Local recurrence after endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection (EPMR) for colorectal tumors is a crucial issue. However, such recurrence is usually detected within one year and cured with additional endoscopic treatment, which makes EPMR acceptable. Herein, we report a rare case of repeatedly recurrent colon cancer involving the appendiceal orifice after EPMR, which was not cured with additional endoscopic treatments. A 67-year-old man was referred to us for endoscopic treatment of a 25 mm cecal tumor spreading to the appendiceal orifice in May 2002. The tumor was resected with EPMR, showing well differentiated intramucosal adenocarcinoma with a positive lateral cut margin of tubular adenoma. Endoscopic surveillance was conducted and the first local recurrence was detected in August 2006. Although we resected it endoscopically, the second local recurrence was found in September 2007 and we removed it with endoscopic resection again. However, the third local recurrence was detected in March 2008. Although endoscopic resection was performed also for the third recurrence, curative resection was not achieved. In February 2009, laparoscopic assisted colectomy was performed and histopathological examination showed well differentiated adenocarcinoma with deep submucosal invasion. This case is important in considering indication for endoscopic resection in colorectal tumors involving the appendiceal orifice.
Adenocarcinoma/*diagnosis/pathology/surgery ; Aged ; Appendiceal Neoplasms/complications ; Colectomy ; Colonic Neoplasms/*diagnosis/pathology/surgery ; Colonoscopy ; Humans ; Intestinal Mucosa/pathology ; Male ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local ; Recurrence

Background/Aims: The accurate assessment of the depth of invasion of early gastric cancer (EGC) is critical to determine the most appropriate treatment option. However, it is difficult to distinguish shallow submucosal (SM1) invasion from deeper submucosal (SM2) invasion. We investigated the diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) using a miniature probe for EGC with suspected SM invasion. Methods: From April 2008 to June 2018, EGCs with suspected SM invasion were analyzed retrospectively. The EGCs examined by a 20 MHz high-frequency miniature probe was included in our study. Esophago-gastric junction cancers and patients treated by chemotherapy before resection were excluded. The sensitivity and specificity for the detection of SM2 invasion by EUS were compared with those of white light imaging (WLI).Additionally, factors related to depth underestimation or overestimation were investigated using multivariate analysis. Results: A total of 278 EGCs in 259 patients were included in the final analysis. The sensitivity and specificity for SM2 or deeper by EUS were 73.7% (87/118) and 74.4% (119/160), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity by WLI were 47.5% (56/118) and 68.1% (109/160), respectively. The sensitivity of EUS was significantly superior to that of conventional endoscopy (p<0.01). Multivariate analysis revealed that an anterior location of the EGC was an independent risk factor for underestimation by EUS (odds ratio, 3.3; 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 9.8; p=0.03). Conclusions The depth diagnostic performance for EGCs with suspected SM invasion using EUS was satisfactory and superior to that of conventional endoscopy. Additionally, it is important to recognize factors that may lead to misdiagnosis in thoselesions.