Efficacy and adverse events of EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of colon neoplasms: a meta-analysis of studies comparing EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection

Analysis of lens cloudiness during endoscopic submucosal dissection procedures: Effects of a novel lens cleaner

Objectives

We aimed to identify independent factors for intraoperative endoscopic lens cloudiness during gastric and colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissections, investigate the effectiveness of Cleastay, an endoscope anti-fog solution, and examine factors associated with severe submucosal fat deposition.

Methods

A total of 220 patients who underwent gastric or colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissections in two institutions between January 2022 and October 2023 were included. Significant factors related to cloudiness were determined using univariate and multivariate analyses. Patient background and tumor characteristics related to severe submucosal fat deposition were investigated, and the degree of intraoperative endoscopic lens cloudiness and outcomes were compared between the Cleash and Cleastay groups.

Results

In the multivariate analysis, factors increasing lens cloudiness included long procedure time (odds ratio [OR], 17.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.52-202.08), stomach (vs. colon; OR, 5.08; 95% CI, 1.99-12.96), and severe submucosal fat deposition (OR, 12.19; 95% CI, 5.02-29.60). Conversely, the use of Cleastay (vs. Cleash; OR, 0.066; 95% CI, 0.021-0.21) was identified as a factor reducing cloudiness. Location analysis revealed that severe submucosal fat deposition was more common in the upper stomach and right colon.

Conclusions

It was suggested that Cleastay is more useful for endoscopic submucosal dissection of the upper stomach and right colon, where severe submucosal fat deposition is expected.

Effectiveness and safety of newly introduced endoscopic submucosal dissection in a Western center: a real-life study

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a minimally invasive technique for the resection of superficial gastrointestinal lesions, providing high rates of 'en bloc' and R0 resection. East-West differences in ESD quality indicators have been reported. This study aims to assess feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of ESD for the treatment of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions in a Western cohort.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing ESD at one Italian endoscopic referral center from September 2018 to March 2020 were included in this prospective study. Primary outcomes were technical success, R0 resection rate, curative resection rate, and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

In total 111 patients (111 lesions) undergoing ESD were included. Anatomic site of the lesions was rectum in 56.8%, colon in 13.5%, stomach in 24.3%, and esophagus in 5.4% of cases, respectively. For upper GI procedures, technical success was 100%, and R0 and curative resection rates were 84.8% and 78.8%, respectively. For colorectal procedures, technical success was 98.7%, R0 and curative resection rates were 88.5% and 84.6%, respectively. Major AEs were reported in 12 cases (10.8%).

CONCLUSION

The introduction of ESD in a Tertiary Center is feasible, effective, and safe, and should be taken into consideration for the treatment of superficial GI lesions requiring 'en bloc' resection.

Predictors of En Bloc, R0 Resection, and Postprocedural Complications After Advanced Endoscopic Resections for Colorectal Neoplasms: Results of 1213 Procedures

BACKGROUND

Advanced endoscopic resection techniques are used to treat colorectal neoplasms that are not amenable to conventional colonoscopic resection. Literature regarding the predictors of the outcomes of advanced endoscopic resections, especially from a colorectal surgical unit, is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the predictors of short-term and long-term outcomes after advanced endoscopic resections.

DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

SETTINGS

Tertiary care center.

PATIENTS

Patients who underwent advanced endoscopic resections for colorectal neoplasms from November 2011 to August 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection, and combined endoscopic laparoscopic surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Predictors of en bloc and R0 resection, bleeding, and perforation were determined using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models. Cox regression models were used to determine the predictors of tumor recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 1213 colorectal lesions from 1047 patients were resected (median age 66 [interquartile range, 58-72] years, 484 women [46.2%], median BMI 28.6 [interquartile range, 24.8-32.6]). Most neoplasms were in the proximal colon (898; 74%). The median lesion size was 30 (interquartile range, 20-40; range, 0-120) mm. Nine hundred eleven lesions (75.1%) underwent previous interventions. The most common Paris and Kudo classifications were 0 to IIa flat elevation (444; 36.6%) and IIIs (301; 24.8%), respectively. En bloc and R0 resection rates were 56.6% and 54.3%, respectively. Smaller lesions, rectal location, and procedure type (endoscopic submucosal dissection) were associated with significantly higher en bloc and R0 resection rates. Bleeding and perforation rates were 5% and 6.6%, respectively. Increased age was a predictor for bleeding (OR 1.06; 95% CI, 1.03-1.09; p < 0.0001). Lesion size was a predictor for perforation (OR 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03; p = 0.03). The tumor recurrence rate was 6.6%. En bloc (HR 1.41; 95% CI, 1.05-1.93; p = 0.02) and R0 resection (HR 1.49; 95% CI, 1.11-2.06; p = 0.008) were associated with decreased recurrence risk.

LIMITATIONS

Single-center, retrospective study.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of advanced endoscopic resections can be predicted by patient-related and lesion-related characteristics. See Video Abstract .

PREDICTORES DE LA RESECCION R, EN BLOQUE Y LAS COMPLICACIONES POR RESECCIONES ENDOSCPICAS AVANZADAS EN CASOS DE NEOPLASIA COLORRECTAL RESULTADOS DE PROCEDIMIENTOS

ANTECEDENTES:Las técnicas avanzadas de resección endoscópica se utilizan para el tratamiento de neoplasias colorrectales que no son susceptibles de resección colonoscópica convencional. La literatura sobre los predictores de los resultados de las resecciones endoscópicas avanzadas, especialmente en una unidad de cirugía colorrectal, es limitada.OBJETIVO:Determinar los predictores de resultados a corto y largo plazo después de resecciones endoscópicas avanzadas.DISEÑO:Serie de casos retrospectivos.LUGAR:Centro de tercer nivel de atención.PACIENTES:Pacientes sometidos a resecciones endoscópicas avanzadas por neoplasias colorrectales desde noviembre de 2011 hasta agosto de 2022.INTERVENCIÓNES:Resección endoscópica de la mucosa, disección endoscópica submucosa (ESD), ESD híbrida, cirugía laparoscópica endoscópica combinada.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los predictores de resección en bloque y R0, sangrado y perforación se determinaron mediante modelos de regresión logística univariables y multivariables. Se utilizaron modelos de regresión de Cox para determinar los predictores de recurrencia del tumor.RESULTADOS:Se resecaron 1.213 lesiones colorrectales en 1.047 pacientes [edad media 66 (58-72) años, 484 (46,2%) mujeres, índice de masa corporal medio 28,6 (24,8-32,6) kg/m 2 ]. La mayoría de las neoplasias se encontraban en el colon proximal (898, 74%). El tamaño medio de la lesión fue de 30mm (RIC: 20-40, rango: 0-120). 911 (75,1%) lesiones tenían intervenciones previas. Las clasificaciones de París y Kudo más comunes fueron 0-IIa elevación plana (444, 36,6%) y III (301, 24,8%), respectivamente. Las tasas de resección en bloque y R0 fueron del 56,6% y 54,3%, respectivamente. Las lesiones más pequeñas, la ubicación rectal y el tipo de procedimiento (ESD) se asociaron con tasas de resección en bloque y R0 significativamente más altas. Las tasas de sangrado y perforación fueron del 5% y 6,6%, respectivamente. La edad avanzada [1,06 (1,03-1,09), p < 0,0001] fue un predictor de sangrado. El tamaño de la lesión [1,02 (1,00-1,03), p = 0,03] fue un predictor de perforación. La tasa de recurrencia del tumor fue del 6,6%. En bloque [HR 1,41 (IC 95% 1,05-1,93), p = 0,02] y la resección R0 [HR 1,49 (IC 95% 1,11-2,06), p = 0,008] se asociaron con un menor riesgo de recurrencia.LIMITACIONES:Estudio unicéntrico, retrospectivo.CONCLUSIONES:Los resultados de las resecciones endoscópicas avanzadas pueden predecirse según las características del paciente y de la lesión. (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo ).

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Up to 15% of colorectal polyps are amenable for conventional polypectomy. Advanced endoscopic resection techniques are introduced for the treatment of those polyps. They provide higher en bloc resection rates compared with conventional techniques, while helping patients to avoid the complications of surgery. Note that 20 mm is considered as the largest size of a polyp that can be resected by polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in an en bloc fashion. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is recommended for polyps larger than 20 mm. Intramucosal carcinomas and carcinomas with limited submucosal invasion can also be resected with ESD. EMR is snare resection of a polyp following submucosal injection and elevation. ESD involves several steps such as marking, submucosal injection, incision, and dissection. Bleeding and perforation are the most common complications following advanced endoscopic procedures, which can be treated with coagulation and endoscopic clipping. En bloc resection rates range from 44.5 to 63% for EMR and from 87.9 to 96% for ESD. Recurrence rates following EMR and ESD are 7.4 to 17% and 0.9 to 2%, respectively. ESD is considered enough for the treatment of invasive carcinomas in the presence of submucosal invasion less than 1000 μm, absence of lymphovascular invasion, well-moderate histological differentiation, low-grade tumor budding, and negative resection margins.

Risk factors for unsuccessful colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Despite its growing popularity, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal neoplasms is still technically challenging. The factors contributing to the failure of ESD are not yet comprehensively elucidated. Therefore, this systematic review was conducted to explore the potential risk factors associated with unsuccessful colorectal ESD.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of Medline and Embase databases was conducted to identify relevant publications from inception until March 14, 2023. Unsuccessful ESD was defined as cases involving incomplete resection or the occurrence of adverse events, such as perforation and delayed bleeding.

RESULTS

Among the 2067 citations initially identified, a total of 23 cohort studies and 16 case-control studies met the inclusion criteria. Following meta-analyses, several significant risk factors for incomplete resection were identified, including lesion diameter ≥40 or 50 mm, right-side colonic location, deeper submucosal invasion, and severe fibrosis. Similarly, lesion diameter ≥40 or 50 mm and severe fibrosis emerged as risk factors for perforation. However, no individual factor was found to be statistically associated with delayed bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis identified risk factors correlated with incomplete resection and adverse events following ESD. The findings provide valuable insights that can guide clinical decision-making, aiding gastroenterologists in accurately identifying high-risk individuals.

Endoscopic removal of gastrointestinal lesions by using third space endoscopy techniques

The concept of submucosal space, or rather the "third space", located between the intact mucosal flap and the muscularis propria layer of the gastrointestinal tract, represents a tunnel that the endoscopist could use to perform interventions in the muscularis propria layer or breech it to enter the mediastinum or the peritoneal cavity without full thickness perforation. The tunnel technique can be used both for the removal of mucosal tumours, called endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD), for the removal of subepithelial tumours (SELs), called submucosal tunnelling endoscopic resection (STER), and for the removal of extra-luminal lesions (for example in the mediastinum or in the rectum), called submucosal tunnelling endoscopic resection for extraluminal tumours (STER-ET). Aim of this updated narrative review, is to summarize the evidences that analyses indications, and outcomes of tunnelling techniques for the treatment of above mentioned lesions.

Prevalence of Endoscopically Curable Low-Risk Cancer Among Large (≥20 mm) Nonpedunculated Polyps in the Right Colon

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection is increasingly promoted for the treatment of all large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) to cure potential low-risk cancers (superficial submucosal invasion without additional high-risk histopathologic features). The effect of a universal en bloc strategy on oncologic outcomes for the treatment of LNPCPs in the right colon is unknown. We evaluated this in a large Western population.

METHODS

A prospective cohort of patients referred for endoscopic resection (ER) of LNPCPs was analyzed. Patients found to have cancer after ER and those referred directly to surgery were included. The primary outcome was to determine the proportion of right colon LNPCPs with low-risk cancer.

RESULTS

Over 180 months until June 2023, 3294 sporadic right colon LNPCPs in 2956 patients were referred for ER at 7 sites (median size 30 [interquartile range 15] mm). A total of 63 (2.1%) patients were referred directly to surgery, and cancer was proven in 56 (88.9%). A total of 2851 (96.4%) of 2956 LNPCPs underwent ER (median size 35 [interquartile range 20] mm), of which 75 (2.6%) were cancers. The overall prevalence of cancer in the right colon was 4.4% (n = 131 of 2956). Detailed histopathologic analysis was possible in 115 (88%) of 131 cancers (71 after ER, 44 direct to surgery). After excluding missing histopathologic data, 23 (0.78%) of 2940 sporadic right colon LNPCPs were low-risk cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of right colon LNPCPs referred for ER containing low-risk cancer amenable to endoscopic cure was <1%, in a large, multicenter Western cohort. A universal endoscopic submucosal dissection strategy for the management of right colon LNPCPs is unlikely to yield improved patient outcomes given the minimal impact on oncologic outcomes.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, Numbers: NCT01368289, NCT02000141.

Large non-pedunculated colorectal polyp management: The elephant in the room

Minimally invasive innovations have transformed coloproctology. Specific to colorectal cancer (CRC), there has been a shift towards less invasive surgical techniques and use of endoscopic resection as an alternative for low risk T1 CRC. The role of endoscopic resection is however much more extensive: It is now considered the first line management strategy for most large (≥ 20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps, the majority of which are benign. This is due to the well-established efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of endoscopic techniques compared to surgery. Multiple endoscopic modalities now exist with distinct risk-benefit profiles and their outcomes are further improved by site-specific technical modifications, auxiliary techniques, and adverse event mitigation strategies. Endoscopic capacity continues to evolve with emerging endoscopic techniques and expanding applications, particularly in the confines of a multi-disciplinary setting.

Approaches and considerations in the endoscopic treatment of T1 colorectal cancer

The detection of early colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing through the implementation of screening programs. This increased detection enhances the likelihood of minimally invasive surgery and significantly lowers the risk of recurrence, thereby improving patient survival and reducing mortality rates. T1 CRC, the earliest stage, is treated endoscopically in cases with a low risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM). The advantages of endoscopic treatment compared with surgery include minimal invasiveness and limited tissue disruption, which reduce morbidity and mortality, preserve bowel function to avoid colectomy, accelerate recovery, and improve cost-effectiveness. However, T1 CRC has a risk of LNM. Thus, selection of the appropriate treatment between endoscopic treatment and surgery, while avoiding overtreatment, is challenging considering the potential for complete resection, LNM, and recurrence risk.

Is there a best choice of equipment for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection?

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a widely used technique to remove early neoplastic lesions. It was primarily used in the initial days to treat gastric lesions, but recently, the horizon of this endoscopic procedure has expanded, which has allowed us to manage other technically more complex locations, such as the colorectum.

AREAS COVERED

There has been an exponential growth regarding the wide range of devices available in the market for performing colorectal ESD. As a result, the aim of this review is to highlight the indication of this endoscopic technique, which device is best suited for which indication, as well as future trajectories in this field.

EXPERT OPINION

Although some devices have proven to be more advantageous than others in this area, very often the choice is still subjective, which is commonly attributed to individual preferences and experience. However, an accurate knowledge of the available tools and their functioning, with their pros and cons, is fundamental for any endoscopist venturing into the field of third space endoscopy. In this way, one can choose which device best suits a particular situation, along with simultaneously having the wealth of knowledge related to therapeutic armamentarium at our disposal in the endoscopy suite.

Colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic wedge resection for colonic neoplasms: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The current literature describes a variety of techniques detailed under the name of combined endoscopic-laparoscopic surgery (CELS) procedures. This systematic review of literature assessed the outcomes of colonoscopic-assisted laparoscopic-wedge resection (CAL-WR) in particular to evaluate its feasibility to remove colonic lesions that do not qualify for endoscopic resection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane) were searched for studies evaluating CAL-WR for the treatment of colonic lesions. Studies with missing full text, language other than English, systematic reviews, and studies with fewer than ten patients were excluded. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

RESULTS

Out of 68 results, duplicate studies (n = 27) as well as studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria (n = 32) were removed. Nine studies were included, encompassing 326 patients who underwent a CAL-WR of the colon. The technical success rate varied from 93 to 100%, with an R0 resection rate of 91-100%. Morbidity ranged from 6% to 20%. The quality of the included studies was rated as low to moderate and contained heterogeneous terminology, methodology, and outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient high-quality data and substantial variation in outcome measures to draw firm conclusions regarding the value of CAL-WR. Although CAL-WR is a promising local resection technique for endoscopically unremovable neoplasms of the colon, further investigation of this technique in well-designed prospective, multicenter studies with predefined outcome measures is required.Trial registration: A protocol for this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO with the number CRD42023407966.

T1 colorectal cancer management in the era of minimally invasive endoscopic resection

T1 colorectal cancer (CRC), defined by tumor invasion confined to the submucosa, has historically been managed by surgery. Improved understanding of recurrence and lymph node metastases risk, coupled with advances in endoscopic resection techniques, have led to an increasing capacity for organ-sparing local excision. Minimally invasive management of T1 CRC begins with optical evaluation of the lesion to diagnose invasive disease and quantify depth of invasion, which informs therapeutic decision making. Modality selection between various available endoscopic resection techniques depends upon lesion characteristics, technique risk-benefit profiles, and location-specific implications. Following endoscopic resection, established histopathology features determine the risk of recurrence and subsequent management including surveillance or adjuvant surgical excision. The management of non-operative candidates deviates from conventional recommendations with emerging treatment strategies in select populations.

Efficacy and safety of salvage endoscopy in the treatment of residual or recurrent colorectal neoplasia after endoscopic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review and meta-analyze the efficacy and safety of salvage endoscopy for residual or recurrence of colorectal tumors after endoscopic resection.

METHODS

Multiple databases including PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched to screen for eligible studies and perform data extraction and pooled analysis.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies on salvage endoscopy for residual or recurrent colorectal cancer after endoscopic resection were included, covering approximately 994 patients. The results of the meta-analysis demonstrated that salvage endoscopic therapy for residual or recurrent colorectal tumors following endoscopic resection achieved an en bloc resection rate of 92% (95% CI 0.85-0.97; I2 = 91%) and an R0 resection rate of 82% (95% CI 0.75-0.87; I2 = 78%). The rates of intraoperative or postoperative bleeding and perforation were 10%/1% and 5%/2%, and the recurrence rate was 2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Salvage endoscopic resection is an effective and safe treatment strategy for residual or recurrent colorectal tumors after endoscopic resection.

Risk Factors for Post-Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Bleeding and Efficacy of Carbazochrome Sodium Sulfonate: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION

Carbazochrome sodium sulfonate (CSS) is a hemostatic agent that reduces capillary permeability and enhances capillary resistance. However, its specific effects on colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) outcomes remain uncertain. This study aimed to assess the risk factors for post-ESD bleeding and the effect of CSS on colorectal ESD outcomes.

METHODS

First, we retrospectively analyzed the risk factors for post-ESD bleeding using data from 1,315 lesions in 1,223 patients who underwent ESD for superficial colorectal neoplasms at eight institutions. Second, patients were divided into CSS and non-CSS groups using propensity score matching, and their outcomes from colorectal ESD were analyzed.

RESULTS

The risk factors for post-colorectal ESD bleeding were identified as age of ≥70 years, tumor located in the rectum, tumor size of ≥40 mm, and post-ESD defect unclosure in both univariate and multivariate analyses. The CSS and non-CSS groups each consisted of 423 lesions after propensity score matching. The post-colorectal ESD bleeding rate was 3.5% (15/423) and 3.3% (14/423) in the CSS and non-CSS groups, respectively, indicating no significant differences. Among patients with the high-risk factors for post-ESD bleeding, the administration of CSS also did not demonstrate a significant reduction in the post-ESD bleeding rate compared to the non-CSS group.

CONCLUSION

CSS administration is ineffective in preventing post-colorectal ESD bleeding in both the general population and individuals at a high risk for such bleeding. Our results indicate the necessity to reconsider the application of CSS for preventing post-colorectal ESD bleeding.

Precutting Endoscopic Band Ligation-Assisted Resection Is Safe and Effective for Treating Gastric Submucosal Tumors from the Muscularis Propria

BACKGROUND

We previously treated small gastric submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer by precutting endoscopic band ligation but lacked precise pathological results. Then, precutting endoscopic band ligation was modified by additional snare resection after ligation to obtain tumor specimens, termed precutting endoscopic band ligation-assisted resection.

AIMS

In this study, we aimed to explore the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of precutting endoscopic band ligation-assisted resection.

METHODS

From 2021 to 2022, a total of 16 consecutive patients underwent precutting endoscopic band ligation-assisted resection to treat small gastric submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria. The clinical demography, perioperative data, and follow-up outcomes were retrospectively collected.

RESULTS

With a mean operative time of 21.3 min, all lesions were successfully and completely resected, and no severe adverse events or local recurrences occurred postoperatively. More importantly, en bloc and R0 resection were achieved in all 16 patients.

CONCLUSION

Precutting endoscopic band ligation-assisted resection is a safe, effective, and time-saving endoscopic technique for managing gastric small gastric submucosal tumors originating from the muscularis propria for both diagnosis and eradication.

Comparison of cold snare polypectomy for sessile serrated lesions ≥10 mm between experienced and trainee endoscopists: A propensity score matching cohort study

Objectives

Previous studies of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) ≥10 mm were performed by experienced endoscopists, and therefore their skills might have significantly influenced results. In this study, we compared the efficacy and safety of CSP for SSLs ≥10 mm between experienced and trainee endoscopists.

Methods

In a 1:1 propensity score matched retrospective cohort study, we compared the complete resection rate, en-bloc resection rate, adverse event rate, and procedure time between experienced and trainee groups. Thirteen endoscopists performed CSP, and we defined the experienced group as endoscopists with board certification from the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society.

Results

We examined 616 lesions with SSLs ≥10 mm resected by CSP between February 2018 and May 2022. We excluded 61 lesions from the analysis because they had simultaneously undergone hot snare polypectomy (n = 57) or had been taken over by experienced endoscopists from trainees in the CSP procedure (n = 4). Finally, we identified 217 propensity score-matched pairs (n = 434). Between experienced and trainee groups, the results were complete resection rate (100 vs. 100%; p = 1.00), en-bloc resection rate (73.2 vs. 75.6%; p = 0.24), adverse event rate (3.2 vs. 2.8%; p = 0.77), or procedure time (6.2 vs. 5.9 min; p = 0.64).

Conclusions

We have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of CSP for SSLs ≥10 mm performed by experienced and trainee endoscopists.

The Safety of Cold Versus Hot Snare Polypectomy in Polyps 10-20 mm: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Colonoscopy remains the primary method for preventing colorectal cancer. Traditionally, hot snare polypectomy (HSP) was the method of choice for removing polyps larger than 5 mm. Yet, for polyps smaller than 10 mm, cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has become the favored approach. Lately, the use of CSP has expanded to include the removal of sessile polyps that are between 10 and 20 mm in size. Our systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) compared to hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for resecting polyps measuring 10-20 mm. We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Embase, and Cochrane databases up to April 2020 to find studies that directly compared CSP to HSP for polyps larger than 10 mm. Our main focus was on assessing the risk of delayed bleeding after polypectomy; a secondary focus was the incidence of any adverse events that required medical intervention post procedure. Our search yielded three comparative studies, two observational studies, and one randomized controlled trial (RCT), together encompassing 1,193 polypectomy procedures. Of these, 485 were performed using CSP and 708 with HSP. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB) was 0.36 (95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.02, 7.13), with a Cochran Q test P-value of 0.11 and an I2 of 53%. For the risk of any adverse events necessitating medical care, the pooled OR was 0.15 (95% CI: 0.01, 2.29), with a Cochran Q test P-value of 0.21 and an I2 of 35%. The quality of the two observational studies was deemed moderate, and the RCT was only available in abstract form, preventing quality assessment. Our analysis suggests that there is no significant difference in the incidence of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding or other adverse events requiring medical attention between CSP and HSP for polyps measuring 10-20 mm.

Cold EMR vs. Hot EMR for the removal of sessile serrated polyps larger than 10 mm: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) appears to be a promising technique for the removal of sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) ≥ 10 mm. To assess the effectiveness and safety of EMR for removing SSPs ≥ 10 mm, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We conducted a thorough search of Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for relevant studies reporting on EMR of SSPs ≥ 10 mm, up until December 2023. Our primary endpoints of interest were rates of technical success, residual SSPs, and adverse events (AE).

RESULTS

Our search identified 426 articles, of which 14 studies with 2262 SSPs were included for analysis. The rates of technical success, AEs, and residual SSPs were 100%, 2.0%, and 3.1%, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that the technical success rates were the same for polyps 10-19 and 20 mm, and en-bloc and piecemeal resection. Residual SSPs rates were similar in en-bloc and piecemeal resection, but much lower in cold EMR (1.0% vs. 4.2%, P = 0.034). AEs rates were reduced in cold EMR compared to hot EMR (0% vs. 2.9%, P = 0.168), in polyps 10-19 mm compared to 20 mm (0% vs. 4.1%, P = 0.255), and in piecemeal resection compared to en-bloc (0% vs. 0.7%, P = 0.169).

CONCLUSIONS

EMR is an effective and safe technique for removing SSPs ≥ 10 mm. The therapeutic effect of cold EMR is superior to that of hot EMR, with a lower incidence of adverse effects.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023388959.

Efficacy and Safety of Thermal Ablation after Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: Large colonic polyps during colonoscopy can be managed by Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). To decrease the polyp recurrence rate, thermal ablation methods like argon plasma coagulation (APC) and snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) have been introduced. We performed this network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of these modalities. (2) Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature review, through 5 January 2024, of databases including Embase, PubMed, SciELO, KCI, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science. Using a random effects model, we conducted a frequentist approach network meta-analysis. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Safety and efficacy endpoints including rates of recurrence, bleeding, perforation, and post polypectomy syndrome were compared. (3) Results: Our search yielded a total of 13 studies with 2686 patients. Compared to placebo, both APC (RR: 0.33 CI: 0.20-0.54, p < 0.01) and STSC (RR: 0.27, CI: 0.21-0.34, p < 0.01) showed decreased recurrence rates. On ranking, STSC showed the lowest recurrence rate, followed by APC and placebo. Regarding individual adverse events, there was no statistically significant difference between either of the thermal ablation methods and placebo. (4) Conclusions: We demonstrated the efficacy and safety of thermal ablation after EMR for decreasing recurrence of adenoma.

Endoscopic Resection of Early Luminal Cancer

Gastrointestinal cancers can have severe consequences if diagnosed at a late stage but can be cured when detected and resected at an early stage. In recent years, the significance of endoscopic screening for gastrointestinal cancers has been established, leading to the identification of early-stage cancers and precancerous lesions. Consequently, endoscopic removal of gastrointestinal tumors has emerged as an effective means of cancer treatment and prevention. This article delves into the indications, techniques, and safety measures associated with endoscopic resection of early-stage luminal cancer within the gastrointestinal tract.

Endoscopic En Bloc Versus Piecemeal Resection of Large Nonpedunculated Colonic Adenomas : A Randomized Comparative Trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection of adenomas prevents colorectal cancer, but the optimal technique for larger lesions is controversial. Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has a low adverse event (AE) rate but a variable recurrence rate necessitating early follow-up. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can reduce recurrence but may increase AEs.

OBJECTIVE

To compare ESD and EMR for large colonic adenomas.

DESIGN

Participant-masked, parallel-group, superiority, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03962868).

SETTING

Multicenter study involving 6 French referral centers from November 2019 to February 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with large (≥25 mm) benign colonic lesions referred for resection.

INTERVENTION

The patients were randomly assigned by computer 1:1 (stratification by lesion location and center) to ESD or EMR.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary end point was 6-month local recurrence (neoplastic tissue on endoscopic assessment and scar biopsy). The secondary end points were technical failure, en bloc R0 resection, and cumulative AEs.

RESULTS

In total, 360 patients were randomly assigned to ESD (n = 178) or EMR (n = 182). In the primary analysis set (n = 318 lesions in 318 patients), recurrence occurred after 1 of 161 ESDs (0.6%) and 8 of 157 EMRs (5.1%) (relative risk, 0.12 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.96]). No recurrence occurred in R0-resected cases (90%) after ESD. The AEs occurred more often after ESD than EMR (35.6% vs. 24.5%, respectively; relative risk, 1.4 [CI, 1.0 to 2.0]).

LIMITATION

Procedures were performed under general anesthesia during hospitalization in accordance with the French health system.

CONCLUSION

Compared with EMR, ESD reduces the 6-month recurrence rate, obviating the need for systematic early follow-up colonoscopy at the cost of more AEs.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

French Ministry of Health.

The feasibility of endoscopic resection for colorectal laterally spreading tumors

The present study aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of endoscopic resection for colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) in different size groups. This retrospective study included 2699 patients with LSTs who underwent endoscopic treatment at the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University from May 2012 to February 2022. The patient baseline and procedure outcomes were compared between the < 5 cm group, 5-10 cm group, and ≥ 10 cm group. Meanwhile, lesions larger than 5 cm in diameter were longitudinally compared for endoscopic safety using ESD with surgical operation outcomes. There were 2105 patients in the < 5 cm group, 547 patients in the 5-10 cm group, and 47 patients in the ≥ 10 cm group. En bloc resection and R0 resection rates, the incidence of adverse events, length of stay (LOS), and medical costs significantly differed between the groups (P < 0.01). Comorbidity of diabetes or hypertension, history of antithrombotic drug use, lesion size, location, gross type, endoscopic procedures selection, and circumferential extent of the mucosal defect were independent risk factors for delayed bleeding (P < 0.05). En bloc resection, R0 resection, and lesion canceration were associated with local recurrence. For lesions larger than 5 cm in diameter, ESD had similar R0 resection and local recurrence rates compared with a surgical operation but a lower en bloc rate, LOS, and medical costs. Expert endoscopists can significantly increase en bloc and R0 resection rates and reduce the incidence of adverse events. Endoscopic resection results distinguish in different size groups of colorectal LSTs, yet its safety and feasibility are not inferior to a surgical operation.

Weighing the benefits of lymphadenectomy in early-stage colorectal cancer

Recent advancements in endoscopic procedures have resulted in a growing diagnosis of early colorectal cancer (CRC) cases, where classical en bloc lymph node (LN) dissection is not performed and treatment is terminated with the removal of the main cancer lesion by endoscopy without pathologic LN staging. Although many studies report noninferior outcomes of endoscopic resection in comparison to surgical resection, a cautious approach to completing treatment with endoscopic resection alone is recommended because LN metastases may be present even in early-stage CRC. In most countries, including the United States, Europe, and South Korea, the guidelines for additional surgery after endoscopic resection are very similar. If LN metastasis is suspected, even in T1 stage or lower lesions, further surgery is an essential treatment modality, but confirmation of the presence of LN metastasis is perhaps the most difficult part of this process. Another paradoxical recent trend is the expansion of more extensive and complete surgical lymphadenectomy for CRC. The success rate of surgery has improved dramatically over the past decade with the introduction of surgical devices and minimally invasive surgery, and the associated risks have been significantly reduced. While the burden of surgery on patients is understandable, the indications for surgery in early colon cancer need to be carefully reviewed to improve cure rates. In this process, we believe that an integrated decision-making process with surgeons, radiologists, and pathologists, in addition to the opinions of endoscopists, will be an important process to improve the cure rate.

Significance of rescue hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection in difficult colorectal cases

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), in which an incision is made around a lesion and snaring is performed after submucosal dissection, has some advantages in colorectal surgery, including shorter procedure time and preventing perforation. However, its value for rescue resection in difficult colorectal ESD cases remains unclear. This study evaluated the utility of rescue hybrid ESD (RH-ESD).

METHODS

We divided 364 colorectal ESD procedures into the conventional ESD group (C-ESD, n=260), scheduled hybrid ESD group (SH-ESD, n=69), and RH-ESD group (n=35) and compared their clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Resection time was significantly shorter in the following order: RH-ESD (149 [90-197] minutes) >C-ESD (90 [60-140] minutes) >SH-ESD (52 [29-80] minutes). The en bloc resection rate increased significantly in the following order: RH-ESD (48.6%), SH-ESD (78.3%), and C-ESD (97.7%). An analysis of factors related to piecemeal resection of RH-ESD revealed that the submucosal dissection rate was significantly lower in the piecemeal resection group (25% [20%-30%]) than in the en bloc resection group (40% [20%-60%]).

CONCLUSION

RH-ESD was ineffective in terms of curative resection because of the low en bloc resection rate, but was useful for avoiding surgery.

Decreasing rates of colectomy for benign neoplasms: A nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite advances in endoscopic techniques for management of benign colonic neoplasms, a rise in rates of surgical treatment has been reported. We used a nationally representative cohort to characterize temporal trends, patient characteristics, and outcomes associated with colectomy for colonic neoplasms.

METHODS

All patients undergoing elective partial colectomy for benign or malignant colonic neoplasms were identified using the 2012-2019 National Inpatient Sample. Those presenting with inflammatory bowel disease, or experiencing intestinal perforation were excluded. Patients with benign neoplasms were classified as the Benign cohort (others: Malignant). Trends, characteristics, and outcomes were assessed between groups.

RESULTS

Of 569,280 colectomy procedures included for analysis, 153,435 (27.0%) were performed for benign lesions. The proportion of Benign operations decreased from 28.6% in 2012 to 23.7% in 2019 (P for trend<0.001). While overall national incidence of colectomy for benign neoplasms decreased from 2012 to 2019 (IRD -1.19, 95%CI -1.20- -1.19), Black patients demonstrated an incremental increase (IRD +0.04, 95%CI +0.02-0.06). On average, Benign was younger (66 [57-72] vs 68 years [58-77], P<0.001), and demonstrated a lower Elixhauser comorbidity index (2 [1-3] vs 3 [2-4], P<0.001), relative to Malignancy. Following adjustment, Benign demonstrated lower odds of in-hospital mortality (AOR 0.61, 95%CI 0.50-0.74; P<0.001), stoma creation (AOR 0.46, 95%CI 0.43-0.50; P<0.001), and infectious complications (AOR 0.68, 95%CI 0.63-0.73; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The present national study identifies a decrease in colectomy for benign polyps from 2012-2019. Future investigations should identify patients who would most benefit from surgical resection and address persistent inequities in access to screening and treatment for colonic neoplasms.

pT1 colorectal cancer: A treatment dilemma

The implementation of population screening programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) has led to a considerable increase in the prevalence pT1-CRC originating on polyps amenable by local treatments. However, a high proportion of patients are referred for unnecessary oncological surgeries without a clear benefit in terms of survival. Selecting the appropriate endoscopic resection technique in the moment of diagnosis becomes crucial to provide the best treatment alternative to each individual polyp and patient. For this, it is imperative to increase the optical diagnostic skill for differentiating pT1-CRCs and decide the appropriate initial therapy. En bloc resection is crucial to obtain an adequate histological specimen that might allow organ preserving therapeutic management. In this review, we address key challenges in T1 CRC management, explore the efficacy and safety of the available diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, and shed light on upcoming advances in the field.

Tn as a potential predictor for regional lymph node metastasis in T1 colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Approximately 10 percent of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) has lymph node metastasis. In this study, we aimed to determine possible predictors for nodal involvement in order to aid selection of appropriate patients for organ-preserving strategies.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed CRC patients underwent radical surgery from January 2009 to December 2016, with final pathology report disclosed as T1 lesion. The paraffin-embedded samples were achieved for glycosylated proteins expression analysis by immunohistochemistry.

RESULTS

Totally, 111 CRC patients with T1 lesion were enrolled in this study. Of these patients, seventeen patients had nodal metastases, with the lymph node positive rate of 15.3%. Semiquantitative analysis of immunohistochemical results indicated that mean value of Tn protein expression in T1 CRC specimens was significantly different between patients with and without lymph node metastasis (63.6 vs. 27.4; p = 0.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data shown that Tn expression may be applied as a molecular predictor for regional lymph node metastasis in T1 CRC. Moreover, the organ-preserving strategy could be improved by proper classification of patients. The mechanism involved in expression of Tn glycosylation protein and CRC metastasis need further investigation.

Risk of Residual Neoplasia after a Local-Risk Resection of Colorectal Lesions by Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Multinational Study

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in colorectal lesions is demanding, and a significant rate of non-curative procedures is expected. We aimed to assess the rate of residual lesion after a piecemeal ESD resection, or after an en bloc resection but with positive horizontal margins (local-risk resection-LocRR), for colorectal benign neoplasia. A retrospective multicenter analysis of consecutive colorectal ESDs was performed. Patients with LocRR ESDs for the treatment of benign colorectal lesions with at least one follow-up endoscopy were included. A cohort of en bloc resected lesions, with negative margins, was used as the control. A total of 2255 colorectal ESDs were reviewed; 352 of the ESDs were "non-curative". Among them, 209 were LocRR: 133 high-grade dysplasia and 76 low-grade dysplasia. Ten cases were excluded due to missing data. A total of 146 consecutive curative resections were retrieved for comparison. Compared to the "curative group", LocRRs were observed in lengthier procedures, with larger lesions, and in non-granular LSTs. Recurrence was higher in the LocRR group (16/199, 8% vs. 1/146, 0.7%; p = 0.002). However, statistical significance was lost when considering only en bloc resections with positive horizontal margins (p = 0.068). In conclusion, a higher rate of residual lesion was found after a piecemeal ESD resection, but not after an en bloc resection with positive horizontal margins.

Is colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection safe and effective for 15-19-mm tumors?

PURPOSE

The outcomes of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in 15-19-mm tumors are unclear. This study compared the effectiveness and safety of colorectal ESD for 15-19-mm tumors and tumors exceeding that size.

METHODS

From August 2018 to December 2020, 213 cases of colorectal tumors removed by colorectal ESD at a tertiary hospital were enrolled in this study. The cases were divided into two groups according to the pathologically measured size of the resected lesion: an intermediate group (15-19 mm, n = 62) and a large group (≥ 20 mm, n = 151). The en bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, and complications were investigated retrospectively.

RESULTS

The en bloc resection rate was significantly higher in the intermediate than large group (100% vs. 94%, p = 0.049), and the mean total procedure time was shorter in the intermediate than large group (29.2 [Formula: see text] 12.6 vs. 48.4 [Formula: see text] 28.8 min, p < 0.001). However, the mean procedure speed was significantly lower in the intermediate than large group (0.25 [Formula: see text] 0.10 vs. 0.28 [Formula: see text] 0.11 cm2/min, p = 0.031). The complete resection rate, post-procedural bleeding, and perforation rate were not significantly different between the two groups. In multivariate analyses, the total procedure time and mean procedure speed were significantly associated with lesion size.

CONCLUSION

Colorectal ESD of 15-19-mm lesions is effective, and has a shorter procedure time and higher en bloc resection rate than the same procedure for larger lesions.

Predicting procedure duration of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection at Western endoscopy centers

Background and study aims Overcoming logistical obstacles for the implementation of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) requires accurate prediction of procedure times. We aimed to evaluate existing and new prediction models for ESD duration. Patients and methods Records of all consecutive patients who underwent single, non-hybrid colorectal ESDs before 2020 at three Dutch centers were reviewed. The performance of an Eastern prediction model [GIE 2021;94(1):133-144] was assessed in the Dutch cohort. A prediction model for procedure duration was built using multivariable linear regression. The model's performance was validated using internal validation by bootstrap resampling, internal-external cross-validation and external validation in an independent Swedish ESD cohort. Results A total of 435 colorectal ESDs were analyzed (92% en bloc resections, mean duration 139 minutes, mean tumor size 39 mm). The performance of current unstandardized time scheduling practice was suboptimal (explained variance: R 2 =27%). We successfully validated the Eastern prediction model for colorectal ESD duration <60 minutes (c-statistic 0.70, 95% CI 0.62-0.77), but this model was limited due to dichotomization of the outcome and a relatively low frequency (14%) of ESDs completed <60 minutes in the Dutch centers. The model was more useful with a dichotomization cut-off of 120 minutes (c-statistic: 0.75; 88% and 17% of "easy" and "very difficult" ESDs completed <120 minutes, respectively). To predict ESD duration as continuous outcome, we developed and validated the six-variable cESD-TIME formula ( https://cesdtimeformula.shinyapps.io/calculator/ ; optimism-corrected R 2 =61%; R 2 =66% after recalibration of the slope). Conclusions We provided two useful tools for predicting colorectal ESD duration at Western centers. Further improvements and validations are encouraged with potential local adaptation to optimize time planning.

Recent advances and current challenges in endoscopic resection with the full-thickness resection device

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) has emerged as a viable technique in the management of mucosal and subepithelial lesions of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) not amenable to conventional therapeutic approaches. While various devices and techniques have been described for EFTR, a single, combined full-thickness resection and closure device (full-thickness resection device, FTRD system, Ovesco Endoscopy AG, Tuebingen, Germany) has become commercially available in recent years. Initially, the FTRD system was limited to use in the colorectum only. Recently, a modified version of the FTRD has been released for EFTR in the upper GIT as well. This review provides a broad summary of the FTRD, highlighting recent advances and current challenges.

Endoscopic management of colorectal polyps

Colorectal polyps are premalignant lesions in the lower gastrointestinal tract. Endoscopic polypectomy is an effective strategy to prevent colorectal cancer morbidity and more invasive procedures. Techniques for the endoscopic resection of polyps keep evolving, and endoscopists are required to perform the most appropriate technique for each polyp. In this review, we outline the evaluation and classification of polyps, update the recommendations for optimal treatment, describe the polypectomy procedures and their strengths/weaknesses, and discuss the promising innovative methods or concepts.

Comparative Cost Analysis Between Endoscopic Resection and Surgery for Submucosal Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

There are few studies analyzing the cost of endoscopic resection and surgical resection in the treatment of submucosal colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to perform a detailed cost analysis of endoscopic resection and surgical resection for submucosal colorectal cancer.

DESIGN

This was a retrospective observational study.

SETTING

This study was conducted at a tertiary academic center.

PATIENTS

Medical records of 484 patients with submucosal colorectal cancer who underwent endoscopic resection or surgical resection between July 2003 and July 2015 were reviewed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The total costs during index admission and follow-up as well as clinical outcomes between the 2 groups were compared in the whole cohort and propensity score-matched cohort.

RESULTS

In the propensity score-matched analysis ( n = 155 in each group), the endoscopic resection and surgical resection groups did not show significant differences in the rates of procedure-related adverse events (6.5% vs 3.9%; p = 0.304) and recurrence (0.6% vs 1.3%; p > 0.99). Readmission was more common in the endoscopic resection group (40.6% vs 11.0%; p < 0.001) because 64 (41.3%) patients underwent additional surgery for endoscopic noncurative resection. The endoscopic resection group had a lower cost during the index admission (1335.6 vs 6698.4 USD; p < 0.001), whereas the surgical resection group had a lower cost during follow-up (2488.7 vs 5035.7 USD; p < 0.001). The total cumulative cost was lower in the endoscopic resection group (6371.3 vs 9187.1 USD; p < 0.001). The same trend was observed in the whole cohort without propensity score matching.

LIMITATIONS

A limitation of this study was the retrospective nature of analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The total cumulative cost for treatment and follow-up for submucosal colorectal cancer was lower in the endoscopic resection group, which had comparable oncologic outcomes as the surgical resection group. Endoscopic resection can be considered a cost-effective option for initial treatment for submucosal colorectal cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B881 .

ANLISIS COMPARATIVO DE COSTOS ENTRE LA RESECCIN ENDOSCPICA Y LA CIRUGA PARA EL CNCER COLORRECTAL SUBMUCOSO

ANTECEDENTES: Existen pocos estudios que analizan el costo de la resección endoscópica y la resección quirúrgica en el tratamiento del cáncer colorrectal submucoso.OBJETIVO: El objetivo fue realizar un análisis detallado de costos tanto de la resección endoscópica y la resección quirúrgica para el cáncer colorrectal submucoso.DISEÑO: Este fue un estudio observacional retrospectivo.AJUSTE: Este estudio se realizó en un centro académico terciario.PACIENTES: Se revisaron las historias clínicas de 484 pacientes con cáncer colorrectal submucoso que fueron sometidos a resección endoscópica o resección quirúrgica entre julio de 2003 y julio de 2015.PRINCIPALES MEDICIONES DE RESULTADOS: Los costos totales durante la admisión índice y el seguimiento, así como los resultados clínicos entre los dos grupos, fueron comparados en toda la cohorte y la cohorte emparejada por puntuación de propensión.RESULTADOS: En el análisis emparejado por puntuación de propensión ( n = 155 en cada grupo), los grupos de resección endoscópica y resección quirúrgica no mostraron diferencias significativas en las tasas de eventos adversos relacionados con el procedimiento (6,5% vs 3,9%, p = 0,304) y recurrencia (0,6% vs 1,3%, p > 0,99). La readmisión fue más común en el grupo de resección endoscópica (40,6% vs 11,0%, p < 0,001) porque 64 (41,3%) pacientes fueron sometidos a una cirugía adicional para lograr la resección en aquellos casos en que la resección endoscópica no fue curativa. El grupo de resección endoscópica tuvo un costo menor durante el ingreso índice (1335.6 vs 6698.4 USD, p < 0.001), mientras que el grupo de resección quirúrgica tuvo un costo menor durante el seguimiento (2488.7 vs 5035.7 USD, p < 0.001). El costo total acumulado fue menor en el grupo de resección endoscópica (6371,3 vs 9187,1 USD, p < 0,001). La misma tendencia se observó en toda la cohorte sin emparejamiento por puntuación de propensión.LIMITACIONES: La naturaleza retrospectiva del análisis.CONCLUSIONES: El costo total acumulado para el tratamiento y seguimiento del cáncer colorrectal submucoso fue menor en el grupo de resección endoscópica, que tuvo resultados oncológicos comparables a los del grupo de resección quirúrgica. La resección endoscópica puede considerarse una opción rentable para el tratamiento inicial del cáncer colorrectal submucoso. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B881 . (Traducción-Dr Osvaldo Gauto ).

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Short‐term outcomes of patients undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions

Objectives

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of colorectal lesions was invented in Japan, but postoperative management including hospital stay has not been reconsidered due to the Japanese insurance system. To explore appropriate postoperative management after colorectal ESD, we reviewed short‐term outcomes after ESD in non‐selected consecutive patients.

Methods

Patients who underwent colorectal ESD from April 2013 to September 2020 in one institution were reviewed. The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of adverse events stratified by the Clavien‐Dindo classification with five grades. A logistic regression model with the Firth procedure was applied to investigate predictors of severe (grade III or greater) adverse events.

Results

A total of 330 patients (female 40%, male 60%; median 72 years; IQR 65–80 years) with colorectal lesions (median 30 mm, IQR 23–40 mm; colon 77%, rectum 23%; serrated lesion 4%, adenoma 47%, mucosal cancer 30%, invasive cancer 18%) was evaluated. The en bloc resection rate was 97%. The median dissection time was 58 min (IQR: 38–86). Intraprocedural perforation occurred in 3%, all successfully treated by endoscopic clipping. No delayed perforations occurred. Postprocedural bleeding occurred in 3% on days 1–10 (median day 2); all were controlled endoscopically. Severe adverse events included only delayed bleeding. In analyzing severe adverse events in a multivariate logistic regression model with the Firth procedure, antithrombotic agent use (p = 0.016) and rectal lesions (p = 0.0010) were both significant predictors.

Conclusions

No serious adverse events occurred in this series. Four days of hospitalization may be too long for the majority of patients after ESD.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

DISCUSSION

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

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05273697.

Endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection vs conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection for large colorectal neoplasms: a single-centre retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is still not widely used due to its technical difficulty and the risk of complications. Several techniques, such as traction techniques, pocket techniques and others, have been proposed to facilitate it. One modified pocket technique especially suitable for large lesions is endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ESTD and compare ESTD to the conventional ESD (CESD) for treating large colorectal lesions.

METHODS

The charts of consecutive patients referred to the Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova (Reggio Emilia, Italy) for colorectal ESD between January 2014 and February 2021 for colorectal neoplasms > 40 mm were retrospectively analysed. The primary outcome of the study was the en bloc resection rate. Secondary outcomes were complete and curative resection rates, procedure speed, the adverse events rate and the recurrence rate.

RESULTS

There were 59 patients (M:F ratio 29:30, median age 70 years [range 50-93 years]). Of 59 colorectal lesions > 40 mm, 25 were removed by ESTD and 34 by CESD. The en bloc resection rate was 100% in both groups and the complete resection rate was similar (ESTD 92% vs CESD 97.1%, p = 0.569), while the curative resection rate was higher in the CESD group, but not significantly (94.1% vs 76%, p = 0.061). Procedure speed was significantly faster with ESTD (22 vs 17 mm²/min, p = 0.045), and the overall incidence of adverse events was low (6.8%). Eight patients were referred to surgery due to non-curative resection. During follow-up, no recurrence was observed in either treatment group.

CONCLUSION

ESTD achieves a very high en bloc resection rate and is faster than CESD.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Risk of residual neoplasia after a noncurative colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection for malignant lesions: a multinational study

BACKGROUND : Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in colorectal lesions is technically demanding and a significant rate of noncurative procedures is expected. We aimed to assess the rate of residual lesions after a noncurative ESD for colorectal cancer (CRC) and to establish predictive scores to be applied in the clinical setting. METHODS : Retrospective multicenter analysis of consecutive colorectal ESDs. Patients with noncurative ESDs performed for the treatment of CRC lesions submitted to complementary surgery or with at least one follow-up endoscopy were included. RESULTS : From 2255 colorectal ESDs, 381 (17 %) were noncurative, and 135 of these were performed in CRC lesions. A residual lesion was observed in 24 patients (18 %). Surgery was performed in 96 patients and 76 (79 %) had no residual lesion in the colorectal wall or in the lymph nodes. The residual lesion rate for sm1 cancers was 0 %, and for > sm1 cancers was also 0 % if no other risk factors were present. Independent risk factors for lymph node metastasis were poor differentiation and lymphatic permeation (NC-Lymph score). Risk factors for the presence of a residual lesion in the wall were piecemeal resection, poor differentiation, and positive/indeterminate vertical margin (NC-Wall score). CONCLUSIONS : Lymphatic permeation or poor differentiation warrant surgery owing to their high risk of lymph node metastasis, mainly in > sm1 cancers. In the remaining cases, en bloc and R0 resections resulted in a low risk of residual lesions in the wall. Our scores can be a useful tool for the management of patients who undergo noncurative colorectal ESDs.

Characteristics and endoscopic treatment of interventional and non-interventional iatrogenic colorectal perforations in centers with high endoscopic expertise: a retrospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Iatrogenic colorectal perforation is a rare event with a relevant mortality and the need for surgical therapy in around ¾ of cases.

METHODS

In this retrospective multicentric cohort study iatrogenic colorectal perforations from 2004 to 2021 were analyzed. Primary outcome parameters were incidence and clinical success of 1st line endoscopic treatment. Comparative analysis of interventional and non-interventional perforations was performed and predictors for clinical success of endoscopic therapy were identified.

RESULTS

From 103,570 colonoscopies 213 (0.2%) iatrogenic perforations were identified. 68.4% were interventional (80 during polypectomy/EMR, 54 during ESD and 11 for other reasons) and 31.6% non-interventional perforations (39 by the tip, 19 by the shaft, 7 by inversion, two by biopsy and one by distension). Incidence of 1st line endoscopic therapy was 61.0% and clinical success 81.5%. Other non-surgical therapies were conducted in 8.9% with clinical success in 94.7% of cases. In interventional perforations both incidence and clinical success of 1st line endoscopic therapy were significantly higher compared to non-interventional perforations [71.7% vs. 38.2% (p < 0.01) resp. 86.5% vs. 61.5% (p < 0.01)]. Mortality was 2.3% and significantly lower in the group of interventional perforations (0.7% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.037). Multivariable analysis revealed perforation size < 5 mm as only independent predictor for clinical success of 1st line endoscopic treatment [OR 14.85 (1.57-140.69), p = 0.019].

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic therapy is treatment of choice in the majority of iatrogenic colorectal perforations. In case of interventional perforations it is highly effective but only a minority of non-interventional perforations are good candidates for endoscopic treatment.

Randomized controlled trial comparing conventional and traction endoscopic submucosal dissection for early colon tumor (CONNECT-C trial)

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a widely used treatment for early gastrointestinal cancer. However, colon ESD remains challenging. Previous studies on colon ESD using the traction method used a small sample, single-center design, providing insufficient evidence of this procedure's efficacy. We thus aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of the traction method in colon ESD in this multicenter randomized trial.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized, two-arm controlled trial at 10 facilities in Japan. A 1:1 allocation was conducted for the conventional ESD (C-ESD) and traction ESD (T-ESD) groups. The primary end-point was ESD procedure time.

RESULTS

We included 128 C-ESD and 123 T-ESD cases from April 2020 to August 2021. The median procedure times for C-ESD and T-ESD were 61 (40-100) and 53 (40-76) min (P = 0.18), respectively, and no significant differences were observed between the groups. Subgroup analysis showed that the median procedure times for patients with a lesion diameter of ≥30 mm in the C-ESD and T-ESD groups were 89 (57-80) and 69 (50-104) min (P = 0.05), respectively, and for nonexpert operators were 81 (62-120) and 64 (52-109) min (P = 0.07), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The traction method did not contribute to a significantly shortened ESD procedure time. However, this method may be useful when the tumor diameter is large or if the procedure is conducted by nonexpert endoscopists.

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

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

A Look into the Future of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Third Space Endoscopy: The Role for Robotics and Other Innovation

Endoscopic resection has been widely applied especially in endoscopic submucosal dissection and third space endoscopy (TSE). Flexible endoluminal robotics allow performance of endoscopic submucosal dissection with exposure of the submucosal plane for precise dissection using two robotic arms. The introduction of TSE revolutionized the horizon of therapeutic endoscopy to the submucosal space beneath and beyond the mucosa. Advantages of TSE include avoidance of full thickness incision in gastrointestinal tract through the submucosal tunneling for performance of peroral endoscopic myotomy and submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection. In future, robotic-driven devices should be developed to enhance performance of complex endoluminal procedures and TSE.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection for upper gastrointestinal tract lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is used to resect difficult superficial mucosal lesions and sub-epithelial lesions (SELs). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EFTR for upper gastrointestinal tract (GIT) lesions.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Scopus databases for studies published in the English language that addressed outcomes of EFTR for upper GIT lesions through November 2021. The weighted pooled rates with the 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. Cochran Q test and I statistics were used to calculate heterogeneity.

RESULTS

We identify 740 articles on the initial search and six studies met the inclusion criteria. 140 patients (45.7% females) with 142 lesions were analyzed. Four studies used the full-thickness resection device (FTRD®). EFTR was performed for 26 adenomas, 97 SELs, six adenocarcinomas, and ten full-thickness biopsies. The overall technical success rate was 86.9% (CI 79.8-94%, I 2 = 38.9%), R0 resection was 80% (CI 67.6-92.3%, I 2 = 75.6%), and the overall adverse events rate was 18.6% (9.8-27.2%, I 2 = 49.4%). Major adverse events included six episodes of major bleeding, three micro-perforations, one large duodenal perforation, and one case of mucosal damage from FTRD®. At 3-6 months follow-up, there were only two cases of recurrence (R0 was not achieved in both).

CONCLUSION

EFTR has a high technical and clinical success rate in managing upper GIT lesions with an acceptable safety profile. Large prospective studies comparing EFTR with conventional endoscopic resection techniques are needed.

Is Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Lesions Performed in the Endoscopy Suite Safe and Cost Saving?

BACKGROUND

We aimed to compare the outcomes and the cost differences of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures in the endoscopy suite (ES) versus the operating room (OR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The procedures in the OR were compared with procedures performed in the ES for demographics, lesion characteristics, procedure outcome, and procedure charges. The study included 163 procedures in the ES and 73 in the OR.

RESULTS

Both were similar in age, sex, body mass index, and intraprocedural and postoperative 30-day (late) complications. ES cases had significantly greater polyp size, were more commonly right-sided polyps, and had shorter hospital stays, with similar en bloc and margin-negative resection rates. The overall cost ratio of ESD procedures in ES to OR was 0.47 ( P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Colorectal ESD procedures performed in the ES have similar efficacy and safety as those in the OR. Procedures performed in the ES were associated with a shorter length of stay and significant periprocedural cost savings.

Tip-in EMR as an alternative to endoscopic submucosal dissection for 20- to 30-mm nonpedunculated colorectal neoplasms

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Tip-in EMR, which includes anchoring the snare tip, has recently shown a favorable en-bloc and R0 resection rate for colorectal neoplasms. Thus, Tip-in EMR may be an alternative to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to compare clinical outcomes between Tip-in EMR and ESD for large colorectal neoplasms.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated consecutive patients who underwent Tip-in EMR or ESD for 20- to 30-mm nonpedunculated colorectal neoplasms at a Japanese tertiary cancer center between January 2014 and December 2019. Baseline characteristics, treatment results, and long-term outcomes were analyzed using 1:1 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Seven hundred nine lesions were evaluated. The Tip-in EMR group included 1 lesion with a nonlifting sign but no lesions with fold convergence. After propensity score matching, each group included 140 lesions. The ESD group showed significantly higher en-bloc resection rates (99.3% vs 85.0%) and R0 resection rates (90.7% vs 62.9%). Procedure time was significantly shorter in the Tip-in EMR group (8 minutes vs 60 minutes). The Tip-in EMR and ESD groups did not differ significantly with respect to local recurrence rate (2.1% vs 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Tip-in EMR is comparable with ESD with respect to the local recurrence rate but has a shorter procedure time, despite the lower en-bloc and R0 resection rates for 20- to 30-mm nonpedunculated colorectal neoplasms without fold convergence or nonlifting sign. Thus, Tip-in EMR could be a feasible alternative to ESD in these lesions.

EMR combined with hybrid argon plasma coagulation to prevent recurrence of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EMR is the mainstay of therapy for large colorectal polyps. Local recurrence after EMR is common and can be reduced using margin ablation. Our aim was to evaluate recurrence rates when using hybrid argon plasma coagulation (h-APC) ablation after EMR.

METHODS

Adult patients (aged 18-89 years) undergoing EMR of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm were enrolled in a prospective multicenter study. h-APC was used to ablate all defect margins and also the resection surface in selected cases. The primary study outcome was recurrence rates found during the first follow-up colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were technical success and adverse event rates.

RESULTS

EMR with h-APC ablation was used in 101 polyps (84 patients, 46.4% women). EMR with h-APC ablation was technically successful in all cases (median EMR time, 15 minutes; median h-APC ablation time, 4 minutes). Median polyp size was 30 mm (range, 20-60). Resected polyps were either adenomas (68/101 [67.3%]), sessile serrated lesions (27/101 [27%]), or adenocarcinomas (6/101 [6%]). The post-EMR recurrence rate was 2.2% (2/91) (95% confidence interval, .27-7.71). All 6 patients with cancer (intramucosal cancer, 4; T1sm cancer, 2) were found to have complete eradication of the primary tumor after EMR with h-APC, and none had lymph node metastasis. Four serious adverse events occurred in 3 patients (2 delayed bleeding [2.4%], 1 abdominal pain [1.2%], and 1 microperforation [1.2%]. All serious adverse events resolved with either endoscopic or antibiotic treatment only.

CONCLUSIONS

EMR with h-APC showed a high technical success rate, low adverse event rate, and very low post-EMR recurrence rates. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04015765.).

Efficacy and safety of cold snare polypectomy for sessile serrated polyps ≥ 10 mm: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is a promising technique for the removal of sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) ≥ 10 mm. However, the efficacy and safety of this technique remain undetermined.

AIMS

We aimed to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of CSP for SSPs ≥ 10 mm.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies consisting of 1727 SSPs (range, 10-40 mm) from 1021 patients were included. The overall rates of technical success, adverse events (AEs) and residual SSPs were 100%, 0.7% and 2.9%, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that the rates of technical success and AEs were comparable between CSP and cold endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) (99.9% vs. 100% and 1.3% vs. 0.5%, respectively), between the proximal and distal colon (100% vs. 99.9% and 0.3% vs. 0, respectively), and between polyps of 10-19 mm and ≥20 mm (99.8% vs. 100% and 0.9% vs. 0, respectively). However, subgroup analysis showed that the rate of residual SSPs was slightly lower in CSP compared with cold EMR (1.3% vs. 3.9%), as well as in polyps of 10-19 mm compared with those ≥20 mm (3.1% vs. 4.7%).

CONCLUSION

CSP was an effective and safe technique for removing SSPs ≥ 10 mm.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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