Higher rate of en bloc resection with underwater than conventional endoscopic mucosal resection: A meta-analysis

Long-term adenoma recurrence and development of colorectal cancer following endoscopic mucosal resection in large non-pedunculated colonic polyps ≥4 cm

OBJECTIVES

Data of long-term follow up for large non pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) ≥4 cm removed with piecemeal wide field endoscopic mucosal resection (PWF-EMR) are limited. We primarily evaluated the recurrence rates and secondarily the rates of post colonoscopic polypectomy colorectal cancer (PCPCRC) on a long-term basis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively-stored electronic database of all patients who underwent PWF-EMR for LNPCPs at the Venizeleion General Hospital, between 2009 and 2020. Eligible patients were those with LNPCPs ≥4 cm, deemed completely removed by endoscopic means and followed-up for a minimum of 36 months with at least two surveillance colonoscopies, the first one (SC1) (4-6) months after the initial PWF-EMR procedure and the second one (SC2) after (12-18) months. In 2023, all cases were checked for PCPCRC development.

RESULTS

Residual/early recurrent tissue was detected in 44 (31 %) cases among the 142 (82 males, 60 females) assessed during SC1. Late recurrent tissue was detected in 9 (6.6 %) cases among the 137 surveyed during SC2. Investigation did not reveal any case of PCPCRC .

CONCLUSIONS

This historical cohort shows that the PWF-EMR for LNPCPs ≥4 cm is a safe and definitive removal method while it is not associated with the appearance of PCPCRC.

Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2024

1:  ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3:  ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6-9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10-19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5:  ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6:  ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7:  Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9:  ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10:  ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11:  ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.

Cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection as a salvage technique for challenging colorectal laterally spreading tumors

BACKGROUND

Cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-c) has emerged as a potential alternative to standard piecemeal wide-field EMR (WF-EMR) for the resection of laterally spreading tumors (LSTs). However, clear indications for this technique are still lacking. Our objective was to investigate the performance of salvage EMR-c after WF-EMR failure in the resection of large colorectal LSTs.

METHODS

The data of consecutive patients undergoing WF-EMR for large colorectal LSTs (2015-2021) were analyzed in this single-center, retrospective, observational study. In the event of a WF-EMR failure, the procedure was switched to EMR-c in the same session. The efficacy of the two techniques was evaluated in terms of complete endoscopic resection, R0 resection, and recurrence rate. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, the data from 81 WF-EMRs were collected. Eighteen cases of WF-EMR failure were switched to EMR-c in the same session and complete endoscopic resection was achieved in 17/18 patients (94.4%). No statistically significant difference was observed between WF-EMR and salvage EMR-c in terms of macroscopic radicality (P = 0.40) and R0 resection (P = 0.12). However, recurrence was more common with EMR-c (44.4% vs. 23.5%; P = 0.05), as were adverse events, particularly intraprocedural bleeding (27.8% vs. 7.9%; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

EMR-c is an effective salvage technique for challenging colorectal LSTs following WF-EMR failure. Due to the elevated risk of adverse events associated with this procedure, careful patient selection, endoscopic expertise, and close follow-up are strongly recommended.

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background and study aims Colorectal malignancy is a leading cause of death. Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) is a strategy used to resect precancerous lesions that involves injecting fluid beneath a polyp to create a gap for resection. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a newer method that forgoes injection, instead filling the intestinal cavity with water to facilitate polyp resection. Our aim was to compare the safety and efficacy of these approaches by synthesizing the most contemporary evidence. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries were searched from inception through November 11, 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing UEMR and CEMR for resection of colorectal lesions. The primary outcome was the rate of en bloc resection and secondary outcomes included recurrence, procedure time, and adverse events (AEs). Results A total of 2539 studies were identified through our systematic literature search. After screening, seven RCTs with a total of 1581 polyps were included. UEMR was associated with significantly increased rates of en bloc resection (RR 1.18 [1.03, 1.35]; I 2 = 76.6%) versus conventional approaches. No significant differences were found in procedure time, recurrence, or AEs. Conclusions UEMR is a promising effective technique for removal of colorectal lesions. The most contemporary literature indicates that it improves en bloc resection rate without increasing procedure time, recurrence, or AEs (PROSPERO ID CRD42022374935).

[Interventional endoscopy in gastroenterology]

Essential innovations in interventional endoscopy have significantly broadened the treatment armamentarium in gastroenterology. The treatment and complication management of intraepithelial neoplasms and early forms of cancer are increasingly being primarily addressed endoscopically. In cases of endoluminal lesions with no risk of lymph node or distant metastases, endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection have become established as standards. For broad-based adenomas, coagulation of the resection margins should be performed in the case of a piecemeal resection. Submucosal lesions can be reached and resected by tunneling techniques. Peroral endoscopic myotomy in cases of achalasia is a new treatment option for hypertensive and hypercontractile motility disorders. In addition, endoscopic myotomy for gastroparesis has shown very promising results. In this article, new resection techniques and so-called third space endoscopy are presented and critically discussed.

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.).

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.

Comparative efficacy and safety of resection techniques for treating 6 to 20mm, nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Various endoscopic resection techniques have been proposed for the treatment of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps sized 6-20 mm, however the optimal technique still remains unclear.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature review was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), investigating the efficacy of endoscopic treatments for the management of 6-20 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps. Primary outcomes were complete and en bloc resection rates and adverse event rate was the secondary. Effect size on outcomes is presented as risk ratio (RR; 95% confidence interval [CI]).

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs (5219 polypectomies) were included. Endoscopic mucosal resection(EMR) significantly outperformed cold snare polypectomy(CSP) in terms of complete [(RR 95%CI): 1.04(1.00-1.07)] and en bloc resection rate [RR:1.12(1.04-1.21)]. EMR was superior to hot snare polypectomy (HSP) [RR:1.04(1.00-1.08)] regarding complete resection, while underwater EMR (U-EMR) achieved significantly higher rate of en bloc resection compared to CSP [RR:1.15(1.01-1.30)]. EMR yielded the highest ranking for complete resection(SUCRA-score 0.81), followed by cold-snare EMR(CS-EMR,SUCRA-score 0.76). None of the modalities was different regarding adverse event rate compared to CSP, however EMR and CS-EMR resulted in fewer adverse events compared to HSP [RR:0.44(0.26-0.77) and 0.43(0.21-0.87),respectively].

CONCLUSION

EMR achieved the highest performance in resecting 6-20 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps, with this effect being consistent for polyps 6-9 and ≥10 mm; findings supported by very low quality of evidence.

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors ≤20mm: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is an emerging technique for endoscopic resection of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). However, compared to conventional EMR, its efficacy and safety has not been widely explored.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search using the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies comparing the efficacy and safety of UEMR versus EMR for SNADETs. The main outcomes examined included en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, recurrence rate, procedure time, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 5 studies comprising 635 patients were included. All the literature included duodenal lesions smaller than 20 mm. The pooled analysis showed that UEMR could achieve a higher en bloc resection rate (OR 1.78, 95%CI: 1.17 to 2.71, P = 0.007) and shorter procedure time (MD -4.08, 95%CI: -6.44 to -1.73, P = 0.0007) than EMR. However, the pooled results did not support a superiority of UEMR over EMR for R0 resection rate (OR 1.27; 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.81, P = 0.18) or recurrence rate (OR 0.49; 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.67, P = 0.26). The occurrence of adverse events, including postoperative bleeding, intraoperative perforation, and delayed perforation, was very low in included studies.

CONCLUSION

Compared to EMR, UEMR is an effective and safe technique for SNADETs ≤20 mm.

Implementing precision medicine in endoscopy practice

In contrast to the "one-size-fits-all" approach, precision medicine focuses on providing health care tailored to individual variabilities. Implementing precision medicine in endoscopy practice involves selecting the appropriate procedures among the endoscopic armamentarium in the diagnosis and management of patients in a logical sequence, jointly considering the pretest probabilities of possible diagnoses, patients' comorbidities and preference, and risk-benefit ratio of the individual procedures given the clinical scenario. The aim of this review is to summarize evidence-supported strategies and measures that may enhance precision medicine in general endoscopy practice.

Endoscopic management of difficult laterally spreading tumors in colorectum

Due to the advent of the screening programs for colorectal cancer and the era of quality assurance colonoscopy the number the polyps that can be considered difficult, including large (> 20 mm) laterally spreading tumors (LSTs), has increased in the last decade. All LSTs should be assessed carefully, looking for suspicious areas of submucosal invasion (SMI), such as nodules or depressed areas, describing the morphology according to the Paris classification, the pit pattern, and vascular pattern. The simplest, most appropriate and safest endoscopic treatment with curative intent should be selected. For LST-granular homogeneous type, piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection should be the first option due to its biological low risk of SMI. LST-nongranular pseudodepressed type has an increased risk of SMI, and en bloc resection should be mandatory. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection is useful in situations where submucosal injection alters the operative field, e.g., for the resection of scar lesions, with no lifting, adjacent tattoo, incomplete resection attempts, lesions into a colonic diverticulum, in ileocecal valve and lesions with intra-appendicular involvement. Endoscopic full thickness resection is very useful for the treatment of difficult to resect lesions of less than 20 up to 25 mm. Among the indications, we highlight the treatment of polyps with suspected malignancy because the acquired tissue allows an exact histologic risk stratification to assign patients individually to the best treatment and avoid surgery for low-risk lesions. Endoscopic submucosal dissection is the only endoscopic procedure that allows completes en bloc resection regardless of the size of the lesion. It should therefore be indicated in the treatment of lesions with risk of SMI.

Efficacy of Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Recently, underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) without submucosal injection was introduced as a new replacement for conventional EMR (CEMR) and was reported to be useful for resecting large colonic polyps. Here, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of these two methods by a systematic review and meta-analysis. We comprehensively searched multiple databases until July 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing UEMR with CEMR. The primary outcomes were the proportion of R0 resection and mean procedure time, and the secondary outcomes were the proportion of en bloc resection and all adverse events. Three reviewers independently searched for articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. This study was registered in www.protocols.io (Protocol Integer ID: 40849). We included six RCTs (1,374 polyps). We judged that a meta-analysis was not available, and the data were summarized narratively for the proportion of R0 resection. Regarding procedure time, UEMR likely resulted in a large reduction (mean difference = -64.3 seconds; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -122.5 to -6.0 seconds; I2 = 86%; moderate certainty of evidence). UEMR likely resulted in a large increase in en bloc resection (odds ratio = 1.85; 95% CI = 1.15 to 2.98; I2 = 60%; moderate certainty of evidence). Percentages of adverse events were 0-17% with CEMR and 0-16% with UEMR. In summary, UEMR might have higher efficacy than CEMR in the endoscopic resection of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps, with likely a large reduction in procedure time.