Moons, Leon M.G.

ObjectivesThere have been significant advances in the management of large (≥20 mm) laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) or nonpedunculated colorectal polyps; however, there is a lack of clear consensus on the management of these lesions with significant geographic variability especially between Eastern and Western paradigms. We aimed to provide an international consensus to better guide management and attempt to homogenize practices.MethodsTwo experts in interventional endoscopy spearheaded an evidence‐based Delphi study on behalf of the World Endoscopy Organization Colorectal Cancer Screening Committee. A steering committee comprising six members devised 51 statements, and 43 experts from 18 countries on six continents participated in a three‐round voting process. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations tool was used to assess evidence quality and recommendation strength. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement (strongly agree or agree) on a 5‐point Likert scale.ResultsForty‐two statements reached consensus after three rounds of voting. Recommendations included: three statements on training and competency; 10 statements on preresection evaluation, including optical diagnosis, classification, and staging of LSTs; 14 statements on endoscopic resection indications and technique, including statements on en bloc and piecemeal resection decision‐making; seven statements on postresection evaluation; and eight statements on postresection care.ConclusionsAn international expert consensus based on the current available evidence has been developed to guide the evaluation, resection, and follow‐up of LSTs. This may provide guiding principles for the global management of these lesions and standardize current practices.

Abstract Background Current guidelines recommend endoscopic resection of visible and endoscopically resectable colorectal colitis-associated neoplasia (CAN) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, patients with high risk CAN are often not amenable to conventional resections techniques and a consensus approach for the endoscopic management of these lesions is presently lacking. This Delphi study aims to reach consensus amongst experts on the endoscopic management of these lesions. Methods A three-round modified Delphi process was conducted to reach consensus amongst worldwide IBD and/or endoscopy experts (n=18) from three continents. Experts were chosen based on the extensive clinical experience with IBD and/or EMR/ESD in patients with IBD, and the authorship on multiple peer-reviewed publications on CAN, the endoscopic resection of CAN and/or EMR/ESD. Consensus was considered if ≥ 75% agreed or disagreed. Quality of evidence was assessed by the criteria of the Cochrane Collaboration group. Results Consensus was reached on all statements (n=14). Experts agreed on a definition for CAN and high-risk CAN (HR-CAN). Consensus was reached on the examination of the colon with enhanced endoscopic imaging prior to resection, the endoscopic resectability of a HR-CAN lesion and endoscopic assessment and standard report of CAN lesions. In addition, experts agreed on type of resections of HR-CAN (< 20mm, >20 mm, with or without good lifting), endoscopic success (technical success and outcomes), histologic assessment and follow-up in HR-CAN. Conclusion This is the first step in developing international consensus-based recommendations for endoscopic management of (HR-)CAN. Although the quality of available evidence was considered low, consensus was reached on several aspects of the management of (HR-)CAN. The present work and proposed standardization might benefit future studies.