Outcomes of EMR of defiant colorectal lesions directed to an endoscopy referral center

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Appropriate and Tailored Polypectomy: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

In this Clinical Practice Update (CPU), we provide guidance on the appropriate use of different polypectomy techniques. We focus on polyps <2 cm in size that are most commonly encountered by the practicing endoscopist, including use of classification systems to characterize polyps and various polypectomy methods. We review characteristics of polyps that require complex polypectomy techniques and provide guidance on which types of polyps require more advanced management by a therapeutic endoscopist or surgeon. This CPU does not provide a detailed review of complex polypectomy techniques, such as endoscopic submucosal dissection, which should only be performed by endoscopists with advanced training.

METHODS

This expert review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute CPU Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. These Best Practice Advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: A structured visual assessment using high-definition white light and/or electronic chromoendoscopy and with photodocumentation should be conducted for all polyps found during routine colonoscopy. Closely inspect colorectal polyps for features of submucosally invasive cancer. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Use cold snare polypectomy for polyps <10 mm in size. Cold forceps polypectomy can alternatively be used for 1- to 3-mm polyps where cold snare polypectomy is technically difficult. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Do not use hot forceps polypectomy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Clinicians should be familiar with various techniques, such as cold and hot snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection, to ensure effective, safe, and optimal resection of intermediate-size polyps (10-19 mm). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Consider using lifting agents or underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for removal of sessile polyps 10-19 mm in size. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Serrated polyps should be resected using cold resection techniques. Submucosal injection may be helpful for polyps >10 mm if margins cannot be well delineated. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Use hot snare polypectomy to remove pedunculated lesions >10 mm in size. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Do not routinely use clips to close resection sites for polyps <20 mm. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Refer patients with polyps to endoscopic referral centers in the context of size ≥20 mm, challenging polypectomy location, or recurrent polyp at a prior polypectomy site. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Tattoo lesions that may need future localization at endoscopy or surgery. Tattoos should be placed in a location that will not interfere with subsequent attempts at endoscopic resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Refer patients with nonpedunculated polyps with clear evidence of submucosally invasive cancer for surgical evaluation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Understand the endoscopy suite's electrosurgical generator settings appropriate for polypectomy or postpolypectomy thermal techniques.

Prophylactic clipping using the over-the-scope clip (OTSC) system after complex ESD and EMR of large colon polyps

BACKGROUND

Delayed bleeding is the most frequent complication after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large colon polyps. Today, prophylactic clipping with through-the-scope clips (TTSCs) is commonly used to reduce the risk of bleeding. However, the over-the-scope clip (OTSC) system might be superior to TTSCs in achieving hemostasis. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic clipping using the OTSC system after ESD or EMR of large colon polyps.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of a prospective collected database from 2009 until 2021 of three endoscopic centers. Patients with large (≥ 20 mm) colon polyps were enrolled. All polyps were removed by either ESD or EMR. After the resection, OTSCs were prophylactically applied on parts of the mucosal defect with a high risk of delayed bleeding or/and perforation. The main outcome measurement was delayed bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of 75 patients underwent ESD (67%, 50/75) or EMR (33%, 25/75) in the colorectum. The mean resected specimen diameter was 57 mm ± 24.1 (range 22-98 mm). The mean number of OTSCs placed on the mucosal defect was 2 (range 1-5). None of the mucosal defects were completely closed. Intraprocedural bleeding occurred in 5.3% (ESD 2.0% vs. EMR 12.0%; P = 0.105), and intraprocedural perforation occurred in 6.7% (ESD 8% vs. EMR 4%; P = 0.659) of the patients. Hemostasis was achieved in 100% of cases of intraprocedural bleeding, whereas two patients required surgical conversion due to intraprocedural perforation. Among the remaining 73 patients who received prosphylactic clipping, delayed bleeding occurred in 1.4% (ESD 0% vs. EMR 4.2%; P = 0.329), and delayed perforation occurred in 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

The prophylactic partial closure of large post-ESD/EMR mucosal defects using OTSCs could serve as an effective strategy to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding and perforation. The prophylactic partial closure of large complex post-ESD/EMR mucosal defects using OTSCs could serve as an effective strategy to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding and perforation.

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.

Does completing advanced endoscopy fellowship improve outcomes after endoscopic mucosal resection?

BACKGROUND

It was reported that about 60% of the physicians in the USA believed that their Gastroenterology fellowship poorly prepared them for large polyp resection. The aim of this study was to compare endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) efficacy and complication rates between skilled general gastroenterologists who perform high volume of EMR and advanced endoscopists.

METHODS

We identified 140 patients with documented large colonic polyps treated by 4 providers using EMR technique at Carilion Clinic, in Roanoke, Virginia, USA between 01/01/2014-12/31/2017, with follow-up through 10-2018. Information on demographics, clinical and pathological features of high-risk polyps (i.e., size, histology, site, and degree of dysplasia), timing of surveillance endoscopies, tools used during resection, and skills of performing endoscopist's were extracted. The cumulative risks of polyp recurrence after first resection using EMR technique were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty patients were identified (mean age, 64.1±11.2 years; 47.1% males). Fifty-five polyps (39.3%) were removed by 2 skilled gastroenterologists and 85 (60.7%) were removed by advanced endoscopists. Most of the polyps resected were located in the right colon (63.6%) and roughly half of the polyps were removed in piecemeal fashion. At follow-up endoscopy, the advanced endoscopy group had lower polyp recurrence rates. The median recurrence after polypectomy was significantly different between the groups (0.88 and 1.03 years for skilled gastroenterologists who did not complete and completed EMR hands-on workshops; respectively vs. 3.99 years for the advanced endoscopist who did not complete EMR hands-on workshop, P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for additional EMR training since polyp recurrence was significantly different between the groups despite high rates of piecemeal resection in the advanced endoscopy groups.

Cold resection for colorectal polyps: where we are and where we are going?

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic resection of colonic precancerous lesions has been demonstrated to significantly decrease colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Among resection techniques, cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has been shown as a highly feasible, effective and safe option and is widely used in clinical practice, being regarded as the first-line technique for removal of small and diminutive colorectal polyps. On the other hand, conventional hot snare polypectomy (HSP) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), namely the gold standard treatments for larger polyps, may be occasionally associated to complications due to electrocautery injury.

AREAS COVERED

To overcome these shortcomings of electrocautery-based resection techniques, in the last few years CSP has been increasingly assessed as a treatment option for additional indications, with a focus on nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥10 mm.

EXPERT OPINION

This review aims to present current and widened indications of CSP discussing the latest findings from the most remarkable studies, with an insight into technical issues, novelties and potential advances in the near future.

Hot snare polypectomy vs endoscopic mucosal resection using bipolar snare for intermediate size colorectal lesions: Propensity score matching

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection (ER) with bipolar snare, in which the electric current only passes through the tissue between the device’s two electrodes, is a prominent method used to prevent perforation due to electricity potentially. ER using bipolar snare with or without submucosal injection enabled safe resection of colorectal lesions measuring 10–15 mm in an ex vivo porcine model. ER with bipolar snare is expected to have good treatment outcomes in 10–15 mm colorectal lesions, with high safety even without submucosal injection. However, no clinical reports have compared treatment outcomes with and without submucosal injection.

AIM

To compare the treatment outcomes of bipolar polypectomy with hot snare polypectomy (HSP) to those with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).

METHODS

In this single-centre retrospective study, we enrolled 10–15 mm nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (565 Lesions in 463 patients) diagnosed as type 2A based on the Japan Narrow-band Imaging Expert Team classification, resected by either HSP or EMR between January 2018 and June 2021 at the National Cancer Center Hospital East. Lesions were divided into HSP and EMR groups, and propensity score matching was performed. In the matched cohort, en bloc and R0 resection rates and adverse events were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Of the 565 lesions in 463 patients, 117 lesions each in the HSP and EMR groups were selected after propensity score matching. In the original cohort, there was a significant difference in antithrombotic drug use (P < 0.05), lesion size (P < 0.01), location (P < 0.01), and macroscopic type (P < 0.05) between the HSP and EMR groups. In the matched cohort, the en bloc resection rates were comparable between both groups [93.2% (109/117) vs 92.3% (108/117), P = 0.81], and there was no significant difference in the R0 resection rate [77.8% (91/117) vs 80.3% (94/117), P = 0.64]. The incidence of delayed bleeding was similar in both groups [1.7% (2/117)]. Perforation occurred in the EMR group [0.9% (1/117)] but not in the HSP group.

CONCLUSION

Using bipolar snare, ER of nonpedunculated 10–15 mm colorectal lesions may be performed safely and effectively, even without submucosal injection.

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for sessile colorectal polyps: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (uEMR) without submucosal injection for sessile colorectal polyps was introduced as a new replacement for conventional EMR (cEMR). However, the optimal resection strategy remains a topic of debate. Hence, this meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of uEMR and cEMR in patients with sessile colorectal polyps.

METHODS

a comprehensive search of the literature from 2000 till January 2022 was performed from Medline, CENTRAL and Embase for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing cEMR vs uEMR for colorectal polyps. The evaluated outcomes included en bloc resection, R0 resection, procedure time, overall bleeding and recurrence. Pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence interval were calculated using a random effect model.

RESULTS

six studies were included, out of which four were full-text articles and two were conference abstracts. En bloc resection (RR 1.26, 95 % CI: 1.00-1.60), R0 resection (RR 1.10, 95 % CI: 0.96-1.26), overall bleeding (RR 0.85, 95 % CI: 0.54-1.34) and recurrence rate (RR 0.75, 95 % CI: 0.45-1.27) were comparable between uEMR and cEMR. However, uEMR was associated with a shorter procedure time (mean difference [MD] -1.55 minutes, 95 % CI: -2.71 to -0.39). According to the subgroup analysis, uEMR led to a higher rate of en bloc resection (RR 1.41, 95 % CI: 1.07-1.86) and R0 resection (RR 1.19, 95 % CI: 1.01-1.41) for polyps ≥ 10 mm in size.

CONCLUSION

both uEMR and cEMR have a comparable safety and efficacy. For polyps larger than 10 mm, uEMR may have an advantage over cEMR and should be the topic for future studies.

Clinical outcomes of colonoscopic polypectomy with strategic surveillance colonoscopies in patients with 10 or more polyps

The clinical usefulness of repeat colonoscopic polypectomy in patients with numerous polyps has not been sufficiently determined. We aimed to analyze the clinical outcomes of colonoscopic polypectomy with surveillance colonoscopies in patients with ≥ 10 polyps. We reviewed the medical records of 152 patients who underwent polypectomy of ≥ 10 polyps at the baseline colonoscopy. We investigated polyp number, polyp size, polypectomy method, procedure time, and adverse events of the baseline colonoscopy. We also investigated the frequency and interval of surveillance colonoscopies and their findings. The mean number of polyps detected at the baseline colonoscopy was 20.0, of which 16.0 polyps were endoscopically resected. The mean size of the largest polyp was 13.4 mm. The mean procedure time was 54.9 min. Post-polypectomy bleeding occurred in 6 (3.9%) patients, all of whom were treated conservatively. No patients developed perforation. With an increasing number of surveillance colonoscopies, the number of detected polyps and the procedure time decreased. Surveillance colonoscopies identified colorectal cancer only in three patients (2.0%), all of which were mucosal cancers that could be curatively treated by polypectomy. Colonoscopic polypectomy with repeat surveillance colonoscopies is a clinically effective, efficient, and safe management option in patients with ≥ 10 polyps.

Outcomes of complex colorectal polyps managed by multi-disciplinary team strategies-a multi-centre observational study

PURPOSE

Team management strategies for complex colorectal polyps are recommended by professional guidelines. Multi-disciplinary meetings are used across the UK with limited information regarding their impact. The aim of this multi-centre observational study was to assess procedures and outcomes of patients managed using these approaches.

METHOD

This was a retrospective, observational study of patients managed by six UK sites. Information was collected regarding procedures and outcomes including length of stay, adverse events, readmissions and cancers.

RESULTS

Two thousand one hundred ninety-two complex polyps in 2109 patients were analysed with increasing referrals annually. Most presented symptomatically and the mean polyp size was 32.1 mm. Primary interventions included endoscopic therapy (75.6%), conservative management (8.3%), colonic resection (8.1%), trans-anal surgery (6.8%) or combined procedures (1.1%). The number of primary colonic resections decreased over the study period without a reciprocal increase in secondary procedures or recurrence. Secondary procedures were required in 7.8%. The median length of stay for endoscopic procedures was 0 days with 77.5% completed as day cases. Median length of stay was 5 days for colonic resections. Overall adverse event and 30-day readmission rates were 9.0% and 3.3% respectively. Malignancy was identified in 8.8%. Benign polyp recurrence occurred in 13.1% with a median follow up of 30.4 months. Screening detected lesions were more likely to undergo bowel resection. Colonic resection was associated with longer stays, higher adverse events and more cancers on final histology.

CONCLUSION

Multi-disciplinary team management of complex polyps is safe and effective. Standardisation of organisation and quality monitoring is needed to continue positive effects on outcomes and services.

Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Mucosal Resection with the Two-Person Method

Objectives Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is useful for removing colon polyps and is generally carried out by one doctor. It is occasionally difficult for colorectal polyps to be removed by EMR. In such cases, EMR is performed by the main doctor and an assistant doctor (the two-person method). However, the efficacy and safety of EMR in the two-person method remain unclear. This study aimed to compare the procedure time and incomplete resection rate (IRR) by the two- and single-person methods of EMR for polyp removal.

Materials and Methods Data from colorectal polyps resected by EMR were reviewed retrospectively and divided into two groups: general procedure/single- (n = 215) or two-person method (n = 56). The IRR, the procedure time, and the incidence of adverse events were compared between these methods.

Results A total of 152 patients and 271 lesions were included in this study. The mean procedure time for polypectomy was significantly shorter in the two-person method group than in the general procedure group (median time: 3.38 minutes vs. 6.56 minutes; p < 0.001). Additionally, the IRR for polyps was significantly lower in the two-person methods group than in the single-person methods group (2/56, 3.6% vs. 47/215, 21.9%; p = 0.001). None of the patients in the two-person method group presented with delayed bleeding.

Conclusions The two-person method for EMR was more effective than the single-person method. Therefore, this method may replace the conventional one-operator method in the future.

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.

Hybrid argon plasma coagulation-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection for large sessile colon polyps to reduce local recurrence: a prospective pilot study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large, sessile colon polyps often results in incomplete resection with subsequent recurrence. The aim of this prospective pilot study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a novel technique, hybrid argon plasma coagulation-assisted EMR (hAPC-EMR), to remove large, sessile polyps.

METHODS

40 eligible patients underwent hAPC-EMR for the removal of one or more nonpedunculated colon polyps ≥ 20 mm. Participants were contacted 30 days post-procedure to assess for adverse events and were recommended to return for a surveillance colonoscopy at 6 months to assess for local recurrence.

RESULTS

At the time writing, 32 patients with 35 polyps (median size 27 mm; interquartile range 14.5 mm) resected by hAPC-EMR had undergone the 6-month follow-up colonoscopy. Recurrence rate was 0 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0-0) at follow-up. Post-polypectomy bleeding was experienced by three patients (7.5 %; 95 %CI 0.00-0.15), and no patients developed post-polypectomy syndrome.

CONCLUSION

These preliminary results showed 0 % local recurrence rate at 6 months and demonstrated the safety profile of hAPC-EMR. A large, randomized, controlled trial is required to confirm these results.

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.

Cold versus hot endoscopic mucosal resection for large sessile colon polyps: a cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND : For large sessile colorectal polyps (LSCPs), endoscopic mucosal resection without diathermy ("cold endoscopic mucosal resection [EMR]") is gaining popularity because of its safety advantages over conventional EMR ("hot EMR"). Polyp recurrence rates have been reported to be higher with cold EMR. Considering these differences, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of these two techniques. METHODS : A decision analysis model was constructed for EMR of an LSCP. The decision tree incorporated the EMR method, clip use, procedural mortality, adverse events and their management, and polyp recurrence. Outcomes included days of lost productivity and marginal cost difference. Adverse event and recurrence rates were extracted from the existing literature, giving emphasis to recent systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. RESULTS : Through 30 months of follow-up, the average cost of removing an LSCP by cold EMR was US$5213, as compared to $6168 by hot EMR, yielding a $955 cost difference (95 % confidence interval $903-$1006). Average days of lost productivity were 6.2 days for cold EMR and 6.3 days for hot EMR. This cost advantage remained over several analyses accounting for variations in recurrence rates and clip closure strategies. Clip cost and LSCP recurrence rate had the greatest and the least impacts on the marginal cost difference, respectively. CONCLUSION : Cold EMR is the dominant strategy over hot EMR, with lower cost and fewer days of lost productivity. In theory, a complete transition to cold EMR for LSCPs in the USA could result in an annual cost saving approaching US$7 million to Medicare beneficiaries.

Polypectomy, Endoscopic Mucosal Resection, and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the Cirrhotic Population

Endoscopic mucosal resection and dissection are advanced endoscopic procedures that have proven essential for resecting premalignant and early malignant lesions throughout the gastrointestinal tract. Over time, these procedures have proven to play a key role in avoiding more invasive surgical approaches and thus decrease overall mortality. However, the success of these procedures does come with a slightly increased risk of adverse events such as bleeding and perforation. In this article, we review the literature for reported adverse events, specifically in the cirrhotic population. This article also discusses experts' opinions on approaches taken to perform these procedures with acceptable risks.

Endoscopic Management of Complex Colorectal Polyps: Current Insights and Future Trends

Most colorectal cancers arise from adenomatous polyps and sessile serrated lesions. Screening colonoscopy and therapeutic polypectomy can potentially reduce colorectal cancer burden by early detection and removal of these polyps, thus decreasing colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Most endoscopists are skilled in detecting and removing the vast majority of polyps endoscopically during a routine colonoscopy. Polyps can be considered “complex” based on size, location, morphology, underlying scar tissue, which are not amenable to removal by conventional endoscopic polypectomy techniques. They are technically more challenging to resect and carry an increased risk of complications. Most of these polyps were used to be managed by surgical intervention in the past. Rapid advancement in endoscopic resection techniques has led to a decreasing role of surgery in managing these complex polyps. These endoscopic resection techniques do require an expert in the field and advanced equipment to perform the procedure. In this review, we discuss various advanced endoscopic techniques for the management of complex polyps.

Snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large (> 20 mm) non pedunculated colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) > 20 mm in size can be challenging. Piecemeal EMR of these lesions results in high rates of adenoma recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1). Snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) of post resection margins is a safe and effective technique to prevent adenoma recurrence. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of this technique. Patients and methods  Multiple databases were searched through April 2021 for studies that reported on outcomes of post EMR STSC for LSTs > 20 mm in size. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled odds of adenoma recurrence as well as pooled proportion of adverse events including intraprocedural and delayed bleeding as well as intraprocedural perforation events. Results  Six studies including two randomized controlled trials (RCT) and four cohort studies with 2122 patients were included in the final analysis. Overall pooled odds of adenoma recurrence at SC1 with post EMR STSC compared to no STSC was 0.27 (95 % 0.18-0.42; I2 = 0 %), P < 0.001. Pooled rate of adenoma recurrence at SC1 in post EMR STSC cohort was 6 %. Rates of intraprocedural bleeding, delayed bleeding and intraprocedural perforation were 10.3 %, 6.5 % and 2 % respectively. Conclusions  Our results show that thermal ablation of resection margins with STSC in LSTs > 20 mm is a safe and effective technique in reducing the incidence of adenoma recurrence.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection in Children

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for removal of large polyps is well established in adults. EMR technique in the pediatric population is less utilized due to lower incidence of large intestinal polyps in pediatric patients and limited EMR training for pediatric gastroenterologists. The aim of this study is to retrospectively review safety and efficacy of pediatric EMR cases at two large, tertiary referral centers with adult and pediatric EMR expertise.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center from January 2012 to May 2021. Demographic, clinical, technical and follow up data were collected for patients <18 years of age who underwent EMR during the study period.

RESULTS

Fifteen pediatric EMR procedures were identified in 11 patients (five male, six female) during the study period. Indication was most frequently rectal bleeding. Polyp size removed ranged from 9 to 60 mm and pathology was consistent with juvenile inflammatory polyps in six patients. Technical success was achieved in 14 of 15 (93%) of EMRs with clinical success (desired clinical outcome) in all 13 procedures with clinical follow-up. There were no adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies a case series of pediatric patients who underwent EMR at two tertiary care centers. This series demonstrates successful EMR in children and shows a high technical and clinical success rate with a low complication rate. More investigation into EMR in pediatric patients is necessary, and its use should be isolated to centers with endoscopists with specific experience in EMR techniques.

Adenoma Recurrence after Endoscopic Piecemeal Mucosal Resection of Colorectal Flat Lesions: Applicability of the Sydney EMR Recurrence Tool in a Non-Tertiary Centre

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the treatment of choice for non-invasive colorectal flat lesions. When endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection (EPMR) is performed, endoscopic surveillance is necessary due to the risk of recurrence. The Sydney EMR Recurrence Tool (SERT) is a 0–4 scale that classifies lesions according to size, occurrence of intraprocedural bleeding (IPB) and presence of high-grade dysplasia (HGD). Our goal is to evaluate the applicability of SERT in predicting adenoma recurrence (AR) after EPMR. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> This is a retrospective single-centre study with inclusion of lateral spreading lesions ≥20 mm, consecutively resected by EPMR from March 2010 to February 2018, with at least 1 endoscopic re-evaluation. <b><i>Results:</i></b> A total of 181 lesions were included, corresponding to 174 patients with a mean age of 68 years and male gender predominance (61%; <i>n</i> = 106). The most frequent location was the ascending colon (34%; <i>n</i> = 62). Lesions were assessed according to Paris Classification (PC): 0-IIa: 39% (<i>n</i> = 71); 0-IIb: 24% (<i>n</i> = 43); 0-IIa + Is: 23% (<i>n</i> = 42); 0-IIa + IIb: 6% (<i>n</i> = 11); 0-IIa + IIc: 2% (<i>n</i> = 3). The mean size of the lesions was 33 ± 11 mm, with 25 (14%) being ≥40 mm. IPB occurred in 9 cases (5%), and 44 lesions (24%) displayed HGD. Sixty-six lesions (36.5%) were classified as SMSA (size, morphology, site, and access score) level 4. Adjunctive therapy with argon plasma coagulation (APC) was used in 37% (<i>n</i> = 67) of cases. The 6-month AR rate was 16% (<i>n</i> = 29). According to SERT groups, the AR rate was: SERT 0: 12% (14/120); SERT 1: 17% (6/35); SERT 2: 25% (3/12); SERT 3: 30% (3/10); SERT 4: 75% (3/4). Two of the three SERT variables (size ≥40 mm and IPB) were associated with recurrence at 6 months (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.05). HGD and the remaining tested variables (age, gender, localization, accessibility, PC, use of APC/biopsy forceps and occurrence of delayed bleeding) were not associated with AR. SERT 0 lesions showed an inferior risk of 6-month AR (adjusted OR = 2.62; <i>p</i> = 0.035), with a negative predictive value of 88%. SMSA correlated with SERT (<i>p</i> &#x3c; 0.001) and SMSA level 4 was associated with 6-month AR (<i>p</i> = 0.007). Lesions classified both as SERT 0 and SMSA level &#x3c;4 had the lowest 6-month recurrence rate (9.2%). The 24-month recurrence rate was 23% (<i>n</i> = 41). When applying the Kaplan-Meier method, cumulative recurrence was significantly lower in SERT 0 lesions (<i>p</i> = 0.006, log-rank test). <b><i>Discussion/Conclusion:</i></b> Resection of flat colorectal lesions by EPMR has a considerable risk of recurrence, mostly in SERT 1–4 lesions. SERT 0 lesions, especially with SMSA level &#x3c;4, show a lower risk of recurrent adenoma, which might allow longer intervals to first endoscopic surveillance in the future.

Indications and outcomes of endoscopic resection for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions: A narrative review

In the last years, endoscopic techniques gained a crucial role in the treatment of colorectal flat lesions. At the same time, the importance of a reliable assessment of such lesions to predict the malignancy and the depth of invasion of the colonic wall emerged. The current unsolved dilemma about the endoscopic excision techniques concerns the necessity of a reliable submucosal invasive cancer assessment system that can stratify the risk of the post-procedural need for surgery. Accordingly, this narrative literature review aims to compare the available diagnostic strategies in predicting malignancy and to give a guide about the best techniques to employ. We performed a literature search using electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library). We collected all articles about endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) registering the outcomes. Moreover, we analyzed all meta-analyses comparing EMR vs ESD outcomes for colorectal sessile or non-polypoid lesions of any size, preoperatively estimated as non-invasive. Seven meta-analysis studies, mainly Eastern, were included in the analysis comparing 124 studies and overall 22954 patients who underwent EMR and ESD procedures. Of these, eighty-two were retrospective, twenty-four perspective, nine case-control, and six cohorts, while three were randomized clinical trials. A total of 18118 EMR and 10379 ESD were completed for a whole of 28497 colorectal sessile or non-polypoid lesions > 5-10 mm in size. In conclusion, it is crucial to enhance the preoperative diagnostic workup, especially in deciding the most suitable endoscopic method for radical resection of flat colorectal lesions at risk of underlying malignancy. Additionally, the ESD necessitates further improvement because of the excessively time-consuming as well as the intraprocedural technical hindrances and related complications. We found a higher rate of en bloc resections and R0 for ESD than EMR for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions. Nevertheless, despite the lower local recurrence rates, ESD had greater perforation rates and needed lengthier procedural times. The prevailing risk for additional surgery in ESD rather than EMR for complications or oncologic reasons is still uncertain.

Location, morphology and invasiveness of lateral spreading tumors in the colorectum differ between two large cohorts from an eastern and western country

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Data from Japanese series show that surface morphology of laterally spreading tumors (LST) in the colon identifies lesions with different incidence and pattern of submucosal invasion. Such data from western countries are scarce. We compared clinical and histological features of LST in a western country and an eastern country, with special interest on mucosal invasiveness of LST, and investigated the effect of clinical factors on invasiveness in both countries.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with LST lesions ≥20mm were included from a multicenter prospective registry in Spain and from a retrospective registry from the National Cancer Center Hospital East, Japan. The primary outcome was the presence of submucosal invasion in LST. The secondary outcome was the presence of high-risk histology, defined as high-grade dysplasia or submucosal invasion.

RESULTS

We evaluated 1102 patients in Spain and 663 in Japan. Morphological and histological characteristics differed. The prevalence of submucosal invasion in Japan was six-fold the prevalence in Spain (Prevalence Ratio PR=5.66; 95%CI: 3.96, 8.08), and the prevalence of high-risk histology was 1.5 higher (PR=1.44; 95%CI: 1.31, 1.58). Compared to the granular homogeneous type and adjusted by clinical features, granular mixed, flat elevated, and pseudo-depressed types were associated with higher odds of submucosal invasion in Japan, whereas only the pseudo-depressed type showed higher risk in Spain. Regarding high-risk histology, both granular mixed and pseudo-depressed were associated with higher odds in Japan, compared with only the granular mixed type in Spain.

CONCLUSION

This study reveals differences in location, morphology and invasiveness of LST in an eastern and a western cohort.

Outcomes of colonoscopy with non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP): an equivalence trial

Background and study aims  Efficacy and safety of NAAP for gastrointestinal endoscopy have been widely documented, although there is no information about the outcomes of colonoscopy when the endoscopist supervises the sedation. In this context, the aim of this trial was to determine the equivalence of adenoma detection rate (ADR) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening colonoscopies performed with non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) and performed with monitored anesthesia care (MAC). Patients and methods  This was a single-blind, non-randomized controlled equivalence trial that enrolled adults from a national CRC screening program (CRCSP). Patients were blindly assigned to undergo either colonoscopy with NAAP or MAC. The main outcome measure was the ADR in CRCSP colonoscopies performed with NAAP. Results  We included 315 patients per group. The median age was 59.76 ± 5.81 years; 40.5 % of patients were women. The cecal intubation rate was 97 %, 81.8 % of patients had adequate bowel preparation, withdrawal time was > 6 minutes in 98.7 %, and the median global exploration time was 24.25 ± 8.86 minutes (range, 8-70 minutes). The ADR was 62.9 % and the complication rate (CR) was 0.6 %. Analysis by intention-to-treat showed an ADR in the NAAP group of 64.13 % compared with 61.59 % in the MAC group, a difference (δADR) of 2.54 %, 95 %CI: -0.10 to 0.05. Analysis by per-protocol showed an ADR in the NAAP group of 62.98 %, compared with 61.94 % in the MAC group, δADR: 1.04 %, 95 %CI: -0.09 to 0.07. There was no difference in CR (NAAP: 0,63 vs. MAC: 0.63); P  = 1.0. Conclusions  ADR in colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies performed with NAAP was equivalent to that in those performed with MAC. Similarly, there was no difference in complication rates.

[Post-colonoscopy Colorectal Cancer: Causes and Prevention of Interval Colorectal Cancer]

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and the fourth leading cause of cancer death in the worldwide. Colonoscopy is the gold standard for screening and surveillance of CRC. Removing adenomas by colonoscopy has lowered the incidence and mortality of CRC. However, colonoscopy is imperfect for detection of colorectal neoplasia. After a colonoscopy that is negative for malignancy, CRC can be diagnosed. These are termed as post-colonoscopy CRC (PCCRC). The proportion of PCCRC, among all CRC was reported to be 1.8% to 9.0%. It occurred 2.4 times more in the right colon than in the left colon. The causes of PCCRC are missed lesions, incomplete resection, and new lesions. Among these causes, missed lesion and incomplete resection are procedural factors and preventable. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the quality of colonoscopy to minimize the occurrence of PCCRC.

Risk factors associated with adenoma recurrence following cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection of polyps ≥ 20 mm: a retrospective chart review

Background and study aims  Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is being increasingly utilized for non-pedunculated polyps ≥ 20 mm due to adverse events associated with use of cautery. Larger studies evaluating adenoma recurrence rate (ARR) and risk factors for recurrence following cold snare EMR of large polyps are lacking. The aim of this study was to define ARR for polyps ≥ 20 mm removed by cold snare EMR and to identify risk factors for recurrence. Patients and methods  A retrospective chart review of colon cold snare EMR procedures performed between January 2015 and July 2019 at a tertiary care medical center was performed. During this period, 310 non-pedunculated polyps ≥ 20 mm were excised using cold snare EMR with follow-up surveillance colonoscopy. Patient demographic data as well as polyp characteristics at the time of index and surveillance colonoscopy were collected and analyzed. Results  A total of 108 of 310 polyps (34.8 %) demonstrated adenoma recurrence at follow-up colonoscopy. Patients with a higher ARR were older ( P  = 0.008), had endoscopic clips placed at index procedure ( P  = 0.017), and were more likely to be Asian and African American ( P  = 0.02). ARR was higher in larger polyps ( P  < 0.001), tubulovillous adenomas ( P  < 0.001), and polyps with high-grade dysplasia ( P  = 0.003). Conclusions  Although cold snare EMR remains a feasible alternative to hot snare polypectomy for resection of non-pedunculated polyps ≥ 20 mm, endoscopists must also carefully consider factors associated with increased ARR when utilizing this technique.

Endoscopic full thickness resection in the colo-rectum: outcomes from the UK Registry

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) of the colon using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) is a novel method for removing lesions involving, or tethered to, deeper layers of the colonic wall. The UK FTRD Registry collected data from multiple centres performing this procedure. We describe the technical feasibility, safety and early outcomes of this technique in the UK.

METHODS

Data were collected and analysed on 68 patients who underwent eFTR at 11 UK centres from April 2015 to June 2019. Outcome measures were technical success, procedural time, specimen size, R0 resection, endoscopic clearance, and adverse events. Reported technical difficulties were collated.

RESULTS

Indications for eFTR included non-lifting polyps (29 cases), T1 tumour resection (13), subepithelial tumour (9), and polyps at the appendix base or diverticulum (17). Target lesion resection was achieved in 60/68 (88.2%). Median specimen size was 21.7 mm (10-35 mm). Histologically confirmed R0 resection was achieved in 43/56 (76.8%) with full-thickness resection in 52/56 (92.9%). Technical difficulties occurred in 17/68 (25%) and complications in 3/68 (5.9%) patients.

CONCLUSION

eFTR is a useful technique with a high success rate in treating lesions not previously amenable to endoscopic therapy. Whilst technical difficulties may arise, complication rates are low and outcomes are acceptable, making eFTR a viable alternative to surgery for some specific lesions.

Colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection using a novel robotic system (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

One of the difficulties in performing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the lack of retraction during submucosal dissection. The development of the EndoMaster EASE System (EndoMaster Pte Ltd, Singapore) aims to enhance the safety and efficacy of ESD through 2 flexible robotic arms for tissue retraction and dissection. This is a preclinical animal study to evaluate the performance of colorectal ESD using the latest version of the EndoMaster EASE System.

METHODS

The latest version of the EndoMaster EASE System consists of an independently designed, flexible platform with a built-in endoscopic imaging system and 3 working channels, 2 for the passage of robotic arms and 1 for accessories. In this animal study, the outcome measures were operating time (from starting incision to finishing dissection), completeness of resection, procedure-related adverse events, and limitations of arm manipulation in a narrow working space as assessed by counting the frequency of blind cutting.

RESULTS

Five ESD procedures were performed in a 66.7-kg porcine model with the animal under general anesthesia. The mean operative time was 73.8 minutes, and the mean size of the specimen resected was 1340 mm². There was no perforation, although profuse bleeding was encountered during 1 robotic ESD procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The current preclinical study confirmed the feasibility of performing colorectal ESD using the latest version of the EndoMaster EASE System. The system was also tested for the ability to manage adverse events including bleeding and perforation. This study provided important preclinical experience for clinical trial.

Salvage endoscopic submucosal dissection for local residual/recurrent colorectal tumor after endoscopic resection: Large multicenter 10-year study

OBJECTIVES

For local residual/recurrent and endoscopic resection (ER) interrupted colorectal tumors, endoscopic retreatment is often difficult due to severe submucosal fibrosis. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can achieve en bloc resection, even for tumors with severe submucosal fibrosis, although it is a risk factor for incomplete resection and perforation. We aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of colorectal ESD for local residual/recurrent tumors including ER interrupted tumors from a large multicenter study.

METHODS

From January 2008 until December 2018, 3,937 colorectal tumors were resected by ESD at the Hiroshima GI Endoscopy Research Group. From this group, 81 local residual/recurrent tumors and 21 ER interrupted tumors were included. We analyzed ESD outcomes, particularly the difference between the early and late phases and re-recurrence after ESD for local residual/recurrent tumors.

RESULTS

For local residual/recurrent tumors, en bloc and R0 resection rates were 95% (77/81) and 90% (73/81), respectively. The intraoperative perforation rate was 6% (5/81), and one patient required surgery. The delayed perforation rate was 2% (2/81), and one patient required surgery. For ER interrupted tumors, both the en bloc and R0 resection rates were 86% (18/21), with no major adverse events. For local residual/recurrent and ER interrupted tumors, the intraoperative perforation rate was significantly lower in the late phase compared with the early phase. Following curative resection for local residual/recurrent tumors, no local re-recurrences occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Colorectal ESD is an effective treatment for local residual/recurrent and ER interrupted tumors.

Safety and efficacy of band ligation and auto-amputation as adjunct to EMR of colonic large laterally spreading tumors, and polyps not amenable to routine polypectomy

Introduction:

The safety and efficacy of colonic band ligation and auto-amputation (1) as adjunct to endoscopic mucosal resection of large laterally spreading tumors and (2) for polyps not amenable to routine polypectomy due to polyp burden or difficult location remain unknown.

Methods:

An institutional review board–approved retrospective single-institution study was undertaken of patients undergoing colonic band ligation and auto-amputation from 2014 to date. Patients with indications of ‘endoscopic mucosal resection for laterally spreading tumors’ and ‘polyp not amenable to snare polypectomy’ were included in the study. Data were collected on patient demographics, colonoscopy details (laterally spreading tumors/polyp characteristics, therapies applied, complications), pathology results, and follow-up (polyp eradication based on endoscopic appearance and biopsy results).

Results:

Patients undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection for laterally spreading tumors: Thirty-two patients (31 males, aged 68 ± 9.17 years) underwent endoscopic mucosal resection-band ligation and auto-amputation of 34 laterally spreading tumors (40 ± 10.9 mm). A median of 2 ± 1.09 bands were placed. Follow-up colonoscopy and biopsy results confirmed complete eradication in 21 laterally spreading tumors (70%). Nine (30%) laterally spreading tumors required additional endoscopic therapy to achieve complete eradication. Four (13%) patients underwent surgery for cancer, and two of them had resection specimens negative for cancer or residual adenoma. One patient suffered post-polypectomy syndrome. Patients undergoing band ligation and auto-amputation for polyps not amenable to snare polypectomy: Seven patients underwent band ligation and auto-amputation due to serrated polyposis syndrome (one patient) and innumerable polyps, or polyps in difficult locations (extension into diverticula: two patients; terminal ileum: two patients; appendiceal orifice: one patient; anal canal: one patient). The patient with serrated polyposis syndrome achieved dramatic decrease in polyp burden, but not eradication. Follow-up in five of the six remaining patients documented polyp eradication. The patient with serrated polyposis syndrome suffered from rectal pain and tenesmus following placement of 18 bands.

Conclusions:

Band ligation and auto-amputation in the colon may be a safe and effective adjunct to current endoscopic mucosal resection and polypectomy methods and warrants further study.

Plain Language Summary

Colonoscopy with rubber band placement to aid in complete removal of large polyps and polyps in technically challenging locations

Colonoscopy is a commonly performed procedure for the early detection of colon and rectal cancer, and prevention through polyp removal.During colonoscopy, sometimes situations are encountered making polyp removal difficult. These can include the presence of larger polyps or the location of a polyp in an area that makes removal technically challenging or high risk.A particularly challenging situation arises when after extensive effort there is still polyp tissue remaining that cannot be removed using routine techniques. We are interested in exploring a technique which involves the placement of a rubber band after sucking a small area of the colon lining into a cap loaded onto the tip of the colonoscope. With time the rubber band strangulates the tissue and falls off along with captured tissue and passes out of the colon naturally.To assess the effectives of this technique we studied patients that have undergone this procedure at our GI unit. We identified 32 patients with 34 large polyps between 4cm to 6cm that we placed rubber bands on polyp tissue after we were unable to completely remove the polyp. On their follow up colonoscopy, complete polyp removal was successful in 21 polyps. We were also able to achieve complete polyp removal in 9 of the remaining large polyps after additional treatment. Four patients underwent surgery because cancer was found in analysis of polyp tissue.In 5 of 6 patients with polyps in difficult locations (e.g. partly within the lumen of the appendix), placement of a rubber band led to complete removal of polyp tissue.Two patients in our study population had mild adverse events that were managed with simple measures.We believe our results show promise for our described technique and this technique should be tested in larger studies.

Colorectal EMR outcomes in octogenarians versus younger patients referred for removal of large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Data are limited on safety and outcomes of colorectal EMR in octogenarians (≥80 years old). We sought to review outcome data for patients aged ≥80 in a prospectively collected database of patients referred for large polyp removal.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated a database of patients referred for large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated polyp removal. From 2000 to 2019, we compared the rates of follow-up, recurrence, adverse events, and synchronous neoplasia detection between younger patients and patients aged ≥80.

RESULTS

There were 167 patients aged ≥80 years and 1686 <80 years. Patients in the elderly group returned for surveillance less often (67.1% vs 75.1%, P = .024), had greater first follow-up recurrence rates (27.5% vs 13.8%, P < .001), but had similar adverse event rates (1.8% vs 2.8%, P = .619) compared with younger patients. Rates of synchronous neoplasia were similar and high in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

EMR is safe and well tolerated for large polyp removal in patients over 80 years old. Patients aged ≥80 years are less likely to present for follow-up after EMR. They had a higher recurrence rate and a similarly high prevalence of synchronous precancerous lesions. Follow-up after EMR should be encouraged in the elderly, and an attempt to clear the colon of synchronous disease at the time of the initial EMR may be warranted.

Adverse events and residual lesion rate after cold endoscopic mucosal resection of serrated lesions ≥10 mm

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Cold EMR is being increasingly used for large serrated lesions. We sought to measure residual lesion rates and adverse events after cold EMR of large serrated lesions.

METHODS

In a single academic center, we retrospectively examined a database of serrated class lesions ≥10 mm removed with cold EMR for safety and efficacy.

RESULTS

Five hundred sixty-six serrated lesions ≥10 mm in size were removed from 312 patients. We successfully contacted 223 patients (71.5%) with no reported serious adverse events that required hospitalization, repeat endoscopy, or transfusion. The residual lesion rate per lesion at first follow-up colonoscopy was 18 of 225 (8%; 95% confidence interval, 5-12.1). Lesions with residual were larger at polypectomy compared with lesions without recurrence (median, 23 mm versus 16 mm, P = .017).

CONCLUSION

Cold EMR appears to be safe and effective for the removal of large serrated lesions.

Oncological outcome after local treatment for early stage rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Treatment of early rectal cancer is evolving towards organ-preserving therapy which includes endoscopic resection and transanal approaches. We aimed to explore the role of local treatments such as endoscopic polypectomy (Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) or Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)) and transanal endoscopic microsurgery/ transanal minimal invasive surgery (TEM/TAMIS) in patients who had early rectal cancer. We considered these outcomes alongside conventional major surgery using total mesorectal excision (TME) for early stage disease.

METHODS

All patients identified at MDT with early stage rectal cancer at our institution between 2010 and 2019 were included. Long-term outcomes in terms of local recurrence, survival and procedure-specific morbidity were analysed.

RESULTS

In total, 536 patients with rectal cancer were identified, of which 112 were included based on their pre-operative identification at the MDT on the basis that they had node-negative early rectal cancer. Among these, 30 patients (27%) had the lesion excised by flexible endoscopic polypectomy techniques (EMR/ESD), 67 (60%) underwent TEM/TAMIS and 15 (13%) had major surgery. There were no differences in patient demographics between the three groups except for TEM/TAMIS patients being more likely to be referred from another hospital (p < 0.001) and they were less active (WHO performance status p = 0.04). There were no significant differences in overall survival rates and cancer-specific survival between the three treatment groups. The 5-year overall survival rate for endoscopic polypectomy, TEM/TAMIS or major resection was 96% versus 90% and 88%, respectively (p = 0.89). The 5- year cancer-specific survival rate was 96%, versus 96% and 100%, respectively (p = 0.74).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic polypectomy by EMR/ESD is an appropriate local treatment for early stage rectal cancer in selected patients. It is possible to achieve good oncological outcomes with a polypectomy similar to TEM/TAMIS and major surgery; however, a multidisciplinary approach is necessary enabling close surveillance and the use of adjuvant radiotherapy.

The Answer to "When to Clip" After Colorectal Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Based on a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Delayed bleeding (DB) is the most common major complication of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Two randomized clinical trials recently demonstrated that clip closure after EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) reduces the risk of DB. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of this prophylactic measure.

METHODS

EMRs of LNCPCPs were consecutively registered in the ongoing prospective multicenter database of the Spanish EMR Group from May 2013 until July 2017. Patients were classified according to the Spanish Endoscopy Society EMR group (GSEED-RE2) DB risk score. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for both Spanish and US economic contexts. The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) thresholds were set at 54,000 € or $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively.

RESULTS

We registered 2,263 EMRs in 2,130 patients. Applying their respective DB relative risk reductions after clip closure (51% and 59%), the DB rate decreased from 4.5% to 2.2% in the total cohort and from 13.7% to 5.7% in the high risk of the DB GSEED-RE2 subgroup. The ICERs for the universal clipping strategy in Spain and the United States, 469,706 € and $1,258,641, respectively, were not cost effective. By contrast, selective clipping in the high-risk of DB GSEED-RE2 subgroup was cost saving, with a negative ICER of -2,194 € in the Spanish context and cost effective with an ICER of $87,796 in the United States.

DISCUSSION

Clip closure after EMR of large colorectal lesions is cost effective in patients with a high risk of bleeding. The GSEED-RE2 DB risk score may be a useful tool to identify that high-risk population.

Outcomes of Gastrointestinal Polyps Resected Using Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (UEMR) Compared to Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (CEMR)

Objective

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is reported to be superior to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CMER) for the complete resection of large polyps and may offer increased procedural efficiency.

Aims

To compare recurrence rates and adverse events between UEMR and CEMR and define risk factors related to recurrence. Also, to assess recurrence rates in piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) based on the number of pieces resected.

Methods

We identified all patients with large polyps treated using the UEMR technique at Carilion Clinic, Roanoke, VA, USA between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2017 with follow-up through October of 2018. We matched the UEMR patients with patients treated using the CEMR technique (1:2 matching, respectively). The Kaplan-Meier curve was used to estimate the cumulative risks of polyp recurrence. The Cox proportional hazard analysis was used to assess risk factors for developing polyp recurrence.

Results

Sixty-eight patients (mean age: 63.4 ± 12.5 years; 52.9% males) with polyps removed using the UEMR technique (Group 1) were matched with 122 patients (mean age: 64.4 ± 10.0 years; 51.6% males) who had polyps removed using CEMR (Group 2). Polyps resected in fewer pieces (≤ 3) had lower recurrence rates compared to the ones resected in >3 pieces. Right colon polyps removed using UEMR had a lower recurrence rate compared to right colon polyps resected using CEMR. Polyp size and a high degree of dysplasia were associated with a high risk of polyp recurrence after resection. Completing advanced endoscopy training was also associated with a lower risk of recurrence.

Conclusion

UEMR had a lower recurrence rate compared with CEMR for right colon polyps. Factors associated with recurrence included the degree of training, high-grade dysplasia, and polyp size.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) of colorectal lesions: results from the Dutch colorectal eFTR registry

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a minimally invasive resection technique that allows definite diagnosis and treatment for complex colorectal lesions ≤ 30 mm unsuitable for conventional endoscopic resection. This study reports clinical outcomes from the Dutch colorectal eFTR registry.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing eFTR in 20 hospitals were prospectively included. The primary outcome was technical success, defined as macroscopic complete en bloc resection. Secondary outcomes were: clinical success, defined as tumor-free resection margins (R0 resection); full-thickness resection rate; and adverse events. RESULTS : Between July 2015 and October 2018, 367 procedures were included. Indications were difficult polyps (non-lifting sign and/or difficult location; n = 133), primary resection of suspected T1 colorectal cancer (CRC; n = 71), re-resection after incomplete resection of T1 CRC (n = 150), and subepithelial tumors (n = 13). Technical success was achieved in 308 procedures (83.9 %). In 21 procedures (5.7 %), eFTR was not performed because the lesion could not be reached or retracted into the cap. In the remaining 346 procedures, R0 resection was achieved in 285 (82.4 %) and full-thickness resection in 288 (83.2 %). The median diameter of resected specimens was 23 mm. Overall adverse event rate was 9.3 % (n = 34/367): 10 patients (2.7 %) required emergency surgery for five delayed and two immediate perforations and three cases of appendicitis. CONCLUSION : eFTR is an effective and relatively safe en bloc resection technique for complex colorectal lesions with the potential to avoid surgery. Further studies assessing the role of eFTR in early CRC treatment with long-term outcomes are needed.

Underwater vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection in treatment of colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) of colorectal lesions is emerging as an alternative method to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR); however, it is still controversial whether there is a difference in the effectiveness between UEMR and EMR.

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of UEMR in the treatment of colorectal polyps.

METHODS

Clinical studies comparing the effectiveness or safety of UEMR in the treatment of colorectal polyps were searched in medical databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang Data, monographs, theses, and papers presented at conferences. Statistical analyses were performed using Revman 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Seven non-randomized controlled trials and one randomized controlled trial met the inclusion criteria. In total, 1382 patients (1511 polyps) were included in the study, including 722 who received UEMR and 789 who received EMR. In the UEMR and EMR groups, the en bloc resection rates were 85.87% and 73.89%, respectively, with a relative risk (RR) value of 1.14 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.30; P < 0.05). In the sub-group analysis, the en bloc resection rate showed no statistically significant difference between the EMR and UEMR groups for polyps less than 20 mm in diameter. However, a statistically significant difference was found between the EMR and UEMR groups for polyps equal to or greater than 20 mm in diameter. The post-endoscopic resection recurrence rates at 3-6 mo of the UEMR and EMR groups were 3.26% and 15.17%, respectively, with an RR value of 0.27 (95%CI: 0.09-0.83; P < 0.05). The post-endoscopic resection recurrence rates of UEMR and EMR at 12 mo were 6.25% and 14.40%, respectively, with an RR value of 0.43 (95%CI: 0.20-0.92; P < 0.05). Additionally, the incidence of adverse events was 8.17% and 6.21%, respectively, with an RR value of 1.07 (95%CI: 0.50-2.30; P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

UEMR is an effective technique for colorectal polyps and appears to have some advantages over EMR, particularly with regard to some treatment outcomes.

Devices and techniques for endoscopic treatment of residual and fibrotic colorectal polyps (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Residual neoplasia after macroscopically complete EMR of large colon polyps has been reported in 10% to 32% of resections. Often, residual polyps at the site of prior polypectomy are fibrotic and nonlifting, making additional resection challenging.

METHODS

This document reviews devices and methods for the endoscopic treatment of fibrotic and/or residual polyps. In addition, techniques reported to reduce the incidence of residual neoplasia after endoscopic resection are discussed.

RESULTS

Descriptions of technologies and available outcomes data are summarized for argon plasma coagulation ablation, snare-tip coagulation, avulsion techniques, grasp-and-snare technique, EndoRotor endoscopic resection system, endoscopic full-thickness resection device, and salvage endoscopic submucosal dissection.

CONCLUSIONS

Several technologies and techniques discussed in this document may aid in the prevention and/or resection of fibrotic and nonlifting polyps.

Dissection-enabled scaffold-assisted resection (DeSCAR): a novel technique for resection of residual or non-lifting gastrointestinal neoplasia of the colon, expanded experience and follow-up

Background and study aims  Colonic lesions may not be amenable to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) due to previous manipulation, submucosal invasion, or lesion flatness. In 2018, we described Dissection-enabled Scaffold Assisted Resection (DeSCAR) to be safe for the endoscopic resection of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions 1 In this study, we expand our original cohort to describe our expanded experience with patients undergoing DeSCAR and assess the efficacy, safety, and feasibility of DeSCAR for endoscopic resection of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions. Patients and methods  We retrospectively reviewed 57 patients from 2015-2019 who underwent DeSCAR for colonic lesions with incomplete lifting and/or previous manipulation. Cases were reviewed for location, prior manipulation, rates of successful resection, adverse events, and endoscopic follow up to assess for residual lesions. Results  Fifty-seven lesions underwent DeSCAR. Of the patients, 51 % were female, and average patient age was 69 years. Lesions were located in the cecum (n = 16), right colon (n = 27), left colon (n = 10), and rectum (n = 4). Average lesion size was 27.7 mm. Previous manipulation occurred in 54 cases (72 % biopsy, 44 % resection attempt, 18 % intralesional tattoo). The technical success rate for resection of non-lifting lesions was 98 %. There were two delayed bleeding episodes (one required endoscopic intervention) and one small perforation (managed by endoscopic hemoclip closure). Endoscopic follow up was available in 31 patients (54 %) with no residual adenoma in 28 patients (90 % of those surveilled). Conclusions  Our expanded experience with DeSCAR demonstrates high safety, feasibility, and effectiveness for the endoscopic management of non-lifting or residual colonic lesions.

Cold snare piecemeal EMR of large sessile colonic polyps ≥20 mm (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Conventional EMR using a hot snare is the standard of care for resection of large (≥20 mm) nonmalignant sessile colonic polyps. Serious adverse events are predominantly because of electrocautery. This could potentially be avoided by cold snare piecemeal EMR (CSP-EMR). This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CSP-EMR of sessile colonic polyps sized ≥20 mm.

METHODS

All cases of CSP-EMR at 5 Australian academic hospitals for sessile polyps ≥20 mm over a 2-year period, from January 2016 to December 2017, were identified retrospectively. Efficacy was defined as the absence of residual or recurrent polyp tissue during the first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1) and second surveillance colonoscopy (SC2). Clinically significant intraprocedural or delayed adverse events and surveillance colonoscopy findings were assessed by reviewing medical records.

RESULTS

CSP-EMR was performed on 204 polyps sized ≥20 mm in 186 patients (men, 33.8%; median age, 68 years). SC1 for 164 polyps (80.4%) at a median interval of 150 days showed residual or recurrent polyp in 9 cases (5.5%; 95% confidence interval, 3%-11%). SC2 for 113 polyps (72.9%) at a median interval of 18 months showed late residual or recurrent polyp in 4 cases (3.5%; 95% confidence interval, .9%-8.5%) after a normal SC1. Intraprocedural bleeding was successfully treated in 4 patients (2.2%), whereas 7 patients (3.8%) experienced self-limited clinically significant post-EMR bleeding and 1 patient (.5%) required overnight observation for nonspecific abdominal pain that resolved spontaneously. None experienced other adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

CSP-EMR of sessile colonic polyps ≥20 mm is technically feasible, effective, and safe. The adverse event rate and polyp recurrence rate were low. Randomized or large prospective trials are required to confirm the noninferiority and improved safety of CSP-EMR compared with conventional EMR and to further determine the polyp morphologies that are best suited for CSP-EMR.

Future of Endoscopy: Brief review of current and future endoscopic resection techniques for colorectal lesions

Endoscopic treatment of colorectal lesions has seen major developments in the last decade. It is now considered curative for intramucosal and superficial submucosal cancers. Endoscopic Mucosal Resection in expert hands has very good outcomes with low complication rates but recurrence and inadequate treatment of early cancers remain an issue. This has led to a technical evolution that can lead to one piece resection of neoplasia. This includes a range of techniques from knife assisted snare resection (KAR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) to full thickness resections. This article reviews all the resection techniques and the evidence base behind them.

Prophylactic Endoscopic Clipping Does Not Prevent Delayed Postpolypectomy Bleeding in Routine Clinical Practice: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Delayed postpolypectomy bleeding (DPPB) is a relatively common adverse event. Evidence is conflicting on the efficacy of prophylactic clipping to prevent DPPB, and real-world effectiveness data are lacking. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of prophylactic clipping in preventing DPPB in a large screening-related cohort.

METHODS

We manually reviewed records of patients who underwent polypectomy from 2008 to 2014 at a screening facility. Endoscopist-, patient- and polyp-related data were collected. The primary outcome was DPPB within 30 days. All unplanned healthcare visits were reviewed; DPPB cases were adjudicated by committee using a criterion-based lexicon. Multivariable logistic regression was performed, yielding adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for the association between clipping and DPPB. Secondary analyses were performed on procedures where one polyp was removed, in addition to propensity score-matched and subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

In total, 8,366 colonoscopies involving polypectomy were analyzed, yielding 95 DPPB events. Prophylactic clipping was not associated with reduced DPPB (AOR 1.27; 0.83-1.96). These findings were similar in the single-polyp cohort (n = 3,369, AOR 1.07; 0.50-2.31). In patients with one proximal polyp ≥20 mm removed, there was a nonsignificant AOR with clipping of 0.55 (0.10-2.66). Clipping was not associated with a protective benefit in the propensity score-matched or other subgroup analyses.

DISCUSSION

In this large cohort study, prophylactic clipping was not associated with lower DPPB rates. Endoscopists should not routinely use prophylactic clipping in most patients. Additional effectiveness and cost-effectiveness studies are required in patients with proximal lesions ≥20 mm, in whom there may be a role for prophylactic clipping.

Endoscopic resection reduces morbidity when compared to surgery in veterans with large and complex colorectal polyps

INTRODUCTION

Data supporting endoscopic resection (ER) over surgical resection (SR) for large and complex polyps come from high-volume centers. The aim of this study was to determine whether these favorable outcomes can be replicated among endoscopists at tertiary Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) who perform 25 to 30 ER cases a year.

METHODS

Patients with adenomatous polyps or intra-mucosal cancers ≥ 2 cm in size who underwent ER or SR were identified from prospectively maintained databases at the 2 tertiary VAMCs in Veterans Integrated Service Network 6 (VISN6). The primary outcome was the rate of serious complications in the ER and SR groups.

RESULTS

310 ER and 81 SR patients met the inclusion criteria. ER was successful in 97% of all polyps, and 93% of polyps ≥ 4 cm. The rate of serious complications was significantly lower with ER compared to SR (0.6% vs. 22%, p = 0.00001). These findings persisted even after limiting the analysis to polyps ≥ 4 cm and after propensity score matching. If all ER patients had instead undergone laparoscopic surgery, the estimated risk of a serious complication was still higher than ER for all patients (8% vs. 0.6%, p < 0.0001) but not significantly higher for polyps ≥ 4 cm (8% vs 2%, p = 0.17).

CONCLUSIONS

This study documents high success rates for ER in veterans with colorectal polyps ≥ 2 cm and ≥ 4 cm. When compared to a historical cohort of surgical patients, a strategy of attempting ER first reduced morbidity. A randomized trial is warranted to compare ER to laparoscopic surgery for polyps ≥ 4 cm.

Impact of observational training on endoscopic mucosal resection outcomes and competency for large colorectal polyps: single endoscopist experience

Background and study aims  Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is standard treatment for large colorectal polyps. However, it is a specialized technique with limited data on the effectiveness of training methods to acquire this skill. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of observational training on EMR outcomes and competency in an early-stage endoscopist. Patients and methods  A single endoscopist completed comprehensive EMR training, which included knowledge acquisition and direct observation of EMR cases, and proctored supervision, during the third year of gastroenterology fellowship. After training, EMR was independently attempted on 142 consecutive, large (i. e., ≥ 20 mm), non-pedunculated colorectal polyps between July 2014 and December 2017 (mean age 61.7 years; mean polyp size 30.4 mm; en-bloc resection 55 %). Surveillance colonoscopy for evaluation of residual neoplasia was available for 86 % of the cases. Three primary outcomes were evaluated: endoscopic assessment of complete resection, rate of adverse events (AEs), and rate of residual neoplasia on surveillance colonoscopy. Results  Complete endoscopic resection was achieved in 93 % of cases, the rates of AEs and residual neoplasia were 7.8 % and 7.3 %, respectively. The rate of complete resection remained stable (at 85 % or greater) with increasing experience while rates of AEs and residual neoplasia peaked and decreased after 60 cases. Conclusions  An early-stage endoscopist can acquire the skills to perform effective EMR after completing observational training. At least 60 independent EMRs for large colorectal polyps were required to achieve a plateau for clinically meaningful outcomes.