Role of the cold biopsy technique in diminutive and small colonic polyp removal: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Endoscopic Resection of Neoplasia in the Lower GI Tract: A Clinical Algorithm

Background

Colorectal cancer is a highly prevalent malignancy and a significant driver of cancer mortality and health-related expenditure worldwide. Polyp removal reduces the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. In 2024, endoscopists have an array of resection modalities at their disposal. Each technique requires a unique skillset and has individual advantages and limitations. Consequently, resection in the colorectum requires an evidence-based algorithm approach that considers these factors.

Summary

A literature review of endoscopic resection for colonic neoplasia was conducted. Best supporting scientific evidence was summarized for the endoscopic resection of diminutive polyps, large ≥20 mm lesions and polyps containing invasive cancer. Factors including resection modality, complications and lesion selection were explored to inform an algorithm approach to colorectal resection.

Key Messages

Endoscopic resection in the colorectum is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Detailed understanding of polyp size, location, morphology and predicted histology are critical factors that inform appropriate endoscopic resection practice.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Cold Snare Polypectomy versus Cold Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Resecting 3-10 mm Colorectal Polyps: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

The safety and efficacy of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) compared to those of cold endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) have been reported. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of CEMR and CSP.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of CEMR and CSP in removing 3-10 mm polyps. The outcomes assessed included complete resection rate, intraoperative bleeding rate, delayed bleeding rate, perforation, and polyp removal time. The results are reported as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) derived from a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model.

RESULTS

Seven studies comprising 1,911 polyps were included in the analysis. The complete resection rate of CEMR was comparable to that of CSP (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99-1.04, p = 0.32). Comparable results were also demonstrated for intraoperative bleeding rate (polyp-based analysis: RR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.33-4.43, p = 0.77), delayed bleeding rate (polyp-based analysis: RR: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.44-4.15, p = 0.61), and polyp removal time (mean difference: 28.31 s, 95% CI: -21.40-78.02, p = 0.26). No studies reported cases of perforation.

CONCLUSION

CEMR has comparable efficacy and safety to CSP in removing 3-10 mm polyps. Further randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are warranted to compare and validate efficacy.

Cold snare polypectomy compared to cold forceps polypectomy for endoscopic resection of guideline defined diminutive polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

International guidelines recommend cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for polyps  < 10 mm in size. However, recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) showed conflicting results for the use of cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) vs. CSP for the resection of diminutive colorectal polyps (DCPs) (≤ 5 mm), especially for polyps  ≤ 3 mm. Herein we compared CFP with CSP for patients with DCPs in this meta-analysis of RCTs.

METHODS

We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMBASE databases from inception to November 24, 2022, (Registration number INPLASY2022110135). The primary endpoint was DCP complete resection rate. The secondary endpoints were mean polypectomy time, polyp retrieval rate and complications.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs involving 1023 DCPs were included. The complete resection rate (91.6% vs. 94.7%) for CFP was not significantly lower for polyps ≤ 5 mm (relative risk [RR] = 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98-1.07). Sub-group analysis showed that the complete resection rate (88.7% vs. 92.4%) for CFP was not significantly lower for DCPs > 3 mm (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.97-1.12). Another sub-group analysis showed that the complete resection rate (97.0% vs. 96.3%) was similar for polyps ≤ 3 mm for CFP vs. CSP (RR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.98-1.03). The mean polypectomy time was not different between CFP and CSP (95% CI: -11.86-10.18). The polyp retrieval rate (100% vs. 96.9%) was not significantly higher for CFP (RR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.98-1.07). There were no reported complications in the included studies. The overall study quality was moderate except for the removal of polyps ≤ 5 mm (low-quality evidence).

CONCLUSION

CFP was comparable to CSP for the resection of polyps ≤ 3 mm; however, caution should be taken for DCPs > 3 mm because of the low complete resection rate (< 90%).

Cold Versus Hot Snare Polypectomy for Small Colorectal Polyps : A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Although cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is considered effective in reducing delayed postpolypectomy bleeding risk, direct evidence supporting its safety in the general population remains lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To clarify whether CSP would reduce delayed bleeding risk after polypectomy compared with hot snare polypectomy (HSP) in the general population.

DESIGN

Multicenter randomized controlled study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03373136).

SETTING

6 sites in Taiwan, July 2018 through July 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants aged 40 years or older with polyps of 4 to 10 mm.

INTERVENTION

CSP or HSP to remove polyps of 4 to 10 mm.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the delayed bleeding rate within 14 days after polypectomy. Severe bleeding was defined as a decrease in hemoglobin concentration of 20 g/L or more, requiring transfusion or hemostasis. Secondary outcomes included mean polypectomy time, successful tissue retrieval, en bloc resection, complete histologic resection, and emergency service visits.

RESULTS

A total of 4270 participants were randomly assigned (2137 to CSP and 2133 to HSP). Eight patients (0.4%) in the CSP group and 31 (1.5%) in the HSP group had delayed bleeding (risk difference, -1.1% [95% CI, -1.7% to -0.5%]). Severe delayed bleeding was also lower in the CSP group (1 [0.05%] vs. 8 [0.4%] events; risk difference, -0.3% [CI, -0.6% to -0.05%]). Mean polypectomy time (119.0 vs. 162.9 seconds; difference in mean, -44.0 seconds [CI, -53.1 to -34.9 seconds]) was shorter in the CSP group, although successful tissue retrieval, en bloc resection, and complete histologic resection did not differ. The CSP group had fewer emergency service visits than the HSP group (4 [0.2%] vs. 13 [0.6%] visits; risk difference, -0.4% [CI, -0.8% to -0.04%]).

LIMITATION

An open-label, single-blind trial.

CONCLUSION

Compared with HSP, CSP for small colorectal polyps significantly reduces the risk for delayed postpolypectomy bleeding, including severe events.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Boston Scientific Corporation.

JAG consensus statements for training and certification in flexible sigmoidoscopy

Introduction

Joint Advisory Group (JAG) certification in endoscopy is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update standards for training and certification in flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS).

Methods

A modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety representation from experts and trainees. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on FS training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer-reviewed by national stakeholders for incorporation into the JAG FS certification pathway.

Results

In total, 41 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (17), assessment of competence (7) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (A) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate-severe discomfort); (B) minimum procedure count ≥175; (C) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (D) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Lower gastrointestinal Endoscopy course; (E) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedural skill (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skill (SMSA level 1); (F) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool and (G) successful performance in summative DOPS.

Conclusion

The UK standards for training and certification in FS have been updated to support training, uphold standards in FS and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

JAG consensus statements for training and certification in colonoscopy

Introduction

In the UK, endoscopy certification is awarded when trainees attain minimum competency standards for independent practice. A national evidence-based review was undertaken to update and develop standards and recommendations for colonoscopy training and certification.

Methods

Under the oversight of the Joint Advisory Group (JAG), a modified Delphi process was conducted between 2019 and 2020 with multisociety expert representation. Following literature review and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations appraisal, recommendation statements on colonoscopy training and certification were formulated and subjected to anonymous voting to obtain consensus. Accepted statements were peer reviewed by JAG and relevant stakeholders for incorporation into the updated colonoscopy certification pathway.

Results

In total, 45 recommendation statements were generated under the domains of: definition of competence (13), acquisition of competence (20), assessment of competence (8) and postcertification support (4). The consensus process led to revised criteria for colonoscopy certification, comprising: (1) achieving key performance indicators defined within British Society of Gastroenterology standards (ie, unassisted caecal intubation rate >90%, rectal retroversion >90%, polyp detection rate >15%+, polyp retrieval rate >90%, patient comfort <10% with moderate–severe discomfort); (2) minimum procedure count 280+; (3) performing 15+ procedures over the preceding 3 months; (4) attendance of the JAG Basic Skills in Colonoscopy course; (5) terminal ileal intubation rates of 60%+ in inflammatory bowel disease; (6) satisfying requirements for formative direct observation of procedure skills (DOPS) and direct observation of polypectomy skills (Size, Morphology, Site, Access (SMSA) level 2); (7) evidence of reflective practice as documented on the JAG Endoscopy Training System reflection tool; (8) successful performance in summative DOPS.

Conclusion

The UK standards for training and certification in colonoscopy have been updated, culminating in a single-stage certification process with emphasis on polypectomy competency (SMSA Level 2+). These standards are intended to support training, improve standards of colonoscopy and polypectomy, and provide support to the newly independent practitioner.

Adoption of Optimal Small (6-9 mm) Colorectal Polyp Resection Technique Over Time

BACKGROUND

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is the preferred resection technique for small (6-9 mm) polyps due to lower rate of incomplete resection compared to cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) and improved safety profile over hot snare polypectomy (HSP).

AIMS

To describe resection techniques for small (6-9 mm) polyps and determine factors associated with sub-optimal technique.

METHODS

This was retrospective cohort study of colonoscopies performed by gastroenterological and surgical endoscopists from 2012 to 2019 where at least one 6-9 mm polyp was removed. Patient, provider, and procedure characteristics were collected. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to determine factors associated with sub-optimal technique.

RESULTS

In total, 773 colonoscopies where 1,360 6-9 mm polyps removed by 21 endoscopists were included. CSP was used for 1,122 (82.5%), CFP for 61 (4.5%), and HSP for 177 (13.0%). Surgeon specialty was associated with CFP use (aOR 7.81; 95% CI 3.02-20.16). Polyp location in left colon (aOR 1.65; 95% CI 1.17-2.33) and pedunculated morphology (aOR 12.76; 95% CI 7.24-22.50) were associated with HSP. There was a significant increase in overall CSP use from 30.4% in 2012 to 96.8% in 2019.

CONCLUSIONS

82.5% of all 6-9 mm polyps removed from 2012 to 2019 were removed using a cold snare with significant increase in CSP from 2012 to 2019. Differences in how optimal technique was adopted over time based on specialty highlight the need for standardized practice guidelines and quality monitoring.

Progression in clinical application of cold snare resection technique in colorectal polyps

The cold snare resection technique has been recommended by European and American societies and gradually applied in clinical practice. However, due to the operating habits of endoscopists and the insufficient understanding of the cold resection technique, it has not been fully used in colorectal polyps. In this paper, we review the application status of cold snare resection technique, its use in patients treated with antithrombotic drugs, and postoperative histological changes.

Prevalence of Forceps Polypectomy of Nondiminutive Polyps Is Substantial But Modifiable

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The use of forceps for removal of nondiminutive polyps is associated with incomplete resection compared with snare polypectomy. However, few studies have characterized the frequency of forceps polypectomy for nondiminutive polyps or identified strategies to improve this practice. To address this gap, we estimated the prevalence and predictors of forceps polypectomy in clinical practice and examined the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention to reduce inappropriate forceps polypectomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all colonoscopies with polypectomies performed at 2 U.S. health systems between October 1, 2017, and September 30, 2019. We used a mixed-effects logistic regression model to examine the effect of a multicomponent intervention, including provider education and a financial incentive, to reduce inappropriate forceps polypectomy, defined as use of forceps polypectomy for polyps ≥5 mm.

RESULTS

A total of 9968 colonoscopies with 25,534 polypectomies were performed by 42 gastroenterologists during the study period. Overall, 8.5% (n = 2176) of polyps were removed with inappropriate forceps polypectomy. Inappropriate forceps polypectomy significantly decreased after the intervention (odds ratio [OR], 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30-0.39), from 11.4% (n = 1539) to 5.3% (n = 637). Predictors of inappropriate forceps polypectomy included inadequate bowel prep (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.06-1.47), polyps in the right colon (vs left: OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09-1.51), and number of polyps removed (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.97). Inappropriate forceps polypectomy also varied by gastroenterologist (median OR, 3.43). In a post hoc analysis, the proportion of polyps >2 mm removed with forceps decreased from 50.0% before the intervention to 43.0% after it (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.58-0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

Inappropriate forceps polypectomy is common but modifiable. The proportion of nondiminutive polyps removed with forceps polypectomy should be considered as a quality measure.

A Pilot Randomized Trial of Polypectomy Techniques for 4 to 6 mm Colonic Polyps

BACKGROUND AND GOALS

There is variation in polypectomy techniques for resection of small polyps. Aim was to compare techniques for 4 to 6 mm polyps for recurrent adenoma, efficiency, and adverse events and to establish methodological factors for definitive trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was a randomized controlled trial. Outpatients with ≥1, 4 to 6 mm polyps were randomized to cold forceps (CF), cold snare (CS), and hot snare (HS). Polypectomy site was marked with SPOT to assess for recurrence at the original polypectomy site during surveillance colonoscopy. To assess feasibility of a definitive trial we measured (1) rates of patient refusal, participation, ineligibility; (2) retention; (3) recurrent neoplasia; and (4) sample size for a definitive trial.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty-three patients were randomized to 1 of the 3 polypectomy techniques, of whom 260 (73.6%) completed the initial colonoscopy (mean age 57 y, 50.4% women), with 91, 87, and 82 patients randomized to CF, CS, and HS polypectomy, respectively. Mean time for polyp resection for CF, CS, and HS were 198.8, 58.5, and 96.8 seconds, respectively, with CS and HS requiring less time than CF (P<0.001). One hundred sixty-four (63.1%) completed surveillance colonoscopy. Polyp recurrences were 9 (14.5%) with CF, 5 (9.6%) with CS, and 0 (0%) with HS. Although the recurrence relative risks with CF and CS polypectomy were 1.84 and 1.65 as compared with HS, respectively, neither was statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

CS and HS polypectomy require less time than CF. HS polypectomy may have a lower risk for recurrent neoplasia. High attrition rate is a challenge in conducting randomized controlled trial with polyp recurrence as endpoint.

Comparison of cold biopsy forceps vs cold snare for diminutive colorectal polyp removal: A multicenter non-inferiority randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

European guidelines recommends the use of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for removal of diminutive colorectal polyps (DCP). However, for DCP < 4 mm cold biopsy forceps (CBF) may be optional. We aimed to compare the efficacy of CSP with CBF for removal of DCP in routine colonoscopy.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. After screening, 123 patients were prospectively included and 180 DCPs were removed by either CBF or CSP after randomization (1:1). The primary end-point was the histological complete resection rate defined by negative additional biopsies taken from the edge of the polypectomy ulcer site.

RESULTS

Among DCPs, 121 (67.2%) adenomas or sessile serrated lesions were considered for the analysis. Polyps were 4 [1-5] mm in size, mostly flat (55.4%) and located in the proximal colon (44.6%). The en bloc resection rate was higher in the CSP group than the CBF group (91.7% vs. 42.6%, p < 0.001). The histological complete resection rate was comparable in the two groups (93.33% vs 90.16%; p = 0.527), even for polyps < 4 mm (91.30% vs 91.30%; p = 1). All specimens were retrieved and there was no difference in terms of procedure times and adverse events. Finally, univariate analysis did not identify any potential factor associated with complete resection rate.

CONCLUSION

In this study, CSP was comparable to CBF for the removal of DCP. Therefore, CBF may be considered as an alternative technique for resection of DCP, together with CSP, ClinicalTrials.gov registry (NCT04727918).

Efficacy and safety of cold forceps biopsy for diminutive pharyngeal neoplasms: Single-center, prospective pilot study

BACKGROUND

Management of diminutive pharyngeal neoplasms is controversial. Thus, we conducted a single-center, prospective pilot study to investigate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic excision with cold forceps biopsy (CFB) of these lesions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-nine lesions endoscopically diagnosed with narrow-band imaging as pharyngeal neoplasms of 3 mm or smaller were excised with CFB using jumbo biopsy forceps (cap diameter 2.8 mm, jaw volume 12.4 mm³ ). The primary outcome was endoscopically determined local remnant/recurrence rate 3 months after CFB. The secondary outcomes were histopathologically determined local remnant/recurrence rate; risk factors associated with the endoscopic remnant/recurrence; and incidence of intraoperative or delayed bleeding and other adverse events.

RESULTS

Histological diagnosis of the 39 CFB-excised lesions were: 11 high-grade dysplasia (28.2%), 22 low-grade dysplasia (56.4%), two basal cell hyperplasia (5.1%) and four atypical squamous epithelium (10.3%).Twenty-seven patients (30 lesions) underwent follow-up endoscopy 3 months after CFB; the endoscopic and pathological local remnant/recurrence rate was 20% (6/30; 95% confidence interval (CI), 7.7-36.6%) and 16.7% (5/30; 95% CI, 5.6-34.7%), respectively. Location of the lesion in the hypopharynx was a significant risk factor associated with the endoscopic local remnant/recurrence (P = 0.049). No significant adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Cold forceps biopsy with jumbo biopsy forceps appears to be a safe and effective technique for excising diminutive pharyngeal neoplasms. Although small, the excised lesions may have a remarkably high frequency of high-grade dysplasia. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000037980).

Colonoscopic Polypectomy Preferences of Asian Endoscopists: Results of a Survey-Based Study

Background/Aims

The clinical practice pattern of polypectomy is not well-investigated in Asian countries. We aimed to survey Asian endoscopists about their preferred polypectomy techniques for given conditions and images of polyps.

Methods

A survey was performed using questionnaires composed of two parts a scenario-based questionnaire using scenarios of polyps, which were adopted from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines, and an image-based questionnaire using provided endoscopic images of polyps.

Results

A total of 154 endoscopists participated in this survey. The most preferred resection techniques for diminutive (≤5 mm), small (6–9 mm), and benign-looking intermediate (10–19 mm) nonpedunculated polyps were cold forceps polypectomy, hot snare polypectomy, and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), respectively, in both the scenario- and image-based questionnaires. For benign-looking large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated polyps, EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) were preferred in the scenario- and image-based surveys, respectively. In case of malignant nonpedunculated polyps, EMR and ESD were preferred for intermediate-sized and large lesions, respectively, according to the scenario-based survey. However, ESD was preferred in both intermediate-sized and large malignant nonpedunculated polyps according to the image-based survey. Trainee endoscopists, endoscopists working in referral centers, and endoscopists in the colorectal cancer–prevalent countries were independently associated with preference of cold snare polypectomy for removing small polyps.

Conclusions

The polypectomy practice patterns of Asian endoscopists vary, and cold snare polypectomy was not the most preferred resection method for polyps <10 mm in size, in contrast to recent guidelines. (Gut Liver 2021;15-400)

Endoscopic polypectomy devices

Video 1Use of submucosal injection prior to en-bloc endoscopic mucosal resection.Video 2Use of a detachable loop ligating device prior to hot snare resection of a pedunculated polyp.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for management of colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND

The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE) published ''Daicho Polyp Shinryo Guideline 2014'' in Japanese and a part of this guideline was published in English as "Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for management of colorectal polyps" in the Journal of Gastroenterology in 2015. A revised version of the Japanese-language guideline was published in 2020, and here we introduce a part of the contents of revised version.

METHODS

The guideline committee discussed and drew up a series of clinical questions (CQs). Recommendation statements for the CQs were limited to items with multiple therapeutic options. Items with established conclusions that had 100% agreement with previous guidelines (background questions) and items with no (or old) evidence that are topics for future research (future research questions: FRQs) were given descriptions only. To address the CQs and FRQs, PubMed, ICHUSHI, and other sources were searched for relevant articles published in English from 1983 to October 2018 and articles published in Japanese from 1983 to November 2018. The Japan Medical Library Association was also commissioned to search for relevant materials. Manual searches were performed for questions with insufficient online references.

RESULTS

The professional committee created 18 CQs and statements concerning the current concept and diagnosis/treatment of various colorectal polyps, including their epidemiology, screening, pathophysiology, definition and classification, diagnosis, management, practical treatment, complications, and surveillance after treatment, and other colorectal lesions (submucosal tumors, nonneoplastic polyps, polyposis, hereditary tumors, ulcerative colitis-associated tumors/carcinomas).

CONCLUSIONS

After evaluation by the moderators, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for management of colorectal polyps were proposed for 2020. This report addresses the therapeutic related CQs introduced when formulating these guidelines.

Is jumbo biopsy forceps comparable to cold snare for diminutive colorectal polyps? - a meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Diminutive colorectal polyps are increasingly being detected and it is not clear whether jumbo biopsy forceps (JBF) has comparable efficacy to that of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for management of these lesions. Methods  An electronic literature search was performed for studies comparing resection rates of JBF and CSP for diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm). The primary outcome was incomplete resection rate (IRR). Secondary outcomes included failure of tissue retrieval and complication rates (post-polypectomy bleeding, perforation etc.). Leave-one-out analysis was performed to examine the disproportionate role of any of the studies. Meta-analysis outcomes and heterogeneity (I ² ) were computed using Comprehensive meta-analysis software. Results  A total of 4 studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 1 retrospective study) with 407 patients and 569 total polyps (mean size of 3.62 mm) was included for analysis. IRR of JBF was slightly higher than that of CSP (10.2 % vs 7.2 %) but this was not statistically significantly different (Pooled OR 1.76; 95 % CI 0.94-3.28; I ²  = 0 ). Leave-one-out analysis showed no significant difference in the pooled OR comparison either. Two of the 4 studies reported 0 % failure of tissue retrieval for JBF and 1 % and 4.3 % for CSP. There were no complications for either group from the 2 studies that reported this outcome. The quality of the included studies was moderate to high. Conclusions  This systematic review with only limited data shows that JBF and CSP are not statistically different in completely removing diminutive polyps, although careful endoscopic assessment is needed to ensure complete removal of all polyp tissue.

Indications for Cold Polypectomy Stratified by the Colorectal Polyp Size: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives:

Cold polypectomy (CP) is widely used because of its safety profile. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to clarify the indications for CP based on polyp size.

Methods:

We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials that compared cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and other procedures for polyps ≤10 mm. Large-scale prospective observational studies were also searched to assess delayed bleeding rates. The studies were integrated to assess the risk ratio for incomplete resection rates according to polyp size. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the study bias. The certainty of cumulative evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system.

Results:

We found 280 articles and reviewed their eligibility. We selected and extracted 12 randomized controlled trials and 3 prospective observational studies. The risk ratio of incomplete resection of polyps ≤10 mm using CSP compared with hot snare polypectomy (HSP) was 1.36 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-2.01). The risk ratio for incomplete removal using CSP compared with cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.31-0.82). For polyps ≤3 mm, the risk ratio of CSP compared with CFP was 1.40 (95% CI, 0.39-4.95). Certainty of cumulative evidence was considered low. No delayed bleeding after CP was reported after the treatment of 3446 polyps.

Conclusions:

CSP and HSP may result in the same complete resection rates for polyps ≤10 mm. For polyps ≤3 mm, CFP and CSP may have the same resection rates (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019122132).

Discrepancy between self-reported and actual colonoscopy polypectomy practices for the removal of small polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is associated with higher rates of complete resection compared with cold biopsy forceps (CBF) for the removal of small polyps (4-9 mm). This study aimed to evaluate self-reported polypectomy preferences and actual practice patterns among endoscopists at an academic center and to identify factors associated with the use of CSP for small polyps.

METHODS

In phase A, endoscopists completed a survey evaluating preferences for polypectomy techniques. In phase B, we performed a retrospective analysis of all consecutive colonoscopies with polypectomy (January 2016 to September 2018). Uni- and multivariate analysis were performed to identify factors associated with CSP for small polyps.

RESULTS

Nineteen of 26 (73%) endoscopists completed the survey (phase A); 3 (15.8%) were interventional endoscopists. Most respondents indicated that they use CSP (89.5%) for small polyps and identified no reasons for choosing CBF over CSP (73.7%). In phase B, we identified 1118 colonoscopies with 2625 polypectomies for polyps ≤9 mm. Most diminutive polyps (≤3 mm) were removed with CBF (819 of 912; 90%). CBF (46.2%) was also preferentially used for removal of small polyps (n = 1713), followed by hot snare polypectomy (27.2%), and CSP (26.6%). On multivariate analysis, interventional endoscopists were associated with a higher likelihood of using CSP for small polyps (odds ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.79; P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant discrepancy exists between self-reported preferences and actual polypectomy practices. CBF is still preferentially used over CSP for the removal of polyps sized 4-9 mm; further strategies are needed to monitor and implement adequate polypectomy techniques.

Lesion Retrieval, Specimen Handling, and Endoscopic Marking in Colonoscopy

Retrieval of lesions after endoscopic polypectomy enables histopathologic analysis and guides future surgical management and endoscopic surveillance intervals. Various techniques and devices have been described with distinct advantages and disadvantages to accomplish retrieval. Appropriate histopathologic analysis depends on lesion handling and preparation. How lesions are handled further depends on size, endoscopic appearance, and removal technique. Endoscopic marking or tattooing is a well-described process that uses dye mediums to leave longstanding marks in the colon. Techniques, dye mediums, and locations within the colon influence tattoo approach.

Jumbo biopsy forceps versus cold snares for removing diminutive colorectal polyps: a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and jumbo forceps polypectomy (JFP) have been shown to be effective for removing diminutive colorectal polyps (DCPs) (≤5 mm). However, no study has compared complete resection rates between CSP and JFP for DCPs. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of JFP with CSP for the removal of DCPs.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized controlled trial from 2 tertiary-care referral centers. A total of 1003 patients were screened, and 169 patients with 196 DCPs were enrolled. The main outcome was complete polyp resection rate.

RESULTS

Of 196 diminutive polyps, 177 (90.3%) were adenomatous polyps. The overall complete resection rate was 92.1% (163/177). The complete resection rate was not significantly different between JFP and CSP groups (92.0% vs 92.2%; P = .947). JFP achieved complete resection rates comparable with CSP for polyps >3 mm (90.3% vs 89.8%; P = .928). Polypectomy procedure time, tissue retrieval rate, and rate of postpolypectomy adverse events were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both JFP and CSP achieved complete resection rates of >90% for DCPs. Thus, JFP may be considered for polypectomy of DCPs. (International clinical trial registry number: KCT0002805.).

Development and validation of a video-based cold snare polypectomy assessment tool (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Polyps <1 cm are the most commonly found polyps during colonoscopy. Cold snare removal is preferred given the significantly higher rate of incomplete resection associated with piecemeal biopsy forceps resection. There are currently no standardized tools to assess competence in cold snare polypectomy. This study aimed to develop and validate a cold snare polypectomy assessment tool (CSPAT).

METHODS

Experts in cold snare polypectomy used a Delphi method to develop the CSPAT. Metrics with a greater than 85% agreement as being "important" or "very important" were included in the CSPAT. The tool included evaluation of polyp inspection, positioning, appropriate ensnarement of tissue to ensure a rim of normal tissue, tissue retrieval, and postpolypectomy site inspection. Experts in cold snare polypectomy used the CSPAT to evaluate preselected videos that were previously evaluated using the Direct Observation of Polypectomy Skills (DOPyS) tool. Interobserver agreement was evaluated. CSPAT scores were compared with DOPyS scores to assess content validity.

RESULTS

Sixteen experts developed the 12-item CSPAT, and 13 experts reviewed 55 videos. There was a moderate degree of agreement in 10 metrics (κ = .52-.59) and a substantial degree of agreement (κ = .61-.63) in the other 2. There was a strong correlation between the mean of individual metrics 1 to 12 compared with the global competence assessment (ρ = .88, P < .001). There was a moderate correlation between the average overall DOPyS score and the overall CSPAT competence score (ρ = .56, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed and validated a customized CSPAT that can be easily applied to video-based assessments to assess competence in training and among practicing endoscopists.

Colon polypectomy report card improves polypectomy competency: results of a prospective quality improvement study (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Polypectomy competency varies significantly among providers. Poor polypectomy technique may lead to interval cancer and/or adverse events. Our aim was to determine the effect of a polypectomy skills report card on subsequent polypectomy performance.

METHODS

We conducted a 3-phase, prospective, single-blinded study. In phase 1 ("baseline"), we graded 10 polypectomies per endoscopist using the Direct Observation of Polypectomy Skills (DOPyS) tool (scores 1-4); mean overall scores ≥3 are competent. In phase 2 ("pre-report card"), we selected 10 additional polypectomies per endoscopist. We subsequently gave endoscopists a report card with baseline scores and instructional videos demonstrating optimal polypectomy technique. In phase 3 ("post-report card"), 10 additional polypectomies per endoscopist were selected. Raters, blinded to study phase, graded 10 pre- and 10 post-report card polypectomies per endoscopist. We compared mean DOPyS scores and rate of competent polypectomy in the pre- and post-report card phases.

RESULTS

We graded 110 pre- and 110 post-report card polypectomies performed by 11 endoscopists. The mean DOPyS score increased between the pre- and post-report card phases (2.7 ± .9 vs 3.0 ± .8, P = .01); this improvement was seen for diminutive (P < .0001) but not for small-to-large polyps. Rate of competent polypectomy significantly improved from the pre- to post-report card phase (56% vs 69%, P = .04); this improvement was seen for diminutive (57% vs 81%, P = .001) but not for small-to-large polyps (55% vs 36%, P = .2).

CONCLUSIONS

Report cards with educational videos effectively improved polypectomy technique, primarily because of improvements in resecting diminutive polyps. The improved competency and decreased piecemeal resection may reduce the risk of polyp recurrence. Further education is needed to improve larger polyp resection.

Adherence to European Polypectomy Guidelines: Retrospective Experience from a Tertiary Irish Hospital

Background and Study Aim

The European guidelines for colorectal cancer screening state that snare resection should remove any polyps ≥5 mm. This study aimed to investigate if these new guidelines are adhered to in clinical practice.

Patients and Methods

This study consists of patients who underwent colonoscopies in Tallaght Hospital, Dublin (AMNCH), between 2012 and 2015. The size of the polyp, the method of removal, and the subspecialty and grade of the endoscopists were all recorded.

Results

6,000 colonoscopies were reviewed and 687 (12.5%) of these patients were found to have polyps. In 655 (95%) colonoscopies, the caecum was positively identified. In all, 371 (54%) of the polyps detected were < 5 mm; resection via forceps was carried out in n405 cases (59%). Overall, 16% (n = 45) of the polyps > 5 mm underwent resection with forceps, showing that the new European guidelines are not being tightly adhered to.

Conclusions

This study found an 84% compliance with polypectomy resection guidelines which is an improvement on previous studies. However, endoscopist grade significantly affected compliance and may reflect overall competency, highlighting the need for specific training in snare polypectomy techniques.

Risk of metachronous advanced lesions after resection of diminutive and small, non-advanced adenomas

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Current post-polypectomy surveillance interval guidelines do not discriminate between 1-2 diminutive (1-5mm) and small (6-9mm) non-advanced adenomas. This study compared the risk for metachronous advanced lesions in these groups.

METHODS

Patients with 1-2 diminutive, non-advanced adenomas and no further advanced lesions, and patients with no polyps at baseline colonoscopy were retrospectively analyzed to determine the rate of metachronous advanced lesions. These were defined as the combined rate of colon cancer, advanced adenoma and ≥ 3 non-advanced adenomas at surveillance colonoscopy. Polyp size was measured either subjectively by the endoscopist or by pathology-based measurements.

RESULTS

Among patients with diminutive (n = 395) and small polyps (n = 110), advanced lesions were found in 68 patients (17.2%) and 16 patients (14.5%), respectively (P = 0.53), during a mean follow-up of 4.3 ± 0.9 years. In contrast, advanced lesions were observed in 33 patients (6.6%) in the no polyp group (n = 505), significantly lower than diminutive (P = 0.000) and small polyp groups (P = 0.002), despite a mean follow-up duration of 6.1 ± 1.9 years. The rate of metachronous advanced lesions was also similar between patients with 1-3mm polyps (16%) versus 7-9mm polyps (15.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that among patients who underwent polypectomy of up to 2 non-advanced adenomas, those with diminutive and small polyps have the same risk of metachronous advanced lesions; thus, supporting uniform recommendations for surveillance colonoscopy for these lesions.

Analysis of predictive factors for R0 resection and immediate bleeding of cold snare polypectomy in colonoscopy

Background

Factors associated with efficacy and safety of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) are not well established. The aim is to elucidate the predictors of R0 resection and immediate bleeding of CSP.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed a database of patients who underwent CSP for subcentimetric polyps at the University of Tokyo Hospital in Japan. Using the data regarding the characteristics of patients and polyps, such as location, size, and macroscopic appearance; use of narrow band imaging with magnification (NBI-M); and endoscopists’ experience, we revealed the predictive factors associated with R0 resection and immediate post-CSP bleeding by univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results

In total, 399 polyps, in 200 patients without antithrombotics, were removed. Failure of tissue retrieval was noted in 4% of resected lesions. There was no intramucosal carcinoma observed. The overall rate of R0 resection was 46%. Multivariate analysis elucidated that the observation of the polyp with NBI-M was an independent predictor associated with R0 resection (odds ratio [OR] 1.90; p = 0.024). Although immediate post-CSP bleeding occurred in 19 polyps (4.8%), no delayed bleeding or perforation was observed. Multivariate analysis revealed protruded lesion as an independent risk factor for immediate bleeding (OR 3.54; p = 0.018).

Conclusions

A higher rate of R0 resection with CSP can be achieved by performing colonoscopy with NBI-M, than with white-light imaging. Macroscopic protruding appearance of a polyp is a risk factor for immediate bleeding.

BEST POLYPECTOMY TECHNIQUE FOR SMALL AND DIMINUTIVE COLORECTAL POLYPS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

BACKGROUND

Polypectomy of colorectal polyps is the mainstay of colorectal cancer prevention. Identification of the best polypectomy technique is imperative.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims at comparing efficacy of nine different resection methods for small colorectal polyps (<10 mm).

METHODS

We searched and selected only randomized controlled trials. Primary outcome was complete resection rates of small polyps by histological eradication. Secondary outcomes were: adverse events, retrieval tissue failures rates and duration of procedure.

RESULTS

Eighteen trials including 3215 patients and 5223 polyps were analysed. Overall, cold polypectomy had a significantly shorter time of procedure than hot polypectomy (RD -5.92, 95%CI -9.90 to -1.94, P<0.05), with no statistical difference on complete histological eradication (RD 0.08, 95%CI -0.03 to 0.19, P>0.05). Regarding cold polypectomy techniques, cold snare was found superior to cold forceps on complete and en-bloc resection rates and less time consuming. When comparing endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with hot-snare and cold-snare, the latter showed no-inferiority on histological eradication, adverse events or retrieval tissue failure rates.

CONCLUSION

Cold polypectomy is the best technique for resection of small colorectal polyps. Among cold methods, dedicated cold snare was found superior on histological eradication. Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection might be considered an option for polyps from 5 to 9 mm.

Management and risk factors for incomplete resection associated with jumbo forceps polypectomy for diminutive colorectal polyps: a single-institution retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Cold forceps polypectomy is simple and widely used in clinical practice. However, there are concerns about the risk of incomplete resection using this technique. In recent years, it has been reported that polypectomy with jumbo forceps (JF) is an effective treatment modality for diminutive polyps (DPs) because JF are able to remove large tissue samples with the combined advantage of a higher complete histological resection rate for DPs than standard forceps. To our knowledge, no studies have evaluated the risk factors for incomplete resection when polypectomy with JF is performed for DPs.

METHODS

From among 1129 DPs resected using JF at Hiroshima City Asa Citizens Hospital between November 2015 and December 2016, we retrospectively evaluated the clinical outcomes of 999 tumors with known histopathology and investigated the relationship between incomplete resection and clinicopathological factors.

RESULTS

Most lesions [985 (87%)] were low-grade dysplasia and 14 (1%) were high-grade dysplasia. The en bloc resection rate was 92% (918/999) and the histological en bloc resection rate was 78% (777/999). Multivariate analysis showed that the significant independent predictors of incomplete resection were tumor size ≥ 4 mm [odds ratio (OR) 3.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.65-5.37; p < 0.01], non-tangential direction of forceps in relation to the tumor (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.21-2.45; p < 0.01), and lack of muscularis mucosae in the pathological specimen (OR 15.7; 95% CI 9.16-27.7; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified significant independent predictors of incomplete resection of DPs which may be helpful when planning polypectomy with JF.

Efficacy and safety of cold versus hot snare polypectomy for resecting small colorectal polyps: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Safety and effectiveness of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) compared with hot snare polypectomy (HSP) has been reported. The aim of the present study is to carry out a meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of HSP and CSP.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials were reviewed to compare HSP with CSP for resecting small colorectal polyps. Outcomes reviewed include complete resection rate, polyp retrieval, delayed bleeding, perforation and procedure time. Outcomes were documented by pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the Mantel-Haenszel random effect model.

RESULTS

Eight studies were reviewed in this meta-analysis, including 1665 patients with 3195 polyps. Complete resection rate using HSP was similar to CSP (RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.98-1.07, P = 0.31). Polyp retrieval after HSP was similar to CSP (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 1.00-1.01, P = 0.60). Delayed bleeding rate after HSP was higher than after CSP, although not significantly (patient basis: RR: 7.53, 95% CI: 0.94-60.24, P = 0.06; polyp basis: RR: 7.35, 95% CI: 0.91-59.33, P = 0.06). Perforation was not reported in all eight studies. Total colonoscopy time for HSP was significantly longer than CSP (mean difference 7.13 min, 95% CI: 5.32-8.94, P < 0.001). Specific polypectomy time for HSP was significantly longer than CSP (mean difference 30.92 s, 95% CI: 9.15-52.68, P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis shows significantly shorter procedure time using CSP compared with HSP. CSP tends toward less delayed bleeding compared with HSP. We recommend CSP as the standard treatment for resecting small benign colorectal polyps.

Validation of treatment algorithm based on the Japan narrow-band imaging expert team classification for sub-centimeter colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Although cold polypectomy (CP) is widely used for colorectal polyps < 10 mm, appropriateness of indications for CP or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are still unclear. The aim of this study was to validate the endoscopic treatment algorithm based on the Japan NBI Expert Team (JNET) classification.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 Consecutive patients with at least one colorectal non-pedunculated polyp < 10 mm between July 2014 and October 2016 were included in this retrospective study. During the period, EMR was performed for JNET ≥ 2B lesions and CP for JNET < 2A. Among a total of 3966 lesions, 3368 lesions with JNET ≤ 2A were resected by CP in compliance with the treatment algorithm but 565 resections for JNET ≤ 2A were not compliant (by EMR), while all 24 JNET > 2B lesions were removed by EMR in compliance with the algorithm. Polypectomy outcomes were compared between the compliant and non-compliant groups. Histological outcomes were analyzed in accordance with JNET classification.

RESULTS

 Post-polypectomy bleeding rate in the compliant group (0 %) was lower than that in the non-compliant group (0.53 %, P  < 0.01). Proportion of lesions diagnosed as cancer (38 % vs 0.36 %, P  < 0.01) or submucosal cancer (4.2 % vs 0.03 %, P  = 0.012), and the lesion with free resection margin (91 % vs 64 %, P  < 0.01) was higher in the JNET ≥ 2B than JNET ≤ 2A.

CONCLUSION

 This study indicated our algorithm would be valid: CP is suitable for most polyps < 10 mm as incidence of post-polypectomy bleeding is low, whereas EMR is recommended for JNET ≥ 2B lesions for histological complete removal.

Comparison of cold and hot snaring polypectomy for small colorectal polyps: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Colorectal cancer remains a considerable challenge in healthcare nowadays. Most patients’ disease develops via the adenoma–carcinoma sequence; colonoscopy with polypectomy effectively reduces both mortality and incidence by removing precancerous adenomas. Previous studies showed that polypectomy without electrocautery (cold snaring polypectomy) is a safe and time-saving procedure to manage polyps < 10 mm. However, randomized controlled trials have failed to prove the superiority of cold snaring polypectomy for reducing the risk of delayed bleeding in comparison with hot snaring polypectomy, generally because of their low statistical power that was limited by sample sizes. In this study, we aim to compare the risk of delayed bleeding following cold and hot snaring polypectomy based on a large sample size.

Methods

This is a prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial to compare cold and hot snaring polypectomy for the treatment of small colorectal polyps. A total of 4258 patients with small polyps (4–10 mm) will be randomized 1:1 to each group. Colonoscopy and polypectomy will be performed by 17 experienced endoscopists at six study sites. The randomization will be performed via an online website. Pathological examination using image-enhanced endoscopy with either narrow-band imaging or chromoendoscopy will be conducted to confirm optically and histologically that complete resections have been achieved, respectively. The primary outcome measurement is the risk of delayed bleeding. The secondary outcome measurements include the number of hemoclip applications, complete eradication confirmed optically and histologically, tissue retrieval rate, procedure time, emergency unit visits, and any adverse events such as immediate bleeding or perforation.

Discussion

We hypothesize that cold snaring polypectomy can reduce the risk of delayed bleeding by avoiding thermal injury. In addition, this study will also compare cold and hot snaring polypectomy in terms of the complete eradication rate and procedure time. Based on data collected, we will demonstrate that cold snaring polypectomy is a safe, effective, and economic procedure for small colorectal polyps. The results will also provide additional data on which to develop recommendations for treating small colorectal polyps.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03373136. Registered on 29 November 2017.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2743-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Sessile Serrated Adenomas: How to Detect, Characterize and Resect

Serrated polyps are important contributors to the burden of colorectal cancers (CRC). These lesions were once considered to have no malignant potential, but currently up to 30% of all CRC are recognized to arise from the serrated neoplasia pathway. The primary premalignant lesions are sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSA/Ps), although traditional serrated adenomas are relatively uncommon. Compared to conventional adenomas, SSA/Ps are morphologically subtle with indistinct borders, may be difficult to detect endoscopically, are more prevalent than previously thought, are associated with synchronous and metachronous advanced neoplasia, and have a higher risk of incomplete resection. Although many lesions remain “dormant,” progressive disease is associated with the development of dysplasia and more rapid progression to CRC. As a result, SSA/Ps are strongly implicated in the development of interval cancers. These factors represent unique challenges that require a meticulous approach to their management. In this review, we summarize the contemporary literature on the characterization, detection and resection of SSA/Ps.

Assessing colon polypectomy competency and its association with established quality metrics

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Inadequate polypectomy leads to incomplete resection, interval colorectal cancer, and adverse events. However, polypectomy competency is rarely reported, and quality metrics are lacking. The primary aims of this study were to assess polypectomy competency among a cohort of gastroenterologists and to measure the correlation between polypectomy competency and established colonoscopy quality metrics (adenoma detection rate and withdrawal time).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective observational study to assess polypectomy competency among 13 high-volume screening colonoscopists at an academic medical center. Over 6 weeks, we made video recordings of ≥28 colonoscopies per colonoscopist and randomly selected 10 polypectomies per colonoscopist for evaluation. Two raters graded the polypectomies by using the Direct Observation of Polypectomy Skills, a polypectomy competency assessment tool, which assesses individual polypectomy skills and overall competency.

RESULTS

We evaluated 130 polypectomies. A total of 83 polypectomies (64%) were rated as competent, which was more likely for diminutive (70%) than small and/or large polyps (50%, P = .03). Overall Direct Observation of Polypectomy Skills competency scores varied significantly among colonoscopists (P = .001), with overall polypectomy competency rates ranging between 30% and 90%. Individual skills scores, such as accurately directing the snare over the lesion (P = .02) and trapping an appropriate amount of tissue within the snare (P = .001) varied significantly between colonoscopists. Polypectomy competency rates did not significantly correlate with the adenoma detection rate (r = 0.4; P = .2) or withdrawal time (r = 0.2; P = .5).

CONCLUSIONS

Polypectomy competency varies significantly among colonoscopists and does not sufficiently correlate with established quality metrics. Given the clinical implications of suboptimal polypectomy, efforts to educate colonoscopists in polypectomy techniques and develop a metric of polypectomy quality are needed.

High complete resection rate for pre-lift and cold biopsy of diminutive colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 The majority of polyps removed at colonoscopy are diminutive (≤ 5 mm) to small (< 10 mm) and there are few guidelines for the best way for these polyps to be removed. We aimed to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of cold biopsy forceps polypectomy with pre-lift (CBPP) for polyps ≤ 7 mm. Our aims were to assess completeness of histological resection of this technique, to identify factors contributing to this and assess secondary considerations such as timing, retrieval and complication rates.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study on consecutive patients receiving a colonoscopy at Cheltenham General Hospital, as part of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (BCSP) in England. The study included only polyps that were judged as ≤ 7 mm by the colonoscopist. A small sub-mucosal pre-lift injection was administered prior to removal of the polyp using cold biopsy forceps. One or more biopsies were taken until the polyp was confidently assessed visually as being completely removed by the colonoscopist. The entire polypectomy site was then removed en bloc by endomucosal resection (EMR) with a margin of at least 1 to 2 mm around defect. This was sent for histopathological analysis to assess completeness of resection. Polypectomy timing, tissue retrieval, number of bites required for visual resection and complications were recorded at the time of the procedure.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients were recruited and consented. Of them, 42 patients had a total of 60 polyps resected. Three patients had inflammatory polyps and were excluded from the study, leaving 57/60 polyps for final analysis. Seventeen were hyperplastic and 40 adenomatous polyps. Retrieval was complete for all 57 polyps and there were no complications both during or post- polypectomy. The complete resection rate (CRR) was 86 %. The technique was more effective in smaller polyps with 91.7 % of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm) completely excised.

CONCLUSIONS

CBPP is a safe and highly effective technique for polyps < 5 mm with a high complete resection and retrieval rate. The time taken for the procedure is significantly greater than cold forceps alone, or cold snare as seen in other studies.

Safety of cold polypectomy for small colorectal neoplastic lesions: a prospective cohort study in Japan

BACKGROUND

Cold polypectomy has been widely accepted for removal of small colorectal polyps. However, no large-scale prospective study exists as for its safety in Japan. We investigated this issue in this single-center, prospective cohort study in a total of 1198 colorectal polyps resected with cold polypectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Four hundred and seventy-four patients who underwent cold polypectomy for colorectal neoplastic lesions less than 10-mm diameter between September 2014 and October 2016 were enrolled. Primary outcome was the incidence of delayed bleeding within 2 weeks after the procedure. Secondary outcomes were the rate of immediate bleeding, perforation, endoscopic en bloc resection, and advanced histology.

RESULTS

Cold polypectomy was performed on 1198 polyps in the 474 patients. No delayed bleeding or colonic perforation was observed. Immediate bleeding during the procedure, requiring endoscopic hemostasis, occurred in 97 lesions (8.1%), and all of them were successfully managed endoscopically. The endoscopic en bloc resection rate was 97.2%. Twenty-eight lesions (2.3%) were histologically diagnosed as advanced neoplasia; among them, three lesions were well-differentiated adenocarcinomas, and in two of them, a negative margin was not histologically confirmed.

CONCLUSIONS

Cold polypectomy for small colorectal polyps is a safe technique without significant complication, but careful endoscopic diagnosis at cold polypectomy is necessary to identify advanced neoplasia. The reliability of cold polypectomy in excision of polyps with high-grade neoplasia should be established before the procedure becomes standard in the excision of small colorectal polyps.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000014812.

Quality Indicators in Colonoscopy

OPINION STATEMENT

Colonoscopy is one of the most commonly performed endoscopic procedures. It is the gold standard examination for work-up of colonic symptoms, for follow-up of positive colorectal cancer screening tests and for detection and removal of neoplastic polyps. Colonoscopy is a complex and invasive procedure with a potential not only for colorectal cancer prevention, but also for serious complications. Numerous factors may affect the balance of benefit versus harm of colonoscopy, including the performance of the endoscopist. These factors are commonly called quality indicators. As an increasing number of countries are recommending the general population to undergo colorectal cancer screening, the quality of colonoscopy should be considered a public health concern. Key quality indicators have been identified, and several professional organizations have issued recommendation statements to promote high-quality colonoscopy. To achieve high quality, these key quality indicators must be monitored, results must be analysed, and measures must be undertaken to correct substandard performance. High-quality training in colonoscopy and polypectomy should be a quality assurance priority.