CRC group
[28]		2019268NA (low and high risk, unknown proportion)22/268 (8.2%)Incomplete ER excluded22/218 (10%) Rx/R1
Yamaoka
Japanese cohort
[27]		2020244High-risk histology11/244 (4.5%)Incomplete ER excluded54/244 (22.1%) Rx/R1
Backes
Dutch cohort
[30]		2017358Low risk: 19 (13.6%)
High risk: 287 (58.8%)
Missing: 57		11/358 (3.1%)Incomplete ER excluded241/358 (67.3%) Rx/R1
Gijsbers
Dutch cohort 2
[26]		2022171Low risk:
No LVI
No PD		5/171 (2.9%)Incomplete ER excludedFree margin 0.1–1 mm
3512/351 (0.6%)Free margin > 1 mm
ER, endoscopic resection; NA, not assessed. 1. In these retrospective series based on the screening program, it can be hypothesized that patients undergoing secondary surgery meet high-risk histological criteria, but it is not specified. 2. In this cohort, the residual disease is defined as the presence of tumor tissue in the rescue treatment specimen and evidence of local recurrence during follow-up (median, 10 months).
The integration of digital pathology into clinical practice represents an opportunity to enhance histological risk assessment. By incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) for automated analysis, pathologist subjectivity could be reduced, leading to more objective results. Predictive models could also be a useful resource for individualized risk estimation. For example, Kudo et al. [34] developed a predictive model using machine learning that incorporates clinical, endoscopic, and histological variables. The model was found to more accurately predict the presence of LNM compared to traditional clinical guidelines. Another group from the US developed a predictive model that uses a microRNA signature in conjunction with histological criteria. This model enabled the reclassification of a high-risk cohort identified by conventional histological criteria, resulting in a reduction of truly high-risk patients from 100% to only 25%. This approach could have prevented overtreatment (additional surgery) in 92% of cases, reducing the need for only 18% of cases [35]. Both of these predictive models need to be validated in prospective cohorts.

3. CRC pT1 Survival Appears to Depend on Histology, Not Treatment

Traditionally, it has been believed that surgery prevents recurrence and reduces mortality associated with CRC but, taking into consideration the fact that the five-year overall disease-free survival rate for CRC T1 CRC is 94% [29], the potential benefit of surgery remains marginal and the protective role of surgery is questionable. The relevant clinical guidelines were based on retrospective studies focused on risk factors for LNM as the main outcome. Two recent meta-analyses focused on the most important outcomes: recurrence and survival (Table 3).
The meta-analysis by Antonelli et al. [36] obtained pooled incidences of recurrence and CRC-specific mortality of 9.5% (6.7–13.3%) and 3.8% (2.4–5.8%), respectively, for high-risk lesions and of 1.2% (0.6–2.5%) and 0.6% (0.2–1.7%) for low-risk lesions. The more recent meta-analysis by Dang et al. [37] that included 71 studies and 5167 endoscopically treated patients with pT1 CRC showed similar results: risk of recurrence after endoscopic treatment of 3.3%, with pooled incidences of CRC recurrence of 7.0% for high-risk T1 CRCs (4.9–9.9%) and 0.7% (0.4–1.2%) for low-risk T1 CRCs. Regarding CRC-specific mortality, the pooled incidence was 4.5% (95% CI, 3.2–6.3%) for high-risk status patients, with 40% of patients with recurrence dying from the disease. The results of these meta-analyses show a worse prognosis for histological risk status, despite the above-mentioned limitations of these criteria.
According to recent evidence, it is becoming clear that endoscopic treatment before surgery does not affect outcomes in high-risk patients regarding survival, recurrence, and postoperative complications [38,39], but it is unclear whether surgery reduces recurrence and mortality from pT1 CRC. Several studies suggest that recurrence and disease-free survival do not change with the treatment modality performed. In a recent meta-analysis by Yeh et al. [29], based on 17 retrospective studies with 19,979 patients, a median follow-up of 36 months, and the inclusion of cases with high-risk histological status, no significant differences were found between endoscopic resection and primary surgery in overall survival (79.6% vs. 82.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.10; 95% CI, 0.84–1.45), recurrence-free survival (96.0% vs. 96.7%; HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.87–1.88), or disease-specific survival (94.8% vs. 96.5%; HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.67–1.78).
Remarkably, patients with high-risk histology, who typically receive primary or secondary surgery due to their heightened risk of recurrence and mortality, do not appear to gain any significant advantages from this supplementary treatment. One potential reason for this could be that the likelihood of an unfavorable prognosis is more related to the aggressiveness of the tumor than to the treatment received. It is important to note that pT1 CRC has an excellent prognosis, and the infrequency of events, such as recurrence and mortality, can make it challenging to establish the efficacy of surgery in improving patient outcomes. Additionally, while surgery can be highly beneficial for certain selected patients, this subset of individuals is not as prevalent, resulting in a lower overall impact that may not be apparent in published studies. Long-term prospective follow-up studies with large sample sizes are needed to resolve this issue since recurrence and mortality secondary to pT1 CRC are very rare events.

4. Overtreatment Leads to a Higher Chance of Adverse Events

More than half of patients with CRC pT1 undergo surgical treatment. The estimated number of pT1 CRC treated with surgery, according to population screening programs in Europe, is 38–55% [5,7,31]. Also, the rates of surgery for non-malignant colorectal polyps have shown a significant increase over time, rising from 5.9 per 100,000 adults in 2000 to 9.4 per 100,000 adults in 2014, according to Peery et al. [40]. This trend can be extended in the case of malignant polyps.
In this clinical setting, healthy participants are diagnosed with a malignant polyp, which is potentially curable with local treatment. Nevertheless, the patient is more likely to end up in surgery, with all of the associated costs and risk of adverse events (AEs), a disheartening outcome in a previously healthy asymptomatic patient. Evidence shows that surgery has a higher risk of morbidity and mortality than endoscopy treatment [29]. It is difficult to compare AEs between the two treatment modalities because the only studies to report complications after endoscopic resection of pT1 CRC were retrospective, and there is wide variability in definitions. Perforation, bleeding, and post-polypectomy syndrome (PPES) are the most commonly reported AEs, and nearly no studies report complications related to sedation. Complications after the surgical treatment of pT1 CRC have been better studied.
In the Yeh et al. meta-analysis [29], a significantly lower proportion of patients who underwent primary endoscopic resection had procedure-related AEs (2.3%) compared with patients who underwent primary surgery (10.9%) (p < 0.01). AEs after the endoscopic treatment of pT1 CRC are shown in Table 4.
Regarding AEs after endoscopic treatment, the retrospective Van de Ven et al. study [41] specifically assessed this outcome. A 5.5% rate of AEs was reported. The most common AEs were postprocedural bleeding (3.7%), followed by perforation (1.2%) and PPES (0.6%). Compared to the incidence rates of AEs after the endoscopic resection of larger adenomas, the rates of postprocedural bleeding (4.7–10.9%) and perforation (1.2%) are similar [45]. It seems that there is no additional risk in the endoscopic resection of pT1 CRC compared with conventional adenomas.
AEs after the surgical treatment of pT1 CRC are summarized in Table 5. The rate of AEs (morbidity) after surgical treatment is around 20%, with rates of serious AEs (Clavien–Dindo ≥ III) of 8% and anastomotic leak of 4% [46]. Regarding mortality, Belderbos et al. [7] reported a 30-day mortality rate of 3.2% in patients undergoing initial surgical resection, which was significantly higher than that of endoscopic resection (1.4%) (p = 0.016). Indeed, the mortality rate after endoscopic treatment is reported to be zero in most published studies. Comparing surgery for pT1 cancer with that performed for more advanced CRC stages (T2–T3), the rates of complications, severe complications, and mortality are similar [46].
Multidisciplinary decision-making and individualized perioperative risk assessment are crucial in deciding which patients will benefit from surgical treatment. Multiple scales have been described that can help assess comorbidities and life expectancy prior to deciding on optimal treatment [47]. One of the most used is the Charlson Comorbidity Index. A study evaluating the results after endoscopic mucosal resection in elderly patients shows an age of more than 79 years and a Charlson index >3 were associated with shortened survival [48]. The modified frailty index is a simple score that can be useful in evaluating the degree of frailty and predicting the risk of postoperative AEs. This score has been evaluated in colorectal surgery, and frail patients (score of ≥2) had more risk of developing 30-day AEs: overall morbidity, mortality, prolonged length of hospital stay, non-home discharge, reoperation, and readmission but, more importantly had lower disease-free survival and overall survival rates [49]. Vermeer et al. [46] specifically evaluated factors associated with post-surgical AEs in pT1 CRC. Male sex, cardiac comorbidity, ASA grades III–IV, previous abdominal surgery, open approach, and subtotal colectomy were associated with an increased risk of severe complications. These findings were used to establish a risk stratification, and men with ASA grade III-IV undergoing right or left colectomy faced the highest risk of severe complications. When considering primary or additional oncological surgery for a patient with rectal pT1 that is accessible through local techniques, caution should be exercised, particularly in advanced-age men with high comorbidities, due to the high complication rates [46]. In the context of pT1 CRC, which is early-stage cancer with a favorable prognosis, it is important to consider local conservative treatments for frail patients who are at risk of experiencing post-surgical AEs. This consideration could be extended for fragile histological high-risk patients as well since the risk of complications may outweigh the risk of cancer mortality.
There are several methods to treat CRC locally and minimally invasively: polypectomy, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) [44,50], endoscopic intermuscular dissection (EID) [51], endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) [52,53], transanal microsurgery (TAMIS), and mixed local resections by laparoscopic and endoscopic procedures. Local excision using transanal microsurgery (TAMIS) carries a lower risk of morbidity, at just 11% [54,55], versus the 22% rate of severe complications [46] described for rectal surgery. If we compare endoscopic en bloc resection and local excision for pT1 CRC, there is still insufficient evidence to favor one option over the other. The two published meta-analyses [56,57] comparing ESD and transanal microsurgery found no differences between R0 or en bloc resection and the rate of AEs. The results of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (TRIASSIC) will provide more evidence in this regard [58].
Regarding developments in endoscopic treatments for pT1 CRC, the two emerging techniques are:
○
Endoscopic intermuscular dissection (EID): Involves dissection between the circular and longitudinal layers of the muscolaris propria for rectal tumors. In a prospective cohort study of 67 lesions, en bloc resection was possible in 96% of cases (95% CI, 89–99%), with R0 in 81% (95% CI, 70–89%). Eight AEs were reported (12%): six minor AEs treated conservatively, one case of delayed bleeding, and one of rectal stenosis that required dilatation [51];
○
Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR): With an over-the-scope device, this technique has emerged as a local treatment option for pT1 CRCs, with the possibility of en bloc transmural resection that allows for more accurate histological assessment [52,53]. It is currently used in daily practice as the primary treatment for pT1 tumors < 3 cm, with a technical success of 89%. It is also used as a rescue treatment for previous incomplete R1/Rx-resected pT1 and is technically feasible in 85%, with promising short-term results. Regarding AEs, eFTR has a similar rate of AEs and bleeding and a slightly higher perforation rate than conventional endoscopic resection techniques (Table 4) [53].
To our knowledge, no comparative studies have examined these new techniques and conventional endoscopic techniques and surgery in terms of safety and effectiveness. Long-term oncologic safety has not been established.

5. Conclusions and Future Directions

Future research efforts should focus on improving the quality of the histological evaluation of pT1 CRC, given that it is such an important part of the decision-making process regarding additional treatments. Histological risk factors could be redefined, based on recent evidence, particularly regarding submucosal invasion not being an independent risk factor and the consideration of a margin >0.1 as a free (R0) margin. Moreover, it is essential to improve concordance in histological evaluations, and AI may play a pivotal role in achieving this goal.
Due to the uncertainty regarding the protective benefits of surgery for high-risk patients, it is crucial to thoroughly assess the need for this treatment as a primary or additional measure on a case-by-case basis. In particular, it may be worth considering closer monitoring after endoscopic treatment in high-risk patients rather than opting for additional surgery in elderly patients with considerable comorbidities or for pT1 CRC located in the rectum, where local excision techniques may be a safer alternative with a lower risk of AEs. Advanced local endoscopic techniques are now available that represent organ-preserving procedures and permit complete resection while allowing better histological assessment. These techniques may offer a greater chance of achieving a curative R0 resection and reducing the risk of AEs in the future.
To advance the management of pT1 CRC, it is imperative to conduct long-term prospective follow-up studies with large sample sizes to resolve the existing dilemmas, especially randomized controlled trials that can compare the treatment strategies, such as surgery versus endoscopic treatment in high-risk patients, as well as evaluate the safety and oncological outcomes of the new endoscopic treatments.
We must acknowledge the limitations of histology and take a comprehensive approach by additionally considering demographic, clinical, endoscopic, and molecular factors when estimating the risk of pT1 CRC. To improve the management of the many clinical dilemmas of pT1 CRC, a multidisciplinary approach should be adopted for decision making. The incorporation of predictive models could further optimize the decision-making process in clinical settings.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.Z. and M.D.-A.; writing—original draft preparation, D.Z. and M.D.-A.; writing—review and editing, D.Z., M.D.-A., K.S.d.G. and M.P.; supervision, M.P.; project administration and funding acquisition, M.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PI19/01050) and Beca de la Marató de TV3 2020 (Beca la Marato—201932-30). Co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund/European Social Fund; “A way to make Europe”/”Investing in your future”. CIBERehd is funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest for the present review.

References

  1. Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Levin, T.R.; Corley, D.A.; Jensen, C.D.; Schottinger, J.E.; Quinn, V.P.; Zauber, A.G.; Lee, J.K.; Zhao, W.K.; Udaltsova, N.; Ghai, N.R.; et al. Effects of Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening on Cancer Incidence and Mortality in a Large Community-Based Population. Gastroenterology 2018, 155, 1383–1391.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Toes-Zoutendijk, E.; Kooyker, A.I.; Elferink, M.A.; Spaander, M.C.W.; Dekker, E.; De Koning, H.J.; Lemmens, V.E.; Van Leerdam, M.E.; Lansdorp-Vogelaar, I.; LECO working group. Stage distribution of screen-detected colorectal cancers in the Netherlands. Gut 2018, 67, 1745–1746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Logan, R.F.A.; Patnick, J.; Nickerson, C.; Coleman, L.; Rutter, M.D.; von Wagner, C.; English Bowel Cancer Screening Evaluation Committee. Outcomes of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England after the first 1 million tests. Gut 2012, 61, 1439–1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Grainville, T.; Bretagne, J.-F.; Piette, C.; Rousseau, C.; Bordet, M.; Cosson, M.; Lièvre, A. Management of T1 colorectal cancers detected at screening colonoscopy: A study from the French national screening programme. Dig. Liver Dis. 2020, 52, 909–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Overwater, A.; Kessels, K.; Elias, S.G.; Backes, Y.; Spanier, B.W.M.; Seerden, T.C.J.; Pullens, H.J.M.; van den Blink, A.; Offerhaus, G.J.A.; van Bergeijk, J.; et al. Endoscopic resection of high-risk T1 colorectal carcinoma prior to surgical resection has no adverse effect on long-term outcomes. Gut 2018, 67, 284–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Belderbos, T.D.; van Erning, F.N.; de Hingh, I.H.; van Oijen, M.G.; Lemmens, V.E.; Siersema, P.D. Long-term Recurrence-free Survival After Standard Endoscopic Resection Versus Surgical Resection of Submucosal Invasive Colorectal Cancer: A Population-based Study. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2017, 15, 403–411.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Ueno, H.; Mochizuki, H.; Hashiguchi, Y.; Shimazaki, H.; Aida, S.; Hase, K.; Matsukuma, S.; Kanai, T.; Kurihara, H.; Ozawa, K.; et al. Risk factors for an adverse outcome in early invasive colorectal carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2004, 127, 385–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Hashiguchi, Y.; Muro, K.; Saito, Y.; Ito, Y.; Ajioka, Y.; Hamaguchi, T.; Hasegawa, K.; Hotta, K.; Ishida, H.; Ishiguro, M.; et al. Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) guidelines 2019 for the treatment of colorectal cancer. Int. J. Clin. Oncol. 2020, 25, 1–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Argilés, G.; Tabernero, J.; Labianca, R.; Hochhauser, D.; Salazar, R.; Iveson, T.; Laurent-Puig, P.; Quirke, P.; Yoshino, T.; Taieb, J.; et al. Localised colon cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann. Oncol. 2020, 31, 1291–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hassan, C.; Wysocki, P.T.; Fuccio, L.; Seufferlein, T.; Dinis-Ribeiro, M.; Brandão, C.; Regula, J.; Frazzoni, L.; Pellise, M.; Alfieri, S.; et al. Endoscopic surveillance after surgical or endoscopic resection for colorectal cancer: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Digestive Oncology (ESDO) Guideline. Endoscopy 2019, 51, 266–277. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Benson, A.B.; Venook, A.P.; Al-Hawary, M.M.; Arain, M.A.; Chen, Y.J.; Ciombor, K.K.; Cohen, S.; Cooper, H.S.; Deming, D.; Farkas, L.; et al. Colon Cancer, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J. Natl. Compr. Canc. Netw. 2021, 19, 329–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Shaukat, A.; Kaltenbach, T.; Dominitz, J.A.; Robertson, D.J.; Anderson, J.C.; Cruise, M.; Burke, C.A.; Gupta, S.; Lieberman, D.; Syngal, S.; et al. Endoscopic Recognition and Management Strategies for Malignant Colorectal Polyps: Recommendations of the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2020, 159, 1916–1934.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Rönnow, C.F.; Arthursson, V.; Toth, E.; Krarup, P.M.; Syk, I.; Thorlacius, H. Lymphovascular Infiltration, Not Depth of Invasion, is the Critical Risk Factor of Metastases in Early Colorectal Cancer: Retrospective Population-based Cohort Study on Prospectively Collected Data, Including Validation. Ann. Surg. 2022, 275, e148–e154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ebbehøj, A.L.; Jørgensen, L.N.; Krarup, P.M.; Smith, H.G. Histopathological risk factors for lymph node metastases in T1 colorectal cancer: Meta-analysis. Br. J. Surg. 2021, 108, 769–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ozeki, T.; Shimura, T.; Ozeki, T.; Ebi, M.; Iwasaki, H.; Kato, H.; Inaguma, S.; Okuda, Y.; Katano, T.; Nishie, H.; et al. The Risk Analyses of Lymph Node Metastasis and Recurrence for Submucosal Invasive Colorectal Cancer: Novel Criteria to Skip Completion Surgery. Cancers 2022, 14, 822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Smits, L.J.H.; Vink-Börger, E.; Lijnschoten, G.; Focke-Snieders, I.; van der Post, R.S.; Tuynman, J.B.; Grieken, N.C.T.; Nagtegaal, I.D. Diagnostic variability in the histopathological assessment of advanced colorectal adenomas and early colorectal cancer in a screening population. Histopathology 2022, 80, 790–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ervine, A.J.; McBride, H.A.; Kelly, P.J.; Loughrey, M.B. Double immunohistochemistry enhances detection of lymphatic and venous invasion in early-stage colorectal cancer. Virchows Arch. 2015, 467, 265–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Davenport, A.; Morris, J.; Pritchard, S.A.; Salmo, E.; Scott, M.; Haboubi, N.Y. Interobserver variability amongst gastrointestinal pathologists in assessing prognostic parameters of malignant colorectal polyps: A cause for concern. Tech. Coloproctology 2016, 20, 647–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nagtegaal, I.D.; Odze, R.D.; Klimstra, D.; Paradis, V.; Rugge, M.; Schirmacher, P.; Washington, K.M.; Carneiro, F.; Cree, I.A.; the WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board. The 2019 WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Histopathology 2020, 76, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Rosty, C.; Webster, F.; Nagtegaal, I.D.; Dataset Authoring Committee for the development of the ICCR Dataset for Pathology Reporting of Colorectal Excisional Biopsy. Pathology Reporting of Colorectal Local Excision Specimens: Recommendations from the International Collaboration on Cancer Reporting (ICCR). Gastroenterology 2021, 161, 382–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gijsbers, K.; de Graaf, W.; Moons, L.M.; ter Borg, F. High practice variation in risk stratification, baseline oncological staging, and follow-up strategies for T1 colorectal cancers in the Netherlands. Endosc. Int. Open 2020, 08, E1117–E1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lugli, A.; Kirsch, R.; Ajioka, Y.; Bosman, F.; Cathomas, G.; Dawson, H.; El Zimaity, H.; Fléjou, J.F.; Hansen, T.P.; Hartmann, A.; et al. Recommendations for reporting tumor budding in colorectal cancer based on the International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC) 2016. Mod. Pathol. 2017, 30, 1299–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Zwager, L.W.; Bastiaansen, B.A.; Montazeri, N.S.; Hompes, R.; Barresi, V.; Ichimasa, K.; Kawachi, H.; Machado, I.; Masaki, T.; Sheng, W.; et al. Deep Submucosal Invasion Is Not an Independent Risk Factor for Lymph Node Metastasis in T1 Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Gastroenterology 2022, 163, 174–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hassan, C.; Zullo, A.; Risio, M.; Rossini, F.P.; Morini, S. Histologic Risk Factors and Clinical Outcome in Colorectal Malignant Polyp: A Pooled-Data Analysis. Dis. Colon Rectum 2005, 48, 1588–1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gijsbers, K.M.; van der Schee, L.; van Veen, T.; van Berkel, A.M.; Boersma, F.; Bronkhorst, C.M.; Didden, P.D.; Haasnoot, K.J.; Jonker, A.M.; Kessels, K.; et al. Impact of ≥ 0.1-mm free resection margins on local intramural residual cancer after local excision of T1 colorectal cancer. Endosc. Int. Open 2022, 10, E282–E290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Yamaoka, Y.; Imai, K.; Shiomi, A.; Kagawa, H.; Hino, H.; Yamakawa, Y.; Yamaguchi, T.; Kinugasa, Y.; Kishida, Y.; Ito, S.; et al. Endoscopic resection of T1 colorectal cancer prior to surgery does not affect surgical adverse events and recurrence. Surg. Endosc. 2020, 34, 5006–5016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Levic, K.; Bulut, O.; Hansen, T.P.; Gögenur, I.; Bisgaard, T. Malignant colorectal polyps: Endoscopic polypectomy and watchful waiting is not inferior to subsequent bowel resection. A nationwide propensity score-based analysis. Langenbeck’s Arch. Surg. 2019, 404, 231–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yeh, J.-H.; Tseng, C.-H.; Huang, R.-Y.; Lin, C.-W.; Lee, C.-T.; Hsiao, P.-J.; Wu, T.-C.; Kuo, L.-T.; Wang, W.-L. Long-term Outcomes of Primary Endoscopic Resection vs Surgery for T1 Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 18, 2813–2823.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Backes, Y.; Cappel, W.H.D.V.T.N.; van Bergeijk, J.; ter Borg, F.; Schwartz, M.P.; Spanier, B.W.M.; Geesing, J.M.J.; Kessels, K.; Kerkhof, M.; Groen, J.N.; et al. Risk for Incomplete Resection after Macroscopic Radical Endoscopic Resection of T1 Colorectal Cancer: A Multicenter Cohort Study. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2017, 112, 785–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Richards, C.; Ventham, N.; Mansouri, D.; Wilson, M.; Ramsay, G.; Mackay, C.; Parnaby, C.; Smith, D.; On, J.; Speake, D.; et al. An evidence-based treatment algorithm for colorectal polyp cancers: Results from the Scottish Screen-detected Polyp Cancer Study (SSPoCS). Gut 2018, 67, 299–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Oh, E.H.; Kim, N.; Hwang, S.W.; Park, S.H.; Yang, D.-H.; Ye, B.D.; Myung, S.-J.; Yang, S.-K.; Yu, C.S.; Kim, J.C.; et al. Comparison of long-term recurrence-free survival between primary surgery and endoscopic resection followed by secondary surgery in T1 colorectal cancer. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2021, 94, 394–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Dykstra, M.A.M.; Gimon, T.I.M.; Ronksley, P.E.; Buie, W.D.M.; MacLean, A.R.M. Classic and Novel Histopathologic Risk Factors for Lymph Node Metastasis in T1 Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Dis. Colon Rectum 2021, 64, 1139–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kudo, S.-E.; Ichimasa, K.; Villard, B.; Mori, Y.; Misawa, M.; Saito, S.; Hotta, K.; Saito, Y.; Matsuda, T.; Yamada, K.; et al. Artificial Intelligence System to Determine Risk of T1 Colorectal Cancer Metastasis to Lymph Node. Gastroenterology 2021, 160, 1075–1084.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wada, Y.; Shimada, M.; Murano, T.; Takamaru, H.; Morine, Y.; Ikemoto, T.; Saito, Y.; Balaguer, F.; Bujanda, L.; Pellise, M.; et al. A Liquid Biopsy Assay for Noninvasive Identification of Lymph Node Metastases in T1 Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2021, 161, 151–162.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Antonelli, G.; Vanella, G.; Orlando, D.; Angeletti, S.; Di Giulio, E. Recurrence and cancer-specific mortality after endoscopic resection of low- and high-risk pT1 colorectal cancers: A meta-analysis. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2019, 90, 559–569.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dang, H.; Dekkers, N.; le Cessie, S.; van Hooft, J.E.; van Leerdam, M.E.; Oldenburg, P.P.; Flothuis, L.; Schoones, J.W.; Langers, A.M.; Hardwick, J.C.; et al. Risk and Time Pattern of Recurrences After Local Endoscopic Resection of T1 Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-analysis. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 20, e298–e314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Nian, J.; Tao, L.; Zhou, W. Prior endoscopic resection does not affect the outcome of secondary surgery for T1 colorectal cancer, a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Color. Dis. 2021, 37, 273–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tian, Y.; Rong, L.; Ma, Y. Surgical resection after endoscopic resection in patients with T1 colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis. Int. J. Color. Dis. 2021, 36, 457–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Peery, A.F.; Cools, K.S.; Strassle, P.D.; McGill, S.K.; Crockett, S.D.; Barker, A.; Koruda, M.; Grimm, I.S. Increasing Rates of Surgery for Patients with Nonmalignant Colorectal Polyps in the United States. Gastroenterology 2018, 154, 1352–1360.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Van de Ven, S.E.M.; Backes, Y.; Hilbink, M.; Seerden, T.C.J.; Kessels, K.; de Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel, W.H.; Groen, J.N.; Wolfhagen, F.H.J.; Geesing, J.M.J.; Borg, F.T.; et al. Periprocedural adverse events after endoscopic resection of T1 colorectal carcinomas. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2020, 91, 142–152.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Watanabe, D.; Toyonaga, T.; Ooi, M.; Yoshizaki, T.; Ohara, Y.; Tanaka, S.; Kawara, F.; Ishida, T.; Morita, Y.; Umegaki, E.; et al. Clinical outcomes of deep invasive submucosal colorectal cancer after ESD. Surg. Endosc. 2018, 32, 2123–2130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kim, J.B.; Lee, H.S.; Lee, H.J.; Kim, J.; Yang, D.H.; Yu, C.S.; Kim, J.C.; Byeon, J.S. Long-Term Outcomes of Endoscopic Versus Surgical Resection of Superficial Submucosal Colorectal Cancer. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2015, 60, 2785–2792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. DEL Genio, G.; Lucido, F.S.; Gambardella, C. Technical aspects of endoscopic submucosal dissection (esd). from lateral to longitudinal dissection: A new approach to treat colonic tumors. Arq. de Gastroenterol. 2021, 58, 566–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Bronsgeest, K.; Huisman, J.F.; Langers, A.; Boonstra, J.J.; Schenk, B.E.; Cappel, W.H.D.V.T.N.; Vasen, H.; Hardwick, J.C.H. Safety of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas in the elderly. Int. J. Color. Dis. 2017, 32, 1711–1717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Vermeer, N.C.A.; Backes, Y.; Snijders, H.S.; Bastiaannet, E.; Liefers, G.J.; Moons, L.M.G.; Van De Velde, C.J.H.; Peeters, K.C.M.J.; the Dutch T1 Colorectal Cancer Working Group. National cohort study on postoperative risks after surgery for submucosal invasive colorectal cancer. BJS Open 2019, 3, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. D’Oria, O.; Golia D’Auge, T.; Baiocco, E.; Vincenzoni, C.; Mancini, E.; Bruno, V.; Chiofalo, B.; Mancari, R.; Vizza, R.; Cutillo, G. The role of preoperative frailty assessment in patients affected by gynecological cancer: A narrative review. Ital. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2022, 34, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Skouras, T.; Bond, A.; Gaglia, A.; Bonnett, L.; Lim, M.J.; Sarkar, S. Outcomes and adverse factors for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of colorectal polyps in elderly patients. Front. Gastroenterol. 2020, 12, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Alkhamis, A.; Warner, C.; Park, J.; Marecik, S.; Davis, N.; Mellgren, A.; Nordenstam, J.; Kochar, K. Modified frailty index predicts early outcomes after colorectal surgery: An ACS-NSQIP study. Color. Dis. 2019, 21, 1192–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Pimentel-Nunes, P.; Libânio, D.; Bastiaansen, B.A.J.; Bhandari, P.; Bisschops, R.; Bourke, M.J.; Esposito, G.; Lemmers, A.; Maselli, R.; Messmann, H.; et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal lesions: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline—Update 2022. Endoscopy 2022, 54, 591–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Moons, L.M.G.; Bastiaansen, B.A.J.; Richir, M.C.; Hazen, W.L.; Tuynman, J.; Elias, S.G.; Schrauwen, R.W.M.; Vleggaar, F.P.; Dekker, E.; Bos, P.; et al. Endoscopic intermuscular dissection for deep submucosal invasive cancer in the rectum: A new endoscopic approach. Endoscopy 2022, 54, 993–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Kuellmer, A.; Mueller, J.; Caca, K.; Aepli, P.; Albers, D.; Schumacher, B.; Glitsch, A.; Schäfer, C.; Wallstabe, I.; Hofmann, C.; et al. Endoscopic full-thickness resection for early colorectal cancer. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2019, 89, 1180–1189.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zwager, L.W.; Bastiaansen, B.A.J.; van der Spek, B.W.; Heine, D.N.; Schreuder, R.M.; Perk, L.E.; Weusten, B.L.A.M.; Boonstra, J.J.; van der Sluis, H.; Wolters, H.J.; et al. Endoscopic full-thickness resection of T1 colorectal cancers: A retrospective analysis from a multicenter Dutch eFTR registry. Endoscopy 2021, 54, 475–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Jones, H.J.S.; Hompes, R.; Mortensen, N.; Cunningham, C. Modern management of T1 rectal cancer by transanal endoscopic microsurgery: A 10-year single-centre experience. Color. Dis. 2018, 20, 586–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lee, L.; Burke, J.P.; deBeche-Adams, T.; Nassif, G.; Martin-Perez, B.; Monson, J.R.T.; Albert, M.R.; Atallah, S.B. Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery for Local Excision of Benign and Malignant Rectal Neoplasia: Outcomes From 200 Consecutive Cases with Midterm Follow Up. Ann. Surg. 2018, 267, 910–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. McCarty, T.R.; Bazarbashi, A.N.; Hathorn, K.E.; Thompson, C.C.; Aihara, H. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) versus transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for treatment of rectal tumors: A comparative systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg. Endosc. 2019, 34, 1688–1695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Sagae, V.M.T.; Ribeiro, I.B.; de Moura, D.T.H.; Brunaldi, V.O.; Logiudice, F.P.; Funari, M.P.; Baba, E.R.; Bernardo, W.M.; de Moura, E.G.H. Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus transanal endoscopic surgery for the treatment of early rectal tumor: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg. Endosc. 2020, 34, 1025–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Dekkers, N.; Boonstra, J.J.; Moons, L.M.G.; Hompes, R.; Bastiaansen, B.A.; Tuynman, J.B.; Koch, A.D.; Weusten, B.L.A.M.; Pronk, A.; Neijenhuis, P.A.; et al. Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of non-pedunculated rectal lesions (TRIASSIC study): Study protocol of a European multicenter randomised controlled trial. BMC Gastroenterol. 2020, 20, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Risk factors for lymph node metastasis according to international guidelines.
Table 1. Risk factors for lymph node metastasis according to international guidelines.
Lymphovascular InvasionDegree of DifferentiationSubmucosal InvasionResection MarginTumor Budding
JSCCR
2019 [9]		YesPoorly differentiated, signet ring or mucinous adenocarcinoma>1000 μm (T1b)Yes:
Positive vertical margin 1		Budding grade 2/3
NCCN
2021 [12]		YesPoorly differentiatedNot describedYes:
Positive type unspecified		Yes, suggested
Unspecified grade
ESMO
2020 [10]		YesPoorly differentiatedHaggit 4 (pedunculated)
No clear recommendation for sessile and flat lesions		No risk 2Budding grade 2/3
ESGE-ESDO
2019 [11]		YesPoorly differentiated≥1000 μm
Haggit 4 in pedunculated
SM2–3 in non-pedunculated		Yes:
Positive margin (<1 mm) or cannot be assesed		Intense tumor budding
Unspecified grade
ASGE 2020
[13]		YesPoorly differentiated>1000 μm in non-pedunculated
No risk in pedunculated		Yes:
Positive margin in non-pedunculated
<1 mm in pedunculated		Yes:
Unspecified grade
Only in non-pedunculated
1 Positive vertical margin is defined as carcinoma exposed at the submucosal margin of the resected specimen by JSCCR guidelines. 2. Positive resection margin (<1 mm) is considered only a risk for local recurrence in ESMO guidelines. Its recommended management comprises additional excision or local surveillance.
Table
Table 3. Endoscopic resection without complementary surgery and ≥12 months of follow-up.
Table 3. Endoscopic resection without complementary surgery and ≥12 months of follow-up.
AuthorHigh-Risk StatusLow-Risk StatusTotal
Antonelli
2019
[36]		5 studies
571 patients		7 studies
650 patients		8 studies
Recurrence
9.5% (6.7–13.3%)
Mortality from CRC
3.8% (2.4–5.4%)		Recurrence
1.2% (0.6–2.5%)
Mortality from CRC
0.6% (0.2–1.7%)		Recurrence
4.9%
Mortality from CRC
1.5%
Dang
2022
[37]		28 studies
1499 patients		36 studies
1023 patients		71 studies
5167 patients
Recurrence
7.0% (4.9–9.9%)
Mortality from CRC
4.5% (3.2–6.3%)		Recurrence
0.7% (0.4–1.2%)
Mortality from CRC
0.1% (0.0–0.7%)		Recurrence
3.3% (2.6–4.3%)
Mortality from CRC
1.7% (1.2–2.25%)
Table
Table 4. Adverse events (AEs) after the endoscopic treatment of T1 CRC in retrospective series.
Table 4. Adverse events (AEs) after the endoscopic treatment of T1 CRC in retrospective series.
AuthorYearNType of ERAll AEsBleedingPerforationPPES30-Day Mortality
Van de Ven
[41]		20201069EMR, ESD, snare resection59/1069 (5.5%)40/1069 (3.7%)13/1069 (1.2%)6/1069 (0.6%)0%
Levic
[28]		2019692Unknown21/692 (3%)18/692 (2.5%)2/692 (0.3%)NANA
Yamaoka
[27]		2020244EMR, ESD, snare resectionNANA3/244 (1.2%)NANA
Eun Hye Oh
[32]		2021464EMR, hybrid ESD, ESDNANA13/464
(2.8%)		NANA
Watanabe
[42]		2018110ESD7/110 1 (6.3%)2/110
(1.8%)		5/110
(4.5%)		NANA
Grainville
[5]		2020126Snare resection, EMR13/126 2
(10.3%)		11/126 (8.7%)1/126 (0.8%)NANA
Overwater
[6]		2018339Snare resection, EMR, ESD, TEM22/339 (6.5%)14/339 (4.1%)7/339 (2.1%)1/339 (0.3%)1/339 3 (0.3%)
Kim
[43]		201587EMR, ESD5/87
(5.7%)		NA2/87
(2.3%)		1/87
(1.1%)		NA
Belderbos
[7]		2017370Snare resection, EMRNANANANA5/370 (1.4%)
Zwager
[44]		2021320eFTR26/320 (8.1%)11/320
(3.4%)		11/320
(3.4%)		NA0%
eFTR, endoscopic full-thickness resection; EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; NA, not assessed; PPES, postpolypectomy electrocoagulation syndrome; TEM, transanal endoscopic microsurgery. 1 Only postoperative bleeding and perforation evaluated as adverse events. 2 Thirteen patients, with mild, moderate, and severe grades in 8, 3, and 2, respectively, according to ASGE (Cotton reference). 3 The only death associated with endoscopy (overwater) was related to a perforation, followed by a cardiovascular complication during emergency surgery.
Table
Table 5. Adverse events after the surgical treatment of T1 CRC in retrospective series.
Table 5. Adverse events after the surgical treatment of T1 CRC in retrospective series.
AuthorYearNType of SurgeryMortalityMorbidityMajor Morbidity (Clavien–Dindo ≥ III)Anastomotic Leak
Richards
[31]		2018186Colectomy + TEMS (4%)0%60/186 (32%)21/186 (11%)7/186 (3.8%)
Yamaoka
[27]		2020548ColectomyNA75/548 (13.7%)24/548 (4.4%)9/548 (1.6%)
Grainville
[5]		2020163Colectomy + local excision (7%)NA41/163 (25.1%)12/163 (7.4%)NA
Overwater
[6]		2018602Colectomy15/602 (2.5%)159/602 (26.4%) NA26/602 (4.3%)
Veermer
[46]		20195170Colectomy87/5170 (1.7%)1219/5170 (23.6%)427/5170 (8.3%)176/5170 (3.7%)
Levic
[28]		2019268Colectomy
Subsequent bowel resection		10/268 (3.7%)55/268 (20.5%)41/268 (15.3%)19/268 (7.1%)
Belderbos
[7]		2017725Colectomy23/725 (3.2%)NANANA
NA, not assessed; TEMS, transanal excision microsurgery.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zaffalon, D.; Daca-Alvarez, M.; Saez de Gordoa, K.; Pellisé, M. Dilemmas in the Clinical Management of pT1 Colorectal Cancer. Cancers 2023, 15, 3511. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15133511

AMA Style

Zaffalon D, Daca-Alvarez M, Saez de Gordoa K, Pellisé M. Dilemmas in the Clinical Management of pT1 Colorectal Cancer. Cancers. 2023; 15(13):3511. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15133511

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zaffalon, Diana, Maria Daca-Alvarez, Karmele Saez de Gordoa, and María Pellisé. 2023. "Dilemmas in the Clinical Management of pT1 Colorectal Cancer" Cancers 15, no. 13: 3511. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15133511

APA Style

Zaffalon, D., Daca-Alvarez, M., Saez de Gordoa, K., & Pellisé, M. (2023). Dilemmas in the Clinical Management of pT1 Colorectal Cancer. Cancers, 15(13), 3511. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15133511

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop