Recurrence after endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection for large sessile colorectal polyps

Table 1 Clinicopathologic characteristics of 47 patients with 50 large sessile polyps treated by endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection

Variable	n
Male/female	23/24
Mean age (range), yr	60 (27-78)
Mean polyp size (range), mm	30.1 (20-60)
Location
Cecum	2
Ascending	7
Hepatic flexure	6
Transverse	4
Splenic flexure	1
Descending	5
Sigmoid	6
Rectum	19
Histology
Benign (n = 34)
Tubular adenoma	20
Tubulovillous adenoma	7
Villous adenoma	1
Serrated adenoma	4
Hyperplastic	2
Malignant (n = 16)
Tis	11
T1	4
T2	1

Table 2 Clinical outcome of endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection for large sessile polyps

Variable	n
Median follow-up1 (range), mo	37 (3-72)
Median hospital stay2 (range), d	3 (1-5)
Complications
Bleeding (%)	6 (12)
Intraprocedural	5
Early	1
Delayed	0
Perforation	0
Recurrence (%)	5 (12.2)

¹2 patients lost to follow-up were excluded;

²Excluding 4 patients: 3 were not admitted and 1 underwent consecutive colonic resection.

Table 3 Characteristics of 5 patients with residual/recurrent lesions after initial endoscopic piecemeal resection (EPMR)

No.	Age/sex	Location	Size (mm)	Primary histology	Time to recurrence (mo)	Recurrent histology	Method of treatment	Follow-up (mo)
1	72/M	Cecum	40	Adenoma	3	Adenoma	EMR	25
2	65/M	Rectum	40	Carcinoma (Tis)	3	Carcinoma (T2)	LAR	16
3	78/F	Rectum	40	Carcinoma (T1)	3	Adenoma	EMR	51
4	64/F	Rectum	60	Carcinoma (T1)	14	Carcinoma (Tis)	LAR	42
5	49/M	Sigmoid	40	Carcinoma (T1)	3	HGD adenoma	AR	40

HGD: High grade dysplasia; EMR: Endoscopic mucosal resection; LAR: Low anterior resection; AR: Anterior resection.