Efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Curriculum for training in endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the standard of care for the complete removal of large (≥ 10 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs). Increased detection of LNPCPs owing to screening colonoscopy, plus high observed rates of incomplete resection and need for surgery call for a standardized approach to training in EMR. 1 : Trainees in EMR should have achieved basic competence in diagnostic colonoscopy, < 10-mm polypectomy, pedunculated polypectomy, and common methods of gastrointestinal endoscopic hemostasis. The role of formal training courses is emphasized. Training may then commence in vivo under the direct supervision of a trainer. 2 : Endoscopy units training endoscopists in EMR should have specific processes in place to support and facilitate training. 3: A trained EMR practitioner should have mastered theoretical knowledge including how to assess an LNPCP for risk of submucosal invasion, how to interpret the potential difficulty of a particular EMR procedure, how to decide whether to remove a particular LNPCP en bloc or piecemeal, whether the risks of electrosurgical energy can be avoided for a particular LNPCP, the different devices required for EMR, management of adverse events, and interpretation of reports provided by histopathologists. 4: Trained EMR practitioners should be familiar with the patient consent process for EMR. 5: The development of endoscopic non-technical skills (ENTS) and team interaction are important for trainees in EMR. 6: Differences in recommended technique exist between EMR performed with and without electrosurgical energy. Common to both is a standardized technique based upon dynamic injection, controlled and precise snare placement, safety checks prior to the application of tissue transection (cold snare) or electrosurgical energy (hot snare), and interpretation of the post-EMR resection defect. 7: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to manage adverse events associated with EMR including intraprocedural bleeding and perforation, and post-procedural bleeding. Delayed perforation should be avoided by correct interpretation of the post-EMR defect and treatment of deep mural injury. 8: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to communicate EMR procedural findings to patients and provide them with a plan in case of adverse events after discharge and a follow-up plan. 9: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to detect and interrogate a post-endoscopic resection scar for residual or recurrent adenoma and apply treatment if necessary. 10: Prior to independent practice, a minimum of 30 EMR procedures should be performed, culminating in a trainer-guided assessment of competency using a validated assessment tool, taking account of procedural difficulty (e. g. using the SMSA polyp score). 11: Trained practitioners should log their key performance indicators (KPIs) of polypectomy during independent practice. A guide for target KPIs is provided in this document.

Rectal neuroendocrine tumours and the role of emerging endoscopic techniques

Rectal neuroendocrine tumours represent a rare colorectal tumour with a 10 fold increased prevalence due to incidental detection in the era of colorectal screening. Patient outcomes with early diagnosis are excellent. However endoscopic recognition of this lesion is variable and misdiagnosis can result in suboptimal endoscopic resection with subsequent uncertainty in relation to optimal long-term management. Endoscopic techniques have shown particular utility in managing this under-recognized neuroendocrine tumour.

Underwater versus conventional EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Underwater EMR (UEMR) is an alternative procedure to conventional EMR (CEMR) to treat large, nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (LNPCLs). In this multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of UEMR versus CEMR on LNPCLs.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial from February 2018 to February 2020 in 11 hospitals in Spain. A total of 298 patients (311 lesions) were randomized to the UEMR (n = 149) and CEMR (n = 162) groups. The main outcome was the lesion recurrence rate in at least 1 follow-up colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included technical aspects, en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rates, and adverse events, among others.

RESULTS

There were no differences in the overall recurrence rate (9.5% UEMR vs 11.7% CEMR; absolute risk difference, -2.2%; 95% CI, -9.4 to 4.9). However, considering polyp sizes between 20 and 30 mm, the recurrence rate was lower for UEMR (3.4% UEMR vs 13.1% CEMR; absolute risk difference, -9.7%; 95% CI, -19.4 to 0). The R0 resection showed the same tendency, with significant differences favoring UEMR only for polyps between 20 and 30 mm. Overall, UEMR was faster and easier to perform than CEMR. Importantly, the techniques were equally safe.

CONCLUSIONS

UEMR is a valid alternative to CEMR for treating LNPCLs and could be considered the first option of treatment for lesions between 20 and 30 mm due to its higher en bloc and R0 resection rates. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03567746.).

Adverse events of endoscopic full-thickness resection: results from the German and Dutch nationwide colorectal FTRD registry

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is emerging as a minimally invasive alternative to surgery for complex colorectal lesions. Previous studies have demonstrated favorable safety results; however, large studies representing a generalizable estimation of adverse events (AEs) are lacking. Our aim was to provide further insight in AEs after eFTR.

METHODS

Data from all registered eFTR procedures in the German and Dutch colorectal full-thickness resection device registries between July 2015 and March 2021 were collected. Safety outcomes included immediate and late AEs.

RESULTS

Of 1892 procedures, the overall AE rate was 11.3% (213/1892). No AE-related mortality occurred. Perforations occurred in 2.5% (47/1892) of all AEs, 57.4% (27/47) of immediate AEs, and 42.6% (20/47) of delayed AEs. Successful endoscopic closure was achieved in 29.8% of cases (13 immediate and 1 delayed), and antibiotic treatment was sufficient in 4.3% (2 delayed). The appendicitis rate for appendiceal lesions was 9.9% (13/131), and 46.2% (6/13) could be treated conservatively. The severe AE rate requiring surgery was 2.2% (42/1892), including delayed perforations in .9% (17/1892) and immediate perforations in .7% (13/1892). Delayed perforations occurred between days 1 and 10 (median, 2) after eFTR, and 58.8% (10/17) were located on the left side. Other severe AEs were appendicitis (.4%, 7/1892), luminal stenosis (.1%, 2/1892), delayed bleeding (.1%, 1/1892), pain after eFTR close to the dentate line (.1%, 1/1892), and grasper entrapment in the clip (.1%, 1/1892).

CONCLUSIONS

Colorectal eFTR is a safe procedure with a low risk for severe AEs in everyday practice and without AE-related mortality. These results further support the position of eFTR as an established minimally invasive technique for complex colorectal lesions.

Evolution of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) technique and the reduced recurrence of large colonic polyps from 2012 to 2020

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an effective method for removing non-pedunculated polyps ≥ 20 mm. We aimed to examine changes in EMR techniques over a 9-year period and evaluate frequency of histologic-confirmed recurrence.

METHODS

We identified patients who underwent EMR of non-pedunculated polyps ≥ 20 mm at a safety net and the Veteran's Affairs (VA) hospital in Houston, Texas between 2012 and 2020. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations with recurrence risk were estimated using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

461 unique patients were included. The histologic-confirmed recurrence was 29.0% at 15.6 months median follow up (IQR 12.3 - 17.4). Polyps removed between 2018 and 2020 had a 0.43 decreased odds of recurrence vs. polyps removed between 2012 and 2014. The use of viscous lifting agents increased over time (from 0 to 54%), and the use of saline was associated with increased risk of recurrence (OR 2.28 [CI 1.33 - 3.31]).

CONCLUSIONS

Histologic-confirmed recurrence after EMR for non-pedunculated polyps ≥ 20 mm decreased over the seven year-period. Saline was associated with a higher risk of recurrence and the use of more viscous agents increased over time.

Protocol design for randomized clinical trial to compare underwater cold snare polypectomy to conventional cold snare polypectomy for non-pedunculated colon polyps of size 5-10 mm (COLDWATER study)

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is internationally the third leading cause of death from a malignant disease. The aim of screening colonoscopy in adults > 45 years of age is early diagnosis and treatment of precancerous polyps. Endoscopic polyp removal (polypectomy) can be achieved with various techniques depending on the size, morphology, and location of the polyp. According to current guidelines, small non-pedunculated polyps should be removed with a cold snare after the colorectal lumen has been insufflated with air (conventional cold snare polypectomy).In recent years, several studies have described the benefits of water aided colonoscopy, as well as the safety and efficacy of underwater cold snare polypectomy for large colon polyps. However, there are insufficient data on conventional and underwater techniques for small polyps, the most commonly diagnosed colorectal polyps.

METHODS

We have designed a prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial to compare the safety and efficacy of conventional and underwater cold snare polypectomy for non-pedunculated polyps 5-10 mm in size. A total of 398 polyps will be randomized. Randomization will be carried out using the random numbers method of Microsoft Excel 2016. The primary endpoint is the muscularis mucosa resection rate. Secondary endpoints are the depth and percentage of R0 excisions, complications, and the recurrence rate at follow-up endoscopy 6-12 months after polypectomy.

DISCUSSION

We hypothesize underwater polypectomy will result in a higher muscularis mucosa resection rate. The results of our study will provide useful data for the development of guidelines in polypectomy techniques for non-pedunculated polyps 5-10 mm in size.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05273697.

Endoscopic management of patients with high-risk colorectal colitis-associated neoplasia: a Delphi study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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 (HR-CAN) are often not amenable to conventional resection techniques, and a consensus approach for the endoscopic management of these lesions is presently lacking. This Delphi study aims to reach consensus among experts on the endoscopic management of these lesions.

METHODS

A 3-round modified Delphi process was conducted to reach consensus among worldwide IBD and/or endoscopy experts (n = 18) from 3 continents. 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 HR-CAN. Consensus was reached on the examination of the colon with enhanced endoscopic imaging before resection, the endoscopic resectability of an HR-CAN lesion, and endoscopic assessment and standard report of CAN lesions. In addition, experts agreed on type of resections of HR-CAN (< 20 mm, >20 mm, with or without good lifting), endoscopic success (technical success and outcomes), histologic assessment, and follow-up in HR-CAN.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first step in developing international consensus-based recommendations for endoscopic management of CAN and HR-CAN. Although the quality of available evidence was considered low, consensus was reached on several aspects of the management of CAN and HR-CAN. The present work and proposed standardization might benefit future studies.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection techniques and technology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review

ESGE suggests conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD; marking and mucosal incision followed by circumferential incision and stepwise submucosal dissection) for most esophageal and gastric lesions. ESGE suggests tunneling ESD for esophageal lesions involving more than two-thirds of the esophageal circumference. ESGE recommends the pocket-creation method for colorectal ESD, at least if traction devices are not used. The use of dedicated ESD knives with size adequate to the location/thickness of the gastrointestinal wall is recommended. It is suggested that isotonic saline or viscous solutions can be used for submucosal injection. ESGE recommends traction methods in esophageal and colorectal ESD and in selected gastric lesions. After gastric ESD, coagulation of visible vessels is recommended, and post-procedural high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (or vonoprazan). ESGE recommends against routine closure of the ESD defect, except in duodenal ESD. ESGE recommends corticosteroids after resection of  > 50 % of the esophageal circumference. The use of carbon dioxide when performing ESD is recommended. ESGE recommends against the performance of second-look endoscopy after ESD. ESGE recommends endoscopy/colonoscopy in the case of significant bleeding (hemodynamic instability, drop in hemoglobin > 2 g/dL, severe ongoing bleeding) to perform endoscopic hemostasis with thermal methods or clipping; hemostatic powders represent rescue therapies. ESGE recommends closure of immediate perforations with clips (through-the-scope or cap-mounted, depending on the size and shape of the perforation), as soon as possible but ideally after securing a good plane for further dissection.

Impact of margin ablation after EMR of large nonpedunculated colonic polyps in routine clinical practice

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Owing to its simplicity, effectiveness, and safety, EMR is the preferred treatment for the majority of large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colonic polyps (LNPCPs); however, residual and recurrent adenomas (RRAs) encountered during surveillance constitute a major limitation. Thermal ablation of the post-EMR mucosal defect margin has been shown to be highly efficacious in reducing RRA in a randomized trial setting, but data on effectiveness in clinical practice are scarce. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of this technique for reducing RRAs in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

We analyzed data collected in 3 hospitals in Israel: Prospective data were available in 2 hospitals where margin thermal ablation with snare-tip soft coagulation (STSC) is routinely performed after EMR of LNPCP (TA-EMR). Only retrospective data were available from the third center, which exclusively did not perform STSC (standard EMR] [S-EMR]), during the study period. Surveillance was performed 4 to 6 months after resection. RRA was assessed endoscopically with high-definition white light and optical chromoendoscopy. The primary endpoint was RRA at first surveillance colonoscopy.

RESULTS

Data from 764 patients with 824 LNPCPs were analyzed. The patient and lesion characteristics were similar between the groups. Four hundred sixty-four LNPCPs were treated by TA-EMR and 360 LNPCPs by S-EMR. RRA at first surveillance colonoscopy was detected in 14 (3.6%) of lesions in the TA-EMR group compared with 96 (31.6%) in the S-EMR group (P < .001; RR = .14; 95% CI, .07-.29). Adverse events were comparable between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

TA-EMR leads to a significant reduction in post-EMR recurrence in routine clinical practice.

Endoluminal management of colon perforations during advanced endoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND

Advanced endoscopic procedures are gaining attraction despite a steep learning curve, need for high dexterity, and potential complications. Colonic perforation is the most concerning adverse event during advanced endoscopic procedures. This study presents our experience on endoluminal management of iatrogenic colonic perforations.

METHODS

Patients who underwent advanced endoscopic procedures at a quaternary center from 2016 to 2021 were identified. Patients who had colonic perforations during advanced procedures and treated with endoscopic closure/clipping were included. Retrospective chart review was performed. Figures represent frequency (proportion) or median (interquartile range/range).

RESULTS

There were 22 (2.3%) immediate colonic perforations treated with endoscopic clipping out of 964 advanced endoscopic resections. The median age was 64 (interquartile range = 57-71) years and 50% of the patients were female; 16 (73%) resections were proximal to the splenic flexure. Median polyp size was 36 (20-55) mm. Closure was performed with endoscopic clips in 18 (82%) patients, and over-the-scope clips in 4 patients. Median hospital stay was 0.8 (0-4) days, and 13 (59%) patients were discharged the same day; 2 patients were admitted to the emergency department ≤24 hours of procedure. They underwent subsequent laparoscopic suture repair the same day. No one had segmental colon resection, and there were no complications within postoperative 30 days. Pathology revealed 9 (41%) tubular adenomas, 7 (32%) tubulovillous adenomas, 6 (27%) sessile serrated lesions, and no adenocarcinoma. No recurrence was observed with median follow-up of 24 months (range = 0-90 months).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic management is an effective treatment approach for the management of iatrogenic colonic perforations.

Underwater versus conventional EMR for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) is the standard modality for removing nonpedunculated colorectal lesions. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has emerged as an alternative method. There are few comparative studies between these techniques, especially evaluating recurrence. Therefore, the purpose of this trial was to compare CEMR and UEMR for the resection of colorectal lesions with respect to efficacy, safety, and recurrence rate.

METHODS

This was a randomized controlled trial of UEMR versus CEMR for naïve and nonpedunculated lesions measuring between 10 and 40 mm. The primary outcome was adenoma recurrence at 6 months after the resection. Secondary outcomes were rates of technical success, en bloc resection, and adverse events. Block randomization was used to assign patients. Tattooing was performed to facilitate localization of the scars and eventual recurrences. Endoscopic follow-up was scheduled at 6 months after the procedure. The sites of resections were examined with white-light imaging, narrow-band imaging (NBI), and conventional chromoscopy with indigo carmine followed by biopsies.

RESULTS

One hundred five patients with 120 lesions were included, with a mean size of 17.5 ± 7.1 (SD) mm. Sixty-one lesions were resected by UEMR and 59 by CEMR. The groups were similar at baseline regarding age, sex, average size, and histologic type. Lesions in the proximal colon in the CEMR group corresponded to 83% and in the UEMR group to 67.8% (P = .073). There was no difference between groups regarding success rate (1 failure in each group) and en bloc resection rate (60.6% UEMR vs 54.2% CEMR, P = .48). Intraprocedural bleeding was observed in 5 CEMRs (8.5%) and 2 UEMRs (3.3%) (P = .27). There was no perforation or delayed hemorrhage in either groups. Recurrence rate was higher in the CEMR arm (15%) than in the UEMR arm (2%) (P = .031). Therefore, the relative risk of 6-month recurrence rate in the CEMR group was 7.5-fold higher (95% CI, 0.98-58.20), with a number needed to treat of 7.7 (95% CI, 40.33-4.22). The higher recurrence rate in the CEMR group persisted only for lesions measuring 21 to 40 mm (35.7% vs 0%; P = .04).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that UEMR was associated with a lower adenoma recurrence rate than was CEMR. Both endoscopic techniques were effective and had similar rates of adverse events for the treatment of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions.

Effectiveness of prophylactic clipping in preventing postpolypectomy bleeding in aspirin users: a propensity-score analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Antithrombotic use is a significant risk factor of postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB). Evidence of prophylactic clipping is only available for proximal and large colonic lesions in the general population. Dedicated studies to examine the benefit of prophylactic clipping in patients on aspirin remain scarce.

METHODS

A propensity score-weighted retrospective cohort study was performed in a tertiary referral center from January 2018 to September 2021. Patients who received aspirin and underwent colonoscopic polypectomy, EMR, or endoscopic submucosal dissection were included. Data on baseline demographics, medications, and endoscopic factors (polyp number, size, location, and morphology; resection method; and prophylactic clipping) were captured. Propensity score-weighted models were developed between prophylactic clipping and no clipping groups. The primary outcome was delayed PPB within 30 days, with a composite endpoint consisting of repeated colonoscopy for hemostasis, requirement of blood transfusion, or hemoglobin drop >2 g/dL.

RESULTS

A total of 1373 patients with 3952 polyps were included. Baseline characteristics were balanced between the 2 groups. In the multivariate analysis, the largest polyp size was a significant risk factor for PPB (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.11; P = .002). Prophylactic clipping was not associated with a reduced risk of PPB (odds ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, .83-2.18; P = .240) and did not show any risk reduction in subgroups with different polyp sizes and locations and endoscopic resection techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clipping was not associated with a lower risk of PPB in aspirin users after endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps. Aspirin use should not be regarded as the only factor for the routine use of prophylactic clips.

The Surface Morphology of Large Nonpedunculated Colonic Polyps Predicts Synchronous Large Lesions

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) may have synchronous LNPCPs in up to 18% of cases. The nature of this relationship has not been investigated. We aimed to examine the relationship between individual LNPCP characteristics and synchronous colonic LNPCPs.

METHODS

Consecutive patients referred for resection of LNPCPs over 130 months until March 2022 were enrolled. Serrated lesions and mixed granularity LNPCPs were excluded from analysis. Patients with multiple LNPCPs resected were identified, and the largest was labelled as dominant. The primary outcome was the identification of individual lesion characteristics associated with the presence of synchronous LNPCPs.

RESULTS

There were 3149 of 3381 patients (93.1%) who had a single LNPCP. In 232 (6.9%) a synchronous lesion was detected. Solitary lesions had a median size of 35 mm with a predominant Paris 0-IIa morphology (42.9%) and right colon location (59.5%). In patients with ≥2 LNPCPs, the dominant lesion had a median size of 40 mm, Paris 0-IIa (47.6%) morphology, and right colon location (65.9%). In this group, 35.8% of dominant LNPCPs were non-granular compared with 18.7% in the solitary LNPCP cohort. Non-granular (NG)-LNPCPs were more likely to demonstrate synchronous disease, with left colon NG-LNPCPs demonstrating greater risk (odds ratio, 4.78; 95% confidence interval, 2.95-7.73) than right colon NG-LNPCPs (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-2.86).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that 6.9% of LNPCPs have synchronous disease, with NG-LNPCPs demonstrating a greater than 4-fold increased risk. With post-colonoscopy interval cancers exceeding 5%, endoscopists must be cognizant of an individual's LNPCP phenotype when examining the colon at both index procedure and surveillance.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, NCT01368289; NCT02000141; NCT02198729.

Current status of endoscopic full-thickness resection with the full-thickness resection device

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) is an integral part of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy. Since its market launch in Europe in 2014, its safety and effectiveness have been proven in numerous studies. Adaptations in design as well as new techniques, such as hybrid EFTR, expand the spectrum of the FTRD system. The following review is intended to provide an overview of the clinical application and current evidence of EFTR with the FTRD system.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the Colon and Rectum: Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes

Multimodal assessment of colorectal polyps is needed before decision-making for endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Assessment should include morphology according to Paris classification, magnification endoscopy for vascular pattern, and Kudo pit pattern analysis. ESD should be offered to patients that have Vi pit pattern, lateral spreading tumors (LST) granular multinodular and LST nongranular, lesions with fibrosis and those in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. A defined strategy for resection and planning is crucial for successful and efficient resection with a clear audit of outcomes aiming for a perforation and bleeding rate of less than 1% and R0 resection greater than 90%.

How to avoid overtreatment of benign colorectal lesions: Rationale for an evidence-based management

Implementing population-based screening programs for colorectal cancer has led to an increase in the detection of large but benign histological lesions. Currently, endoscopic mucosal resection can be considered the standard technique for the removal of benign lesions of the colon due to its excellent safety profile and good clinical results. However, several studies from different geographic areas agree that many benign colon lesions are still referred for surgery. Moreover, the referral rate to surgery is not decreasing over the years, despite the theoretical improvement of endoscopic resection techniques. This article will review the leading causes for benign colorectal lesions to be referred for surgery and the influence of the endoscopist experience on the referral rate. It will also describe how to categorize a polyp as complex for resection and consider an endoscopist as an expert in endoscopic resection. And finally, we will propose a framework for the accurate and evidence-based treatment of complex benign colorectal lesions.

Clip closure to prevent adverse events after EMR of proximal large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

After EMR, prophylactic clipping is often performed to prevent clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB) and other adverse events (AEs). Prior evidence syntheses have lacked sufficient power to assess clipping in relevant subgroups or in nonbleeding AEs. We performed a meta-analysis of individual patient data (IPD) from randomized trials assessing the efficacy of clipping to prevent AEs after EMR of proximal large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) ≥20 mm.

METHODS

We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and PubMed from inception to May 19, 2021. Two reviewers screened citations in duplicate. Corresponding authors of eligible studies were invited to contribute IPD. A random-effects 1-stage model was specified for estimating pooled effects, adjusting for patient sex and age and for lesion location and size, whereas a fixed-effects model was used for traditional meta-analyses.

RESULTS

From 3145 citations, 4 trials were included, representing 1248 patients with proximal LNPCPs. The overall rate of CSPEB was 3.5% and 9.0% in clipped and unclipped patients, respectively. IPD were available for 1150 patients, in which prophylactic clipping prevented CSPEB with an odds ratio (OR) of .31 (95% confidence interval [CI], .17-.54). Clipping was not associated with perforation or abdominal pain, with ORs of .78 (95% CI, .17-3.54) and .67 (95% CI, .20-2.22), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clipping is efficacious in preventing CSPEB after EMR of proximal LNPCPs. Therefore, clip closure should be considered a standard component of EMR of LNPCPs in the proximal colon.

Long-term Outcomes After Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Large Colorectal Epithelial Neoplasms: A Prospective, Multicenter, Cohort Trial From Japan

BACKGROUND & AIMS

To determine the long-term outcomes after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), we conducted a large, multicenter, prospective cohort trial with a 5-year observation period.

METHODS

Between February 2013 and January 2015, we consecutively enrolled 1740 patients with 1814 colorectal epithelial neoplasms ≥20 mm who underwent ESD. Patients with noncurative resection (non-CR) lesions underwent additional radical surgery, as needed. After the initial treatment, intensive 5-year follow-up with planned multiple colonoscopies was conducted to identify metastatic and/or local recurrences. Primary outcomes were overall survival, disease-specific survival, and intestinal preservation rates. The rates of local recurrence and metachronous invasive cancer were evaluated as the secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The 5-year overall survival, disease-specific survival, and intestinal preservation rates were 93.6%, 99.6%, and 88.6%, respectively. Patients with CR lesions had no metastatic occurrence, and patients with non-CR lesions had 4 metastatic occurrences. Kaplan-Meier curves revealed that overall survival and disease-specific survival rates were significantly higher in patients with CR lesions than in those with non-CR lesions (P > .001 and P = .009, respectively). Local recurrence occurred in only 8 lesions (0.5%), which were successfully resected by subsequent endoscopic treatment. Multiple logistic regression analyses revealed that piecemeal resection (hazard ratio, 8.19; 95% CI, 1.47-45.7; P = .02) and margin-positive resection (hazard ratio, 8.06; 95% CI, 1.76-37.0; P = .007) were significant independent predictors of local recurrence after colorectal ESD. Fifteen metachronous invasive cancers (1.0%) were identified during surveillance colonoscopy, most of which required surgical resection.

CONCLUSIONS

A favorable long-term prognosis indicates that ESD can be the standard treatment for large colorectal epithelial neoplasms.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000010136.

Post-EMR for colorectal polyps, thermal ablation of defects reduces adenoma recurrence: A meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Adenoma recurrence is one of the key limitations of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), which occurs in 15 % to 30 % of cases during first surveillance colonoscopy. The main hypothesis behind adenoma recurrence is leftover micro-adenomas at the margins of post-EMR defects. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the efficacy of snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) at the margins of mucosal defects to reduce adenoma recurrence and bleeding complications. Methods  Electronic databases such as PubMed and the Cochrane library were used for systematic literature search. Studies with polyps only resected by piecemeal EMR and active treatment: with STSC, comparator: non-STSC were included. A random effects model was used to calculate the summary of risk ratio and 95 % confidence intervals. The main outcome of the study was to compare the effect of STSC versus non-STSC with respect to adenoma recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy after thermal ablation of post-EMR defects. Results  Five studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The total number patients who completed first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1) in the STSC group was 534 and in the non-STSC group was 514. The pooled adenoma recurrence rate was 6 % (37 of 534 cases) in the STSC arm and 22 % (115 of 514 cases) in the non-STSC arm, (odds ratio [OR] 0.26, 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.16-0.41, P  = 0.001). The pooled delayed post-EMR bleeding rate 19 % (67 of 343) in the STSC arm and 22 % (78 of 341) in the non-STSC arm (OR 0.82, 95 %CI, 0.57-1.18). Conclusions  Thermal ablation of post-EMR defects significantly reduces adenoma recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy.

Factors Predicting Malignant Occurrence and Polyp Recurrence after the Endoscopic Resection of Large Colorectal Polyps: A Single Center Experience

Background: The aim of this study was to identify risk factors contributing to the malignancy of colorectal polyps, as well as risk factors for recurrence after the successful endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal polyps in a referral center. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study was performed in patients diagnosed with large (≥20 mm diameter) colorectal polyps and treated in the period from January 2014 to December 2019 at the University Hospital Medical Center Bezanijska Kosa, Belgrade, Serbia. Based on the endoscopic evaluation and classification of polyps, the following procedures were performed: en bloc resection, piecemeal resection or surgical treatment. Results: A total of 472 patients with large colorectal polyps were included in the study. The majority of the study population were male (62.9%), with a mean age of 65.7 ± 10.8 years. The majority of patients had one polyp (73.7%) less than 40 mm in size (74.6%) sessile morphology (46.4%), type IIA polyps (88.2%) or polyps localized in the descending colon (52.5%). The accessibility of the polyp was complicated in 17.4% of patients. En bloc resection was successfully performed in 61.0% of the patients, while the rate of piecemeal resection was 26.1%. Due to incomplete endoscopic resection, surgery was performed in 5.1% of the patients, while 7.8% of the patients were referred to surgery directly. Hematochezia (p = 0.001), type IIB polyps (p < 0.001) and complicated polyp accessibility (p = 0.002) were significant independent predictors of carcinoma presence in a multivariate logistic regression analysis. Out of the 472 patients enrolled in the study, 364 were followed after endoscopic resection for colorectal polyp recurrence, which was observed in 30 patients (8.2%) during follow-up. Piecemeal resection (p = 0.048) and incomplete resection success (p = 0.013) were significant independent predictors of polyp recurrence in the multivariate logistic regression analysis. Conclusions: Whenever an endoscopist encounters a complex colorectal lesion (i.e., a polyp with complicated accessibility), polyp size > 40 mm, the Laterally Spreading Tumor nongranular (LST-NG) morphological type, type IIB polyps or the presence of hematochezia, malignancy risk should be considered before making the decision to either resect, refer to an advanced endoscopist or perform surgery.

Impact of surgical versus endoscopic management of complex nonmalignant polyps in a colorectal cancer screening program

BACKGROUND

When complex nonmalignant polyps are detected in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs, patients may be referred directly to surgery or may first undergo additional endoscopy for attempted endoscopic removal by an expert. We compared the impact of both strategies on screening effectiveness and costs.

METHODS

We used MISCAN-Colon to simulate the Dutch screening program, and projected CRC deaths prevented, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, and costs for two scenarios: 1) surgery for all complex nonmalignant polyps; 2) attempted removal by an expert endoscopist first. We made the following assumptions: 3.9 % of screen-detected large nonmalignant polyps were complex; associated surgery mortality was 0.7 %; the rate of successful removal by an expert was 87 %, with 0.11 % mortality.

RESULTS

The screening program was estimated to prevent 11.2 CRC cases (-16.7 %) and 10.1 CRC deaths (-27.1 %), resulting in 32.9 QALYs gained (+ 17.2 %) per 1000 simulated individuals over their lifetimes compared with no screening. The program would also result in 2.1 surgeries for complex nonmalignant polyps with 0.015 associated deaths per 1000 individuals. If, instead, these patients were referred to an expert endoscopist first, only 0.2 patients required surgery, reducing associated deaths by 0.013 at the expense of 0.003 extra colonoscopy deaths. Compared with direct referral to surgery, referral to an expert endoscopist gained 0.2 QALYs and saved €12 500 per 1000 individuals in the target population.

CONCLUSION

Referring patients with complex polyps to an expert endoscopist first reduced some surgery-related deaths while substantially improving cost-effectiveness of the screening program.

Effectiveness of prophylactic clipping in preventing postpolypectomy bleeding in oral anticoagulant users: a propensity-score analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Evidence of prophylactic clipping is inconsistent except for proximal and large colonic lesions in the general population. Although warfarin and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are significant risk factors of postpolypectomy bleeding (PPB), dedicated studies to examine the benefit of prophylactic clipping in these high-risk patients remain limited.

METHODS

We performed a propensity score-weighted retrospective cohort study from 2012 to 2020. Patients who received an oral anticoagulant and underwent colonoscopic polypectomy were included. Data were collected on baseline demographics, medications (anticoagulant, antiplatelet, and heparin bridging), and endoscopies (polyp number, location, size, morphology, histopathology, resection method and prophylactic clipping). Propensity-score models with inverse probability of treatment weighting were developed between prophylactic clipping and no clipping groups. Unbalanced variables were included in a doubly robust model with multivariate analysis. The primary outcome was clinically significant delayed PPB, defined as a composite endpoint of hemoglobin drop ≥2 g/dL, blood transfusion, or repeat colonoscopy for hemostasis within 30 days.

RESULTS

Five hundred forty-seven patients with 1485 polyps were included. Prophylactic clipping was not associated with a reduced risk of PPB (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], .73-1.95; P = .497). The hot resection method was associated with a significantly higher risk of PPB (OR, 9.76; 95% CI, 3.94-32.60; P < .001) compared with cold biopsy or snare polypectomy. In a subgroup analysis, prophylactic clipping was associated with a lower PPB risk in patients on DOACs (OR, .36; 95% CI, .16-.82; P = .015).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic clipping was not associated with an overall reduced risk of PPB in patients on oral anticoagulants. The use of cold snare polypectomy should be maximized in anticoagulated patients.

Thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins to prevent local recurrence of large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps is characterized by a high risk of recurrence. Thermal ablation of the mucosal defect margins may reduce recurrence in these lesions, but a systematic overview of the current evidence is lacking. Methods  We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane until July 2021, for studies on thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps. Main goal of this meta-analysis was to identify pooled risk difference of recurrence between thermal ablation vs. no adjuvant treatment. Secondary goal was to identify pooled recurrence rate after snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) and argon plasma coagulation (APC). Results  Ten studies on thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins were included, with three studies on argon plasma coagulation, six studies on snare tip soft coagulation and one study comparing both treatment modalities, representing a total of 316 APC cases and 1598 STSC cases. Overall pooled risk difference of recurrence was -0.17 (95 % confidence interval [CI] -0.22 to -0.12) as compared to no adjuvant treatment. Pooled risk difference was -0.16 (95 % CI -0.19 to -0.14) for STSC and -0.26 (95 % CI -0.80 to 0.28) for APC. Pooled recurrence rate was 4 % (95 % CI 2 % to 8 %) for STSC and 9 % (95 % CI 4 % to 19 %) for APC. Conclusions  Thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins significantly reduces recurrence rate in large non-pedunculated colorectal lesions compared to no adjuvant treatment. While no evidence for superiority exists, STSC may be preferred over APC, because this method is the most evidence-based, and cost-effective modality.

Resection depth and layer of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection of intermediate-sized colorectal polyps: A pilot study

Background and study aims  Curability of colorectal tumors is associated with resection depth and layer in endoscopic resection. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has not undergone sufficient histopathological evaluation. We conducted a pilot study to compare the effectiveness, including resection depth and layer, of UEMR and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR). Patients and methods  This study was a single-center, retrospective study. Patients with colorectal lesions were treated by UEMR or CEMR between January 2018 and March 2020. Eligible patients were selected from included patients in a 1:1 ratio using propensity score matching. We compared the resection depth and layer and treatment results between the UEMR and CEMR groups. Results  We evaluated 55 patients undergoing UEMR and 291 patients undergoing CEMR. Using propensity score matching, we analyzed 54 lesions in each group. The proportion of specimens containing submucosal tissue was 100 % in both groups. The median thickness of the submucosal tissue was significantly greater in the CEMR group than in the UEMR group [1235 µm (95 % confidence interval [CI], 1020-1530 µm) vs. 950 µm (95 % CI, 830-1090 µm), respectively]. However, vertical margins were negative in all lesions in both groups. Conclusions  Our findings suggest that the median thickness of submucosal tissue in the UEMR group was about 1,000 μm. Even though the resection depth achieved with UEMR was more superficial than that achieved with CEMR, UEMR may be a treatment option, especially for colorectal lesions ≤ 20 mm in diameter without suspicious findings of submucosal deeply invasive cancer.

Recurrence rates after endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Complete polyp resection is the main goal of endoscopic removal of large colonic polyps. Resection techniques have evolved in recent years and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with margin ablation, cold snare polypectomy (CSP), cold EMR, and underwater EMR have been introduced. Yet, efficacy of these techniques with regard to local recurrence rates (LRRs) vs traditional hot snare polypectomy and standard EMR remains unclear.

AIM

To analyze LRR of large colonic polyps in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL were searched for prospective studies reporting LRR or incomplete resection rate (IRR) after colonic polypectomy of polyps ≥ 10 mm, published between January 2011 and July 2021. Primary outcome was LRR for polyps ≥ 10 mm.

RESULTS

Six thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight publications were identified, of which 34 prospective studies were included. LRR for polyps ≥ 10 mm at up to 12 mo’ follow-up was 11.0% (95%CI, 7.1%-14.8%; 15 studies; 4904 polyps). ESD (1.7%; 95%CI, 0%-3.4%; 3 studies, 221 polyps) and endoscopic mucosal resection with margin ablation (3.3%; 95%CI, 2.2%-4.5%; 2 studies, 947 polyps) significantly reduced LRR vs standard EMR without (15.2%; 95%CI, 12.5%-18.0%; 4 studies, 650 polyps) or with unsystematic margin ablation (16.5%; 95%CI, 15.2%-17.8%; 6 studies, 3031 polyps).

CONCLUSION

LRR is significantly lower after ESD or EMR with routine margin ablation; thus, these techniques should be considered standard for endoscopic removal of large colorectal polyps. Other techniques, such as CSP, cold EMR, and underwater EMR require further evaluation in prospective studies before their routine implementation in clinical practice can be recommended.

From advanced diagnosis to advanced resection in early neoplastic colorectal lesions: Never-ending and trending topics in the 2020s

Colonoscopy represents the most widespread and effective tool for the prevention and treatment of early stage preneoplastic and neoplastic lesions in the panorama of cancer screening. In the world there are different approaches to the topic of colorectal cancer prevention and screening: different starting ages (45-50 years); different initial screening tools such as fecal occult blood with immunohistochemical or immune-enzymatic tests; recto-sigmoidoscopy; and colonoscopy. The key aspects of this scenario are composed of a proper bowel preparation that ensures a valid diagnostic examination, experienced endoscopist in detection of preneoplastic and early neoplastic lesions and open-minded to upcoming artificial intelligence-aided examination, knowledge in the field of resection of these lesions (from cold-snaring, through endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection, up to advanced tools), and management of complications.

Predictors for malignant potential and deep submucosal invasion in colorectal laterally spreading tumors

BACKGROUND

Colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) with malignant potential require en bloc resection by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), but lesions with deep submucosal invasion (SMI) are endoscopically unresectable.

AIM

To investigate the factors associated with high-grade dysplasia (HGD)/carcinoma and deep SMI in colorectal LSTs.

METHODS

The endoscopic and histological results of consecutive patients who underwent ESD for colorectal LSTs in our hospital from June 2013 to March 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The characteristics of LST subtypes were compared. Risk factors for HGD/carcinoma and deep SMI (invasion depth ≥ 1000 μm) were determined using multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 323 patients with 341 colorectal LSTs were enrolled. Among the four subtypes, non-granular pseudodepressed (NG-PD) LSTs (85.5%) had the highest rate of HGD/carcinoma, followed by the granular nodular mixed (G-NM) (77.0%), granular homogenous (29.5%), and non-granular flat elevated (24.2%) subtypes. Deep SMI occurred commonly in NG-PD LSTs (12.9%). In the adjusted multivariate analysis, NG-PD [odds ratio (OR) = 16.8, P < 0.001) and G-NM (OR = 7.8, P < 0.001) subtypes, size ≥ 2 cm (OR = 2.2, P = 0.005), and positive non-lifting sign (OR = 3.3, P = 0.024) were independently associated with HGD/carcinoma. The NG-PD subtype (OR = 13.3, P < 0.001) and rectosigmoid location (OR = 8.7, P = 0.007) were independent risk factors for deep SMI.

CONCLUSION

Because of their increased risk for malignancy, it is highly recommended that NG-PD and G-NM LSTs are removed en bloc through ESD. Given their substantial risk for deep SMI, surgery needs to be considered for NG-PD LSTs located in the rectosigmoid, especially those with positive non-lifting signs.

Comparison of the morphology and histopathology of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps in the rectum and colon: implications for endoscopic treatment

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The risk of cancer in large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm (LNPCPs) in the rectum relative to the remainder of the colon is unknown. We aimed to describe differences between rectal and colonic LNPCPs to better inform treatment decisions.

METHODS

Patients with LNPCPs referred to tertiary centers for endoscopic resection within a prospective, multicenter, observational cohort were evaluated. Data recorded were participant demographics, LNPCP location, morphology, resection modality, and histopathologic data. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify those variables independently associated with rectal versus nonrectal location in the colon.

RESULTS

Patients with LNPCPs referred for endoscopic resection between July 2008 and July 2021 were included. Rectal LNPCPs (n = 618) were larger (median size, 40 mm vs 30 mm; P < .001) and more likely to be granular (79% vs 50%, P < .001) with a nodular component (53% vs 17%, P < .001) compared with nonrectal LNPCPs (n = 2787). Rectal LNPCPs were more likely to have tubulovillous histopathology (72% vs 47%, P < .001) and contain cancer (15% vs 6%, P < .001). After adjusting for the other features independently associated with location, cancer was more common in the rectum compared with the colon (odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-2.53).

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that compared with LNPCPs in the rest of the colon, rectal LNPCPs are more likely to be larger and contain more advanced pathology. These findings have implications for curative endoscopic resection techniques particularly where early cancer is present. (Clinical trial registration numbers: NCT01368289 and NCT02000141.).

Outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasms: Prospective, multicenter, cohort trial

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the gold standard for the treatment of noninvasive large colorectal lesions, despite challenges associated with nonlifting lesions and a high rate of local recurrence. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) offers the possibility of overcoming these EMR limitations. However, a higher risk of complications and longer procedure time prevented its dissemination. As ESD now provides more stable results because of standardized techniques compared with those used earlier, this study aimed to quantify the rates of en bloc and curative resections, as well as ESD complications, in the present situation.

METHODS

A multicenter, large-scale, prospective cohort trial of ESD was conducted at 20 institutions in Japan. Consecutive patients scheduled for ESD were enrolled from February 2013 to January 2015.

RESULTS

ESD was performed for 1883 patients (1965 lesions). The mean procedure time was 80.6 min; en bloc and curative resections were achieved in 1759 (97.0%) and 1640 (90.4%) lesions, respectively, in epithelial lesions ≥20 mm. Intra- and postprocedural perforations occurred in 51 (2.6%) and 12 (0.6%) lesions, respectively, and emergency surgery for adverse events was performed in nine patients (0.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

This trial conducted after the standardization of the ESD technique throughout Japan revealed a higher curability, shorter procedure time, and lower risk of complications than those reported previously. Considering that the target lesions of ESD are more advanced than those of EMR, ESD can be a first-line treatment for large colorectal lesions with acceptable risk and procedure time. (Clinical Trial Registration: UMIN000010136).

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for removal of large colorectal neoplasias in an outpatient setting: a single-center series of 660 procedures in Sweden

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technique developed in Japan for the removal of large lesions in the GI tract. Because of the complexity of the technique, implementation in Western health care has been slow. An ESD procedure is usually followed by hospital admission. Our aim was to investigate if ESD of colorectal lesions can be performed in an outpatient setting.

METHODS

Six hundred sixty colorectal ESD procedures between 2014 and 2020 were evaluated retrospectively. All patients referred to the unit with an early colorectal neoplasm >20 mm without signs of deep invasion were considered eligible for an ESD procedure.

RESULTS

Of 660 lesions, 323 (48.9%) were localized in the proximal colon, 102 (15.5%) in the distal colon, and 235 (35.6%) in the rectum. Median lesion size was 38 mm (interquartile range, 30-50) and median procedure duration 70 minutes (interquartile range, 45-115). En-bloc resection was achieved in 620 cases (93.9%). R0 resection was achieved in 492 en-bloc resections (79.4%), whereas the number of Rx and R1 resections was 124 (20.0%) and 4 (.6%), respectively. Low-grade dysplasia was found in 473 cases (71.7%), high-grade dysplasia in 144 (21.8%), and adenocarcinoma in 34 (5.1%). Six hundred twelve procedures (92.7%) were scheduled as outpatient, and 33 of these underwent unplanned admission. Forty-eight cases (7.3%) were planned as inpatient procedures. The rate of full wall perforation was 38 (5.8%), in which 35 (92.1%) were managed endoscopically and 3 patients (7.9%) required emergency surgery. Forty-six patients (7.0%) sought medical attention within 30 days because of bleeding (21 [3.2%]), abdominal tenderness (16 [2.4%]), and other reasons (9 [1.4%]). Twenty-four of these patients were admitted for observation for a median of 2 days (range, 1-7). Ten of these patients were treated with antibiotics, and 6 patients required blood transfusion. None required additional surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD of colorectal lesions can be safely performed in an outpatient setting in a well-selected patient.

Setting up a regional expert panel for complex colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Advanced endoscopic resection techniques for complex colorectal polyps have evolved significantly over the past decade, leading to a management shift from surgical to endoscopic resection as the preferred treatment. However, in practice, interhospital consultation and appropriate referral management remain challenging, leading to unnecessary surgical resections. To support regional care for patients with complex colorectal polyps, facilitate peer consultations, and lower thresholds for referrals, an expert panel consultation platform was initiated in the northwestern region of the Netherlands.

METHODS

We initiated a regional expert panel in the northwestern region of the Netherlands for patients with complex colorectal polyps and studied the implementation, adaption, and clinical impact. All panel consultations between June 2019 and May 2021 were retrospectively analyzed, and user satisfaction among panel members was evaluated.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients with complex colorectal polyps from 11 of 15 participating centers (73.3%) were discussed in our panel. The most common reason for panel consultation was suspicion of invasive cancer in 36.4% (n = 32). After panel consultation, 43.2% of the consulting endoscopists (n = 38) changed their initial treatment strategy, and in 63.6% (n = 56) patients were referred to another endoscopy center. Of 26 cases submitted with a primary proposal for surgical treatment, surgery was avoided in 7 (26.9%). User satisfaction was rated high in most participating centers (91.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that implementation of and consultation with a regional expert panel can be a valuable tool for endoscopists to guide and optimize treatment of complex colorectal polyps and facilitate interhospital referrals in a regional network.

Preventing Postendoscopic Mucosal Resection Bleeding of Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Lesions

The most common major adverse event of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB), with an incidence of 6%-7% in large lesions. Repeat colonoscopy, blood transfusions, or other interventions are often needed. The associated direct costs are much higher than those of an uncomplicated EMR. In this review, we discuss the aspects related to CSPEB of large nonpedunculated polyps, such as risk factors, predictive models, and prophylactic measures, and we highlight evidence for preventive treatment options and explore new methods for bleeding prophylaxis. We also provide recommendations for steps that can be taken before, during, and after EMR to minimize bleeding risk. Finally, this review proposes future directions to reduce CSPEB incidence.

Potential Factors Predicting Histopathologically Upgrade Discrepancies between Endoscopic Forceps Biopsy of the Colorectal Low-Grade Intraepithelial Neoplasia and Endoscopic Resection Specimens

Background

It was gradually accepted that endoscopic fragment biopsy (EFB) diagnosis cannot accurately guarantee the absence of higher-grade neoplasms within the lesion of the digestive tract. There are no well-established predictors for histopathologically upgrade discrepancies between EFB diagnosing colorectal low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN) and endoscopic resection (ER) specimens.

Methods

A total of 918 colorectal LGINs was histopathologically diagnosed by EFB, including 162 cases with upgrade discrepancy and 756 concordant cases. We compared clinicopathological data of EFB and ER specimens between these two groups. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors for this upgrade histopathology.

Results

The predominant upgrade discrepancy of LGINs diagnosed by EFB was upgrades to high-grade dysplasia (114/918, 12.4%), followed by upgrades to intramucosal carcinoma (33/918, 3.6%), submucosal adenocarcinoma (10/918, 1.1%), and advanced adenocarcinoma (5/918, 0.5%). NSAID history (OR 4.83; 95% CI, 2.27-10.27; p < 0.001), insufficient EFB number (OR 2.99; 95% CI, 1.91-4.68; p < 0.001), maximum diameter ≥ 1.0 cm (OR 6.18; 95% CI, 1.32-28.99; p = 0.021), lobulated shape (OR 2.68; 95% CI, 1.65-4.36; p < 0.001), erythema (OR 2.42; 95% CI, 1.50-3.91; p < 0.001), erosion (OR 7.12; 95% CI, 3.91-12.94; p < 0.001), surface unevenness (OR 2.31; 95% CI, 1.33-4.01; p = 0.003), and distal location of the target adenoma (OR 3.29; 95% CI, 1.68-6.41; p < 0.001) were associated with the histologically upgrade discrepancies.

Conclusion

NSAID history, insufficient EFB number, adenoma size and location, and abnormal macroscopic patterns are potential predictors for upgrade histopathology of LGINs diagnosed by EFBs. The standardization of EFB number and advanced imaging techniques could minimize the risk of neglecting the potential of this upgrade histopathology.

Advanced endoscopic resection for colorectal dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease: a meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Little is known about outcomes of advanced endoscopic resection (ER) for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) with dysplasia. The aim of our meta-analysis was to estimate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for dysplastic lesions in patients with IBD. Methods  We performed a systematic review through Jan 2021 to identify studies of IBD with dysplasia that was treated by EMR or ESD. We estimated the pooled rates of complete ER, adverse events, post-ER surgery, and recurrence. Proportions were pooled by random effect models. Results  Eleven studies including 506 patients and 610 lesions were included. Mean lesion size was 23 mm. The pooled rate of complete ER was 97.9 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 95.3 % to 99.7 %). The pooled rate of endoscopic perforation was 0.8 % (95 % CI:0.1 % to 2.2 %) while bleeding occurred in 1.6 % of patients (95 %CI:0.4 % to 3.3 %). Overall, 6.6 % of patients (95 %CI:3.6 % to 10.2 %) underwent surgery after an ER. Among 471 patients who underwent surveillance, local recurrence occurred in 4.9 % patients (95 % CI:1.0 % to 10.7 %) and metachronous lesions occurred in 7.4 % patients (95 %CI:1.5 % to 16 %) over a median follow-up of 33 months. Metachronous colorectal cancer (CRC) was detected in 0.2 % of patients (95 %CI:0 % to 2.2 %) during the surveillance period. Conclusions  Advanced ER is safe and effective in the management of large dysplastic lesions in IBD and warrants consideration as first-line therapy. Although the risk of developing CRC after ER is low, meticulous endoscopic surveillance is crucial to monitor for local or metachronous recurrence of dysplasia.

Histopathological effects of electrosurgical interventions in an in vivo porcine model of colonic endoscopic mucosal resection

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in the colon has been widely adopted, but there is limited data on the histopathological effects of the differing electrosurgical currents (ESCs) used. We used an in vivo porcine model to compare the tissue effects of ESCs for snare resection and adjuvant margin ablation techniques.

DESIGN

Standardised EMR was performed by a single endoscopist in 12 pigs. Two intersecting 15 mm snare resections were performed. Resections were randomised 1:1 using either a microprocessor-controlled current (MCC) or low-power coagulating current (LPCC). The lateral margins of each defect were treated with either argon plasma coagulation (APC) or snare tip soft coagulation (STSC). Colons were surgically removed at 72 hours. Two specialist pathologists blinded to the intervention assessed the specimens.

RESULTS

88 defects were analysed (median 7 per pig, median defect size 29×17 mm). For snare ESC effects, 156 tissue sections were assessed. LPCC was comparable to MCC for deep involvement of the colon wall. For margin ablation, 172 tissue sections were assessed. APC was comparable to STSC for deep involvement of the colon wall. Islands of preserved mucosa at the coagulated margin were more likely with APC compared with STSC (16% vs 5%, p=0.010).

CONCLUSION

For snare resection, MCC and LPCC did not produce significantly different tissue effects. The submucosal injectate may protect the underlying tissue, and technique may more strongly dictate the depth and extent of final injury. For margin ablation, APC was less uniform and complete compared with STSC.

Declining Colectomy Rates for Nonmalignant Colorectal Polyps in a Large, Ethnically Diverse, Community-Based Population

INTRODUCTION

Despite studies showing improved safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic resection for nonmalignant colorectal polyps, colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps have been increasing in the United States and Europe. Given this alarming trend, we aimed to investigate whether colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps are increasing or declining in a large, integrated, community-based healthcare system with access to advanced endoscopic resection procedures.

METHODS

We identified all individuals aged 50-85 years who underwent a colonoscopy between 2008 and 2018 and were diagnosed with a nonmalignant colorectal polyp(s) at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California integrated healthcare system. Among these individuals, we identified those who underwent a colectomy for nonmalignant colorectal polyps within 12 months after the colonoscopy. We calculated annual colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps and stratified rates by age, sex, and race and ethnicity. Changes in rates over time were tested by the Cochran-Armitage test for a linear trend.

RESULTS

Among 229,730 patients who were diagnosed with nonmalignant colorectal polyps between 2008 and 2018, 1,611 patients underwent a colectomy. Colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps decreased significantly from 125 per 10,000 patients with nonmalignant polyps in 2008 to 12 per 10,000 patients with nonmalignant polyps in 2018 (P < 0.001 for trend). When stratified by age, sex, and race and ethnicity, colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps also significantly declined from 2008 to 2018.

DISCUSSION

In a large, ethnically diverse, community-based population in the United States, we found that colectomy rates for nonmalignant colorectal polyps declined significantly over the past decade likely because of the establishment of advanced endoscopy centers, improved care coordination, and an organized colorectal cancer screening program.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of T1 colorectal cancers: a retrospective analysis from a multicenter Dutch eFTR registry

BACKGROUND

Complete endoscopic resection and accurate histological evaluation for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) are critical in determining subsequent treatment. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a new treatment option for T1 CRC < 2 cm. We aimed to report clinical outcomes and short-term results.

METHODS

Consecutive eFTR procedures for T1 CRC, prospectively recorded in our national registry between November 2015 and April 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes were technical success and R0 resection. Secondary outcomes were histological risk assessment, curative resection, adverse events, and short-term outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 330 procedures: 132 primary resections and 198 secondary scar resections after incomplete T1 CRC resection. Overall technical success, R0 resection, and curative resection rates were 87.0 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 82.7 %-90.3 %), 85.6 % (95 %CI 81.2 %-89.2 %), and 60.3 % (95 %CI 54.7 %-65.7 %). Curative resection rate was 23.7 % (95 %CI 15.9 %-33.6 %) for primary resection of T1 CRC and 60.8 % (95 %CI 50.4 %-70.4 %) after excluding deep submucosal invasion as a risk factor. Risk stratification was possible in 99.3 %. The severe adverse event rate was 2.2 %. Additional oncological surgery was performed in 49/320 (15.3 %), with residual cancer in 11/49 (22.4 %). Endoscopic follow-up was available in 200/242 (82.6 %), with a median of 4 months and residual cancer in 1 (0.5 %) following an incomplete resection.

CONCLUSIONS

eFTR is relatively safe and effective for resection of small T1 CRC, both as primary and secondary treatment. eFTR can expand endoscopic treatment options for T1 CRC and could help to reduce surgical overtreatment. Future studies should focus on long-term outcomes.

Decreasing Colectomy Rates in Advanced Adenomas

Advanced colon adenomas are commonly treated with colectomy, which is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Novel endoscopic resection techniques have been described, including endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal resection (ESR), which demonstrate promise in treating these neoplasms without colectomy. We performed a retrospective review of patients with advanced adenomas who were referred to a colorectal surgeon for evaluation for resection over 4 years. 40 of 46 (87%) of these patients underwent a successful endoscopic resection. 10 of 46 (21.6%) patients ultimately underwent an operation for a variety of reasons: inability to resect endoscopically (n = 6), invasive cancer on the excised specimen (n = 2), complication of procedure (n = 1), colectomy after polyp recurrence (n = 1). Our study demonstrates EMR and ESD offers an alternative to colectomy in appropriately selected patients with a high success rate. As more surgeons learn advanced endoscopic techniques, there is potential to decrease colectomy rates in benign disease.

Patient Selection, Risks, and Long-Term Outcomes Associated with Colorectal Polyp Resection

The 2 most significant complications of colonoscopy with polypectomy are bleeding and perforation. Although the incidence rates are generally low (<1%), these can be avoided by recognizing pertinent risk factors, which can be patient, polyp, and technique/device related. Endoscopists should be equipped to manage bleeding and perforation. Currently available devices and techniques to achieve hemostasis and manage colon perforations are reviewed.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection techniques of large colorectal lesions: experience of a referral center in Italy

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection (ESD) are treatments of choice for superficial neoplastic colorectal lesions. Only a few studies have compared these techniques.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection (EPMR), ESD and hybrid-endoscopic submucosal dissection (H-ESD) of large colorectal lesions in a Western endoscopic center.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis on a prospective medical database of consecutive colorectal superficial lesions larger than 20 mm, resected by EPMR, ESD or H-ESD collected from 2015 to 2019.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty-nine colorectal lesions were included. All lesions were completely endoscopically resected, 65.9% by EPMR, 19.7% by ESD and 14.4% by H-ESD. Endoscopic control after the index procedure was available for 86.5% patients. Among these patients, 80% had a second follow-up colonoscopy. The overall recurrence rate was 13.2, 0 and 6.1% for EPMR, ESD and H-ESD respectively, with a significant difference between EPMR and ESD. All recurrences were endoscopically treated during follow-up procedures. Risk of complications was not significantly different between the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

EPMR, ESD and H-ESD are effective and safe procedures. Recurrence rate in EPMR was higher but can be managed endoscopically with high success rates. EPMR is faster and technically simpler so should be considered a potential first-line therapy for colorectal superficial neoplastic lesions.

Polypectomy for Large Polyps with Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

Beginning in 1955, when the saline injection was first described to prevent transmural injury during polyp fulguration, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has grown exponentially, both in scope and in practice. Because EMR is an organ-preserving technique even for large polyps, this allows for comparable outcomes to surgery, but substantially improved cost savings and significantly reduced morbidity and mortality. To achieve this, however, one must master the 4 fundamental components that are critical to the success of EMR- time, team, tools, and technique. This article aims to provide a compendium of state of the art updates within the field of endoluminal resection.

Incremental benefit of dye-based chromoendoscopy to predict the risk of submucosal invasive cancer in large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Detailed lesion assessment of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs; ≥20 mm) can help predict the risk of submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC). Traditionally this has required the use of dye-based chromoendoscopy (DBC). We sought to assess the accuracy and incremental benefit of DBC in addition to high-definition white-light imaging (HDWLI) and virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE) for the prediction of SMIC within LNPCPs.

METHODS

A prospective observational study of consecutive LNPCPs at a single tertiary referral center was performed. Before resection all lesions were assessed for the presence of a demarcated area (DA), defined as an area of disordered pit or microvascular pattern, by 2 trained endoscopists before and after DBC. Diagnostic performance characteristics were calculated with histology as the reference criterion standard, and overall agreement was calculated using the κ statistic.

RESULTS

Over 39 months to March 2021, 400 consecutive LNPCPs (median lesion size, 35 mm; interquartile range, 25-45) were analyzed. The overall rate of SMIC was 6.5%. Presence of a DA had an accuracy of 91% (95% confidence interval, 87.7-93.5) for SMIC, independent of the use of DBC. The rate of interobserver agreement for presence of a DA using HDWLI + VCE was very high (κ = .96) with no benefit gained by the addition of DBC.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of HDWLI and VCE is likely to be adequate for lesion assessment for the prediction of SMIC among LNPCPs. Further, the absence of a DA is strongly predictive for the absence of SMIC, independent to the use of DBC. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03506321.).

SMALL AS WELL AS LARGE COLORECTAL LESIONS ARE EFFECTIVELY MANAGED BY ENDOSCOPIC MUCOSAL RESECTION TECHNIQUE

ABSTRACT Background Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an easy-to-use treatment option for superficial colorectal lesions, including lesions ≥20 mm. Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of EMR. Methods We evaluated 430 lesions removed by EMR in 404 patients. The lesions were analyzed according to their morphology, size, location, and histology. Lesions <20 mm were resected en bloc, whereas lesions ≥20 mm were removed by piecemeal EMR (p-EMR). Adverse events and recurrence were assessed. Results Regarding morphology, 145 (33.7%) were depressed lesions, 157 (36.5%) were polypoid lesions and 128 (29.8%) were laterally spreading lesions, with 361 (84%) lesions <20 mm and 69 (16%) ≥20 mm. Regarding histology, 413 (96%) lesions were classified as neoplastic lesions. Overall, 14 (3.3%) adverse reactions occurred, most commonly in lesions removed by p-EMR (P<0.001) and associated with advanced histology (P=0.008). Recurrence occurred in 14 (5.2%) cases, more commonly in lesions removed by p-EMR (P<0.001). Conclusion EMR is an effective technique for the treatment of superficial colorectal lesions, even of large lesions.

Colonoscopic-Assisted Laparoscopic Wedge Resection for Colonic Lesions: A Prospective Multicentre Cohort Study (LIMERIC-Study)

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a modified colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

The use of segmental colectomy in patients with endoscopically unresectable colonic lesions results in significant morbidity and mortality. CAL-WR is an alternative procedure that may reduce morbidity.

METHODS

This prospective multicentre study was performed in 13 Dutch hospitals between January 2017 and December 2019. Inclusion criteria were (1) colonic lesions inaccessible using current endoscopic resection techniques (judged by an expert panel), (2) non-lifting residual/recurrent adenomatous tissue after previous polypectomy or (3) an undetermined resection margin after endoscopic removal of a low-risk pT1 colon carcinoma. Thirty-day morbidity, technical success rate and radicality were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 118 patients included (56% male, mean age 66 years, SD ± 8 years), 66 (56%) had complex lesions unsuitable for endoscopic removal, 34 (29%) had non-lifting residual/recurrent adenoma after previous polypectomy and 18 (15%) had uncertain resection margins after polypectomy of a pT1 colon carcinoma. CAL-WR was technically successful in 93% and R0 resection was achieved in 91% of patients. Minor complications (Clavien-Dindo I-II) were noted in 7 patients (6%) and an additional oncologic segmental resection was performed in 12 cases (11%). Residual tissue at the scar was observed in 5% of patients during endoscopic follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

CAL-WR is an effective, organ-preserving approach that results in minor complications and circumvents the need for major surgery. CAL-WR therefore deserves consideration when endoscopic excision of circumscribed lesions is impossible or incomplete.

Outcomes of Deep Mural Injury After Endoscopic Resection: An International Cohort of 3717 Large Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Although perforation is the most feared adverse event associated with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), limited data exists concerning its management. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of intra-procedural deep mural injury (DMI) in an international multi-center observational cohort of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs).

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent EMR for a LNPCP ≥20 mm were evaluated. Significant DMI (S-DMI) was defined as Sydney DMI Classification type III (muscularis propria injury, target sign) or type IV/V (perforation without or with contamination, respectively). The primary outcome was successful S-DMI defect closure. Secondary outcomes included technical success (removal of all visible polypoid tissue during index EMR), surgical referral and recurrence at first surveillance colonscopy (SC1).

RESULTS

Between July 2008 to May 2020, 3717 LNPCPs underwent EMR. Median lesion size was 35mm (interquartile range (IQR) 25 to 45mm). Significant DMI was identified in 101 cases (2.7%), with successful defect closure in 98 (97.0%) using a median of 4 through-the-scope clips (TTSCs; IQR 3 to 6 TTSCs). Three (3.0%) patients underwent S-DMI-related urgent surgery. Technical success was achieved in 94 (93.1%) patients, with 46 (45.5%) admitted to hospital (median duration 1 day; IQR 1 to 2 days). Comparing LNPCPs with and without S-DMI, no differences in technical success (94 (93.1%) vs 3316 (91.7%); P = .62) or SC1 recurrence (12 (20.0%) vs 363 (13.6%); P = .15) were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant DMI is readily managed endoscopically and does not appear to affect technical success or recurrence.