This media is currently not available.
Characteristics and outcomes of colorectal EMR in elderly and very elderly patients versus younger patients in the cradle of the Mediterranean diet
Poster Abstract

Aims

The evidence guiding the use of Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in elderly and very elderly patients remains limited. It’s known that the Mediterranean diet (MD) has healthy properties, and Cilento is an area in southern Italy, considered the cradle of the MD, with a high number of long-living individuals.

The primary outcome was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EMR in these patients. Furthermore, we aimed to identify specific variables correlated with age to contribute to a more tailored approach in this growing patient group, particularly in our geographic area.

Methods

We conducted a multicenter retrospective study analyzing 402 patients undergoing EMR for colorectal lesions ≥10 mm between January 2020 and April 2025. Patients were stratified into age groups: <65 vs ≥65 years, and <80 vs ≥80 years. Demographics, polyp characteristics, technical outcomes, histology, and adverse events were compared between groups. A subanalysis was performed to evaluate the outcomes for lesions ≥20 mm. Correlation analyses explored the associations between clinical, procedural, and histological variables.

Results

EMR achieved high technical success across all age groups, with complication rates of 2.4% in patients <65 years and 4.8% in those ≥65 years, and no perforations in any group. In patients aged 80 years or older, the prevalence of adenocarcinoma was significantly higher (10% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.043), and a moderate correlation was observed between lesion size and high-grade dysplasia/adenocarcinoma (r = 0.64). Younger patients more frequently underwent en bloc resection, while elderly patients presented with more complex lesions. Follow-up rates remained low across groups. 

 

Age < 65 y (n = 145)

Age ≥ 65 y (n= 257)

P value

Age < 80 y (n = 344)

Age ≥ 80 y (n= 58)

P value

Women

59 (40,7%)

85 (33,1%)

0.115

125 (36,3%)

18 (31,0%)

0.527

Mean age, y (Standard deviation)

55,7 (7,3)

 

74,2 (6,4)

< 0.001*

64,9 (9,7)

83,3 (3)

< 0.001*

Number of polyps

167

305

 

402

70

 

Location of polyps

 

 

0.983

 

 

0.958

Rectus

16 (9,6%)

28 (9,2%)

1.000

36 (9%)

8 (11,4%)

0.601

Sigma

62 (37,1%)

112 (36,8%)

0.956

146 (36,3%)

28 (40%)

0.493

Descending

18 (10,8%)

32 (10,5%)

1.000

43 (10,7%)

7 (10%)

1.000

Transverse

19 (11,4%)

34 (11,2%)

1.000

46 (11,4%)

7 (10%)

0.951

Ascending

35 (21%)

72 (23,7%)

0.467

93 (23,13%)

14 (20%)

0.763

Cecum

17 (10,2%)

26 (8,6%)

0.739

38 (9,5%)

6 (8,6%)

1.000

Pathology of polyps

 

 

0.195

 

 

0.076

Hyperplastic

27 (17,9%)

31 (11,5%)

0.077

20 (6,1%)

7 (11,7%)

0.160

Serrated

4 (2,6%)

11 (4,1%)

0.588

14 (4,0%)

1 (1,6%)

0.484

Adenomatous

115 (76,16%)

215 (79,6%)

0.459

284 (86,1%)

46 (76,7%)

0.079

Adenocarcinoma

5 (3,3%)

13 (4,8%)

0.617

12 (3,6%)

6 (10%)

0.043 *

Patients with follow-up examination

11 (7,6%)

23 (8,9%)

0.763

24 (7,1%)

3 (5,2%)

0.794

Conclusions

EMR is a safe and effective technique for removing colorectal polyps in elderly and very elderly patients, with complication rates and efficacy comparable to those in younger cohorts. Age alone should not preclude EMR. A comprehensive patient-centred assessment, including lesion characteristics, comorbidities, and life expectancy, optimises outcomes. Vigilant surveillance is recommended for elderly and very elderly patients, particularly for large lesions due to their higher malignant potential.