Abstract
Approximately 7% of the polyps resected endoscopically have an adenocarcinoma focus, with no previous endoscopic evidence of malignancy. This raises the question of whether endoscopic resection has been curative. Furthermore, there is no consensus on what the endoscopic and histological criteria for good prognosis are, the appropriate follow-up strategy and what are the long-term results. The aim of the retrospective study by Fábián et al was to evaluate the occurrence of local relapse or distant metastasis in those tumors that were resected endoscopically compared to those that underwent oncologic surgery. They concluded that, regardless of the treatment strategy chosen, there was a higher recurrence rate than described in the literature and that adherence to follow-up was poor. The management approach for an endoscopically benign polyp histologically confirmed as adenocarcinoma depends on the presence of any of the previously described poor prognostic histological factors. If none of these factors are present and the polyp has been completely resected en bloc (R0), active surveillance is considered appropriate as endoscopic resection is deemed curative. These results highlight, once again, the need for further multicentric clinical practice studies to obtain more evidence for the purpose of establishing appropriate treatment and follow-up strategies.