Endoscopic mucosal resection: learning curve for large nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasia

Combined Endoscopy-Laparoscopy Surgery: When and How to Utilize This Tool

Combined endoscopic and laparoscopic surgery (CELS) has been used to resect colon polyps since the 1990s. These colon-sparing techniques, however, have not yet been widely adopted. With the evolution of technology in both diagnosing and treating colon cancer, colorectal surgeons should strive for a diverse and complete armamentarium through which they can best serve their patients. In this article, we hope to provide clarity on CELS by discussing three topics: (1) the history and fruition of CELS; (2) the techniques involved in CELS; and (3) the utility of CELS within different clinical scenarios. Our goal is to educate readers and stimulate consideration of CELS in select patients who might benefit greatly from these techniques.

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.

Standardised training for endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps to reduce recurrence (*STAR-LNPCP study): a multicentre cluster randomised trial

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the preferred treatment for non-invasive large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) but is associated with an early recurrence rate of up to 30%. We evaluated whether standardised EMR training could reduce recurrence rates in Dutch community hospitals.

DESIGN

In this multicentre cluster randomised trial, 59 endoscopists from 30 hospitals were randomly assigned to the intervention group (e-learning and 2-day training including hands-on session) or control group. From April 2019 to August 2021, all consecutive EMR-treated LNPCPs were included. Primary endpoint was recurrence rate after 6 months.

RESULTS

A total of 1412 LNPCPs were included; 699 in the intervention group and 713 in the control group (median size 30 mm vs 30 mm, 45% vs 52% size, morphology, site and access (SMSA) score IV, 64% vs 64% proximal location). Recurrence rates were lower in the intervention group compared with controls (13% vs 25%, OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.78; p=0.005) with similar complication rates (8% vs 9%, OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.36; p=0.720). Recurrences were more often unifocal in the intervention group (92% vs 76%; p=0.006). In sensitivity analysis, the benefit of the intervention on recurrence rate was only observed in the 20-40 mm LNPCPs (5% vs 20% in 20-29 mm, p=0.001; 10% vs 21% in 30-39 mm, p=0.013) but less evident in ≥40 mm LNPCPs (24% vs 31%; p=0.151). In a post hoc analysis, the training effect was maintained in the study group, while in the control group the recurrence rate remained high.

CONCLUSION

A compact standardised EMR training for LNPCPs significantly reduced recurrences in community hospitals. This strongly argues for a national dedicated training programme for endoscopists performing EMR of ≥20 mm LNPCPs. Interestingly, in sensitivity analysis, this benefit was limited for LNPCPs ≥40 mm.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR7477.

Risk factors of unintentional piecemeal resection in endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps ≥ 10 mm

This study aimed to investigate the lesion and endoscopist factors associated with unintentional endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection (uniEPMR) of colorectal lesions ≥ 10 mm. uniEPMR was defined from the medical record as anything other than a preoperatively planned EPMR. Factors leading to uniEPMR were identified by retrospective univariate and multivariate analyses of lesions ≥ 10 mm (adenoma including sessile serrated lesion and carcinoma) that were treated with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) at three hospitals. Additionally, a questionnaire survey was conducted to determine the number of cases treated by each endoscopist. A learning curve (LC) was created for each lesion size based on the number of experienced cases and the percentage of uniEPMR. Of 2557 lesions, 327 lesions underwent uniEPMR. The recurrence rate of uniEPMR was 2.8%. Multivariate analysis showed that lesion diameter ≥ 30 mm (odds ratio 11.83, 95% confidence interval 6.80-20.60, p < 0.0001) was the most associated risk factor leading to uniEPMR. In the LC analysis, the proportion of uniEPMR decreased for lesion sizes of 10-19 mm until 160 cases. The proportion of uniEPMR decreased with the number of experienced cases in the 20-29 mm range, while there was no correlation between the number of experienced cases and the proportion of uniEPMR ≥ 30 mm. These results suggest that 160 cases seem to be the minimum number of cases needed to be proficient in en bloc EMR. Additionally, while lesion sizes of 10-29 mm are considered suitable for EMR, lesion sizes ≥ 30 mm are not applicable for en bloc EMR from the perspective of both lesion and endoscopist factors.

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.

A novel tool for case selection in endoscopic mucosal resection training

BACKGROUND

 As endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large (≥ 20 mm) adenomatous nonpedunculated colonic polyps (LNPCPs) becomes widely practiced outside expert centers, appropriate training is necessary to avoid failed resection and inappropriate surgical referral. No EMR-specific tool guides case selection for endoscopists learning EMR. This study aimed to develop an EMR case selection score (EMR-CSS) to identify potentially challenging lesions for "EMR-naïve" endoscopists developing competency.

METHODS

 Consecutive EMRs were recruited from a single center over 130 months. Lesion characteristics, intraprocedural data, and adverse events were recorded. Challenging lesions with intraprocedural bleeding (IPB), intraprocedural perforation (IPP), or unsuccessful resection were identified and predictive variables identified. Significant variables were used to form a numerical score and receiver operating characteristic curves were used to generate cutoff values.

RESULTS

 Of 1993 LNPCPs, 286 (14.4 %) were in challenging locations (anorectal junction, ileocecal valve, or appendiceal orifice), 368 (18.5 %) procedures were complicated by IPB and 77 (3.9 %) by IPP; 110 (5.5 %) procedures were unsuccessful. The composite end point of IPB, IPP, or unsuccessful EMR was present in 526 cases (26.4 %). Lesion size, challenging location, and sessile morphology were predictive of the composite outcome. A six-point score was generated with a cutoff value of 2 demonstrating 81 % sensitivity across the training and validation cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

 The EMR-CSS is a novel case selection tool for conventional EMR training, which identifies a subset of adenomatous LNPCPs that can be successfully and safely attempted in early EMR training.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Margin marking before colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection and its impact on neoplasia recurrence (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Ablation of resection margins after EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps decreases recurrence. Margin marking before EMR (EMR-MM) may represent an alternative method to achieve a healthy resection margin. We aimed to determine the efficacy of EMR-MM in reducing neoplasia recurrence.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center historical control study of EMR cases (EMR-MM vs conventional EMR) for nonpedunculated polyps ≥20 mm between 2016 and 2021. For EMR-MM, cautery marks were placed along the lateral margins of the polyp with the snare tip. EMR was then performed to include resection of the healthy mucosa containing the marks. We compared recurrence at surveillance colonoscopy after EMR-MM versus historical control subjects. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with recurrence.

RESULTS

Two hundred ten patients with 210 polyps (median size, 30 mm; interquartile range: 25-40) underwent EMR-MM (n = 74) or conventional EMR (n = 136). Patient and lesion characteristics were similar between the groups. At a median follow-up of 6 months, the recurrence rate was lower with EMR-MM (6/74; 8%) compared with historical control subjects (39/136; 29%) (P < .001). EMR-MM was not associated with an increased rate of adverse events. On multivariable analysis, EMR-MM remained the strongest predictor of recurrence (odds ratio, .20; 95% confidence interval, .13-.64; P = .003) aside from polyp size (odds ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-6.01; P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-center historical control study, EMR-MM of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps reduced the recurrence risk by 80% when compared with conventional EMR. This simple technique may provide an alternative to margin ablation.

Evaluation of polypectomy quality indicators of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps in a nonexpert, bowel cancer screening cohort

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

With the introduction of the national bowel cancer screening program, the detection of sessile and flat colonic lesions ≥20 mm in size, defined as large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs), has increased. The aim of this study was to examine the quality of endoscopic treatment of LNPCPs in the Dutch screening program.

METHODS

This investigation comprised 2 related, but separate, substudies (1 with a cross-sectional design and 1 with a longitudinal design). The first examined prevalence and characteristics of LNPCPs in data from the national Dutch screening cohort from February 2014 until January 2017. The second, with screening data from 5 endoscopy units in the Southern part of the Netherlands from February 2014 until August 2015, examined performance on important quality indicators (technical and clinical successes, recurrence rate, adverse event rate, and surgery referral rate). All patients were part of the national Dutch screening cohort.

RESULTS

In the national cohort, an LNPCP was detected in 8% of participants. Technical and clinical success decreased with increasing LNPCP size, from 93% and 96% in 20- to 29-mm lesions to 85% and 86% in 30- to 39-mm lesions and to 74% and 81% in ≥40-mm lesions (P < .001; P = .034). The cumulative recurrence rate at 12 months increased with LNPCP size, from 9% to 22% and 26% in the respective size groups (P = .095). The adverse event rate was 5%. The overall surgical referral rate for noninvasive LNPCPs was 7%.

CONCLUSIONS

In this performance of 2 substudies, it was shown that quality parameters for endoscopic resection of large polyps in the Dutch screening cohort are not reached, especially in ≥30-mm polyps. Endoscopic resection of large polyps could benefit from additional training, quality monitoring, and centralization either within or between centers.

Endoscopic resection outcomes and predictors of failed en bloc endoscopic mucosal resection of colorectal polyps ≤ 20 mm among advanced endoscopy trainees

Background and study aims  En bloc endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is preferred over piecemeal resection for polyps ≤ 20 mm. Data on colorectal EMR training are limited. We aimed to evaluate the en bloc EMR rate of polyps ≤ 20 mm among advanced endoscopy trainees and to identify predictors of failed en bloc EMR. Methods  This was a multicenter prospective study evaluating trainee performance in EMR during advanced endoscopy fellowship. A logistic regression model was used to identify the number of procedures and lesion cut-off size associated with an en bloc EMR rate of ≥ 80 %. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of failed en bloc EMR. Results  Six trainees from six centers performed 189 colorectal EMRs, of which 104 (55 %) were for polyps ≤ 20 mm. Of these, 57.7 % (60/104) were resected en bloc. Trainees with ≥ 30 EMRs (OR 6.80; 95 % CI: 2.80-16.50; P  = 0.00001) and lesions ≤ 17 mm (OR 4.56;95 CI:1.23-16.88; P  = 0.02) were more likely to be associated with an en bloc EMR rate of ≥ 80 %. Independent predictors of failed en bloc EMR on multivariate analysis included: larger polyp size (OR:6.83;95 % CI:2.55-18.4; P  = 0.0001), right colon location (OR:7.15; 95 % CI:1.31-38.9; P  = 0.02), increased procedural difficulty (OR 2.99; 95 % CI:1.13-7.91; P  = 0.03), and having performed < 30 EMRs (OR: 4.87; 95 %CI: 1.05-22.61; P  = 0.04). Conclusions  In this pilot study, we demonstrated that a relatively low proportion of trainees achieved en bloc EMR for polyps ≤ 20 mm and identified procedure volume and lesion size thresholds for successful en bloc EMR and independent predictors for failed en bloc resection. These preliminary results support the need for future efforts to define EMR procedure competence thresholds during training.

Underwater vs Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Sessile or Flat Colorectal Polyps: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) with submucosal injection is the current standard for the resection of large, nonmalignant colorectal polyps. We investigated whether underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is superior to CEMR for large (20-40mm) sessile or flat colorectal polyps.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized controlled study, patients with sessile or flat colorectal polyps between 20 and 40 mm in size were randomly assigned to UEMR or CEMR. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate after 6 months. Secondary outcomes included en bloc and R0 resection rates, number of resected pieces, procedure time, and adverse events.

RESULTS

En bloc resection rates were 33.3% in the UEMR group and 18.4% in the CEMR group (P = .045); R0 resection rates were 32.1% and 15.8% for UEMR vs CEMR, respectively (P = .025). UEMR was performed with significantly fewer pieces compared to CEMR (2 pieces: 45.5% UEMR vs 17.7% CEMR; P = .001). The overall recurrence rate did not differ between both groups (P = .253); however, subgroup analysis showed a significant difference in favor of UEMR for lesions of >30 mm to ≤40 mm in size (P = .031). The resection time was significantly shorter in the UEMR group (8 vs 14 minutes; P < .001). Adverse events did not differ between both groups (P = .611).

CONCLUSIONS

UEMR is superior to CEMR regarding en bloc resection, R0 resection, and procedure time for large colorectal lesions and shows significantly lower recurrence rates for lesions >30 mm to ≤40 mm in size. UEMR should be considered for the endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps.

Practice pattern variability among gastroenterologists in colorectal cancer surveillance and management of colorectal dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease

OBJECTIVE

There is debate on the best method of colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aimed to examine how gastroenterologists around the world practice CRC surveillance and manage dysplastic lesions in IBD.

METHODS

A 22-question survey was emailed to gastroenterologists from 34 countries. It included questions on resources for, frequency and mode of CRC surveillance, and management of colorectal dysplasia. Fisher's exact test and logistic regression were used to evaluate the differences among respondents in various domains.

RESULTS

There were 217 eligible responses, with most gastroenterologists working in public hospitals (76%), and treating >10 patients with IBD weekly (71%). High-definition white light endoscopy (HDWLE) was available in 93.1% of the centers. The preferred mode of surveillance was HDWLE with dye-spray chromoendoscopy and targeted biopsies (41.2%). Fewer than 50% of physicians reported using chromoendoscopy in >50% of cases, citing time as the limiting factor (73.7%). Of these gastroenterologists 63% infrequently (<25% of cases) performed random biopsies during chromoendoscopy. They would attempt endoscopic mucosal resection for polypoid lesions >10 mm (67.2%), including >20 mm lesions with low grade dysplasia (49.8%), and non-polypoid lesions >10 mm without dysplasia (56.9%). For non-polypoid lesions >20 mm with low- and high-grade dysplasia, referral to expert endoscopists was the preferred option.

CONCLUSION

The preferred method of CRC surveillance was HDWLE with chromoendoscopy and targeted biopsies. Random biopsies were infrequently performed. The uptake of chromoendoscopy for surveillance in practice was low. Physicians varied in their approach in removing endoscopically resectable dysplastic lesions.

[Clinical Practice Guideline for Endoscopic Resection of Early Gastrointestinal Cancer]

Although surgery was the standard treatment for early gastrointestinal cancers, endoscopic resection is now a standard treatment for early gastrointestinal cancers without regional lymph node metastasis. High-definition white light endoscopy, chromoendoscopy, and image-enhanced endoscopy such as narrow band imaging are performed to assess the edge and depth of early gastrointestinal cancers for delineation of resection boundaries and prediction of the possibility of lymph node metastasis before the decision of endoscopic resection. Endoscopic mucosal resection and/or endoscopic submucosal dissection can be performed to remove early gastrointestinal cancers completely by en bloc fashion. Histopathological evaluation should be carefully made to investigate the presence of risk factors for lymph node metastasis such as depth of cancer invasion and lymphovascular invasion. Additional treatment such as radical surgery with regional lymphadenectomy should be considered if the endoscopically resected specimen shows risk factors for lymph node metastasis. This is the first Korean clinical practice guideline for endoscopic resection of early gastrointestinal cancer. This guideline was developed by using mainly de novo methods and encompasses endoscopic management of superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, early gastric cancer, and early colorectal cancer. This guideline will be revised as new data on early gastrointestinal cancer are collected.

Evaluating learning curves and competence in colorectal EMR among advanced endoscopy fellows: a pilot multicenter prospective trial using cumulative sum analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Data on colorectal EMR (C-EMR) training are lacking. We aimed to evaluate C-EMR training among advanced endoscopy fellows (AEFs) by using a standardized assessment tool (STAT).

METHODS

This multicenter prospective study used a STAT to grade AEF training in C-EMR during their 12-month fellowship. Cumulative sum analysis was used to establish learning curves and competence for cognitive and technical components of C-EMR and overall performance. Sensitivity analysis was performed by varying failure rates. AEFs completed a self-assessment questionnaire to assess their comfort level with performing C-EMR at the completion of their fellowship.

RESULTS

Six AEFs (189 C-EMRs; mean per AEF, 31.5 ± 18.5) were included. Mean polyp size was 24.3 ± 12.6 mm, and mean procedure time was 22.6 ± 16.1 minutes. Learning curve analyses revealed that less than 50% of AEFs achieved competence for key cognitive and technical C-EMR endpoints. All 6 AEFs reported feeling comfortable performing C-EMR independently at the end of their training, although only 2 of them achieved competence in their overall performance. The minimum threshold to achieve competence in these 2 AEFs was 25 C-EMRs.

CONCLUSIONS

A relatively low proportion of AEFs achieved competence on key cognitive and technical aspects of C-EMR during their 12-month fellowship. The relatively low number of C-EMRs performed by AEFs may be insufficient to achieve competence, in spite of their self-reported readiness for independent practice. These pilot data serve as an initial framework for competence threshold, and suggest the need for validated tools for formal C-EMR training assessment.

Clinical practice guideline for endoscopic resection of early gastrointestinal cancer

Although surgery was the standard treatment for early gastrointestinal cancers, endoscopic resection is now a standard treatment for early gastrointestinal cancers without regional lymph node metastasis. High-definition white light endoscopy, chromoendoscopy, and image-enhanced endoscopy such as narrow band imaging are performed to assess the edge and depth of early gastrointestinal cancers for delineation of resection boundaries and prediction of the possibility of lymph node metastasis before the decision of endoscopic resection. Endoscopic mucosal resection and/or endoscopic submucosal dissection can be performed to remove early gastrointestinal cancers completely by en bloc fashion. Histopathological evaluation should be carefully made to investigate the presence of risk factors for lymph node metastasis such as depth of cancer invasion and lymphovascular invasion. Additional treatment such as radical surgery with regional lymphadenectomy should be considered if the endoscopically resected specimen shows risk factors for lymph node metastasis. This is the first Korean clinical practice guideline for endoscopic resection of early gastrointestinal cancer. This guideline was developed by using mainly de novo methods and encompasses endoscopic management of superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, early gastric cancer, and early colorectal cancer. This guideline will be revised as new data on early gastrointestinal cancer are collected.

Systematic literature review of learning curves for colorectal polyp resection techniques in lower gastrointestinal endoscopy

AIM

The performance of therapeutic procedures in lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (LGI) can be challenging and carries an increased risk of adverse events. There is increasing demand for the training of endoscopists in these procedures, but limited guidelines exist concerning procedural competency. The aim of this study was to assess the learning curves for LGI polypectomy, colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

METHOD

A systematic review of electronic databases between 1946 and September 2019 was performed. Citations were included if they reported learning curve data. Outcome measures that defined the success of procedural competency were also recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 34 out of 598 studies met the inclusion criteria of which 28 were related to ESD, three to polypectomy and three to EMR. Outcome measures for polypectomy competency (en bloc resection, delayed bleeding and independent polypectomy rate) were achieved after completion of between 250 and 400 polypectomies and after 300 colonoscopies. EMR outcome measures, including complete resection and recurrence, were achieved variably between 50 and 300 procedures. Outcome measures for ESD included efficiency (resection rates and procedural speed) and safety (adverse events). En bloc resection rates of over 80% and R0 resection rates of over 70% were achieved at 20-40 cases and procedural speed increased after 30 ESD cases. Competency in safety metrics was variably achieved at 20-200 cases.

CONCLUSION

There is a paucity of data on learning curves in LGI polypectomy, EMR and ESD. Despite limited evidence, we have identified relevant outcome measures and threshold numbers for the most common LGI polyp resection techniques for potential inclusion in training programmes/credentialing guidelines.

Clinical Practice Guideline for Endoscopic Resection of Early Gastrointestinal Cancer

Although surgery was the standard treatment for early gastrointestinal cancers, endoscopic resection is now a standard treatment for early gastrointestinal cancers without regional lymph node metastasis. High-definition white light endoscopy, chromoendoscopy, and image-enhanced endoscopy such as narrow band imaging are performed to assess the edge and depth of early gastrointestinal cancers for delineation of resection boundaries and prediction of the possibility of lymph node metastasis before the decision of endoscopic resection. Endoscopic mucosal resection and/or endoscopic submucosal dissection can be performed to remove early gastrointestinal cancers completely by en bloc fashion. Histopathological evaluation should be carefully made to investigate the presence of risk factors for lymph node metastasis such as depth of cancer invasion and lymphovascular invasion. Additional treatment such as radical surgery with regional lymphadenectomy should be considered if the endoscopically resected specimen shows risk factors for lymph node metastasis. This is the first Korean clinical practice guideline for endoscopic resection of early gastrointestinal cancer. This guideline was developed by using mainly de novo methods and encompasses endoscopic management of superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, early gastric cancer, and early colorectal cancer. This guideline will be revised as new data on early gastrointestinal cancer are collected.

Factors involved in endoscopists' choice for prophylactic clipping after colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection: a discrete choice experiment

Background: Delayed bleeding (DB) occurs in ∼10% after colorectal EMR. Prophylactic clipping (PC) was reported to significantly decrease DB-rate in proximal lesions ≥2 cm.Objective: Our aim was to determine which predefined variables contribute to using PC in clinical practice.Methods: We performed an international discrete choice experiment (DCE) among ∼500 endoscopists. Relevant variables for PC use were selected by EMR experts: previous DB, anticoagulants, polyp size, morphology, location, intraprocedural bleeding and visible vessel(s). Respondents answered case scenarios with various variable combinations, each time choosing only one scenario for PC, or the 'none' option. Part-worth utilities and importance weights were calculated using HB regression. Subsequently, a predictive model was created to calculate the likelihood of endoscopists choosing PC in any given case.Results: The survey was completed by 190 EMR endoscopists from 17 countries. In total, 8% would never use PC, whereas 30.9% never chose the 'none' option. All variables except polyp type were significant in decision-making for PC (p < .01). The most important factor was anticoagulant use, accounting for 22.5% in decision-making. Polyps <2 cm were considered eligible for PC by 14% in the presence of high-weighing factors such as anticoagulant use. No significant differences were found between high and low-to-moderately experienced endoscopists.Conclusions: PC after EMR is often considered useful by endoscopists, usually based on risk factors for DB. Anticoagulant use was the most important factor in decision-making for PC, independent of endoscopist experience. Although not considered cost-effective, one in seven endoscopists chose PC for adenomas <2 cm.

Clinical Practice Guideline for Endoscopic Resection of Early Gastrointestinal Cancer

Although surgery was the standard treatment for early gastrointestinal cancers, endoscopic resection is now a standard treatment for early gastrointestinal cancers without regional lymph node metastasis. High-definition white light endoscopy, chromoendoscopy, and image-enhanced endoscopy such as narrow band imaging are performed to assess the edge and depth of early gastrointestinal cancers for delineation of resection boundaries and prediction of the possibility of lymph node metastasis before the decision of endoscopic resection. Endoscopic mucosal resection and/or endoscopic submucosal dissection can be performed to remove early gastrointestinal cancers completely by <i>en bloc</i> fashion. Histopathological evaluation should be carefully made to investigate the presence of risk factors for lymph node metastasis such as depth of cancer invasion and lymphovascular invasion. Additional treatment such as radical surgery with regional lymphadenectomy should be considered if the endoscopically resected specimen shows risk factors for lymph node metastasis. This is the first Korean clinical practice guideline for endoscopic resection of early gastrointestinal cancer. This guideline was developed by using mainly de novo methods and encompasses endoscopic management of superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, early gastric cancer, and early colorectal cancer. This guideline will be revised as new data on early gastrointestinal cancer are collected.

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

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

Validation of the size morphology site access score in endoscopic mucosal resection of large polyps in a district general hospital

BACKGROUND

Polyp assessment is multimodal and is vital prior to endoscopic mucosal resection. The size, morphology, site and access (SMSA) score has been validated in specialist endoscopic institutions. this study investigated the ability of this score to predict incomplete endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps in a district general hospital.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection of large (≥ 20 mm) colorectal polyps at Worthing Hospital. Clinical, endoscopic and histological data were taken from prospective databases. The primary outcome of the study was to investigate the correlation of the SMSA score with incomplete endoscopic resection.

RESULTS

Between February 2015 and August 2018, 114 patients underwent colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection. Of these, 67 (59%) were male. The median (interquartile range) age of the study population was 72 years (65-78 years). Some 17 lesions (15%) were pedunculated, 76 (67%) were sessile and 21 were (18%) flat; 84 polyps (77%) were located in the left colon/rectum, with the remainder in the right colon; 51 lesions (45%) were 20-30 mm, 27 (24%) were 30-40 mm and 36 (31%) were greater than 40 mm in diameter. When reclassified into the SMSA score, 9 of the polyps (8%) were level 2, 64 (56%) were level 3 and 41 (36%) were level 4. Incomplete resection was clinically diagnosed in 9/114 (8%). The SMSA score was positively correlated with incomplete endoscopic resection, but not with additional procedure usage, complications or advanced histology.

CONCLUSIONS

Many patients with large polyps can be managed outside of specialist units. This study has validated that the SMSA score was associated with incomplete endoscopic mucosal resection for large polyps in a district general hospital setting.

Comparison of underwater and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for removing sessile colorectal polyps: a propensity-score matched cohort study

Background and study aims  Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a standard method for removing sessile colorectal polyps ≥ 10 mm. Recently, underwater EMR (UEMR) has been introduced as a potential alternative. However, the effectiveness and safety of UEMR compared with conventional EMR is un clear. Patients and methods  In this 1:1 propensity score (PS) matched retrospective cohort study, we compared the en bloc resection rates, procedure time, intraprocedural and delayed bleeding rates, and incidence of muscle layer injury. We also performed subgroup analyses by sizes of polyps (< 20 mm and ≥ 20 mm). Results  Among 350 polyps in 315 patients from August 2012 to November 2017, we identified 121 PS-matched pairs. Mean polyp size was 16.8 mm. With similar en bloc resection rates (EMR: 82.6 % vs. UEMR: 87.6 %, rate difference: 5.0, 95 % confidence interval [95 % CI]: - 4 to 13.9 %), UEMR demonstrated a shorter resection time (10.8 min vs. 8.6 min, difference: - 2.2 min, 95 % CI: - 4.1 to - 0.3 min) and a lower intraprocedural bleeding rate (15.7 % vs. 5.8 %, rate difference: - 9.9 %, 95 % CI: - 17.6 to - 2.2 %). Incidence of delayed bleeding and muscle layer injury were low in both groups. For polyps < 20 mm, effectiveness and safety outcomes were similar in both groups. For polyps ≥ 20 mm (42 PS-matched pairs), the UEMR group has a comparable en bloc resection rate with shorter procedure time and superior safety outcomes Conclusions  UEMR achieved an en bloc resection rate comparable to conventional EMR with less intraprocedural bleeding and a shorter procedure time.

Prophylactic Snare Tip Soft Coagulation and Its Impact on Adenoma Recurrence After Colonic Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

BACKGROUND

Up to 20% of patients can have recurrence of adenomatous tissue at first surveillance study after colon endoscopic mucosal resection of large polyps.

AIMS

To determine whether an educational intervention discussing thermal ablation of lateral margins of the mucosectomy site of post-endoscopic mucosal resection defect with snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) would decrease adenoma recurrence.

METHODS

We performed a single-center quality improvement project from November 1, 2016, to November 30, 2017. Gastroenterologists underwent an educational intervention demonstrating the treatment of peripheral margins of mucosectomy site with STSC after standard mucosectomy technique. These cases (intervention group) were compared with consecutive procedures performed prior to commencement of the quality improvement study (pre-intervention group). Patients with large colorectal lesions (≥ 20 mm) were included.

RESULTS

Of the 120 patients here included, overall demographics of the groups were similar and the most common histology was sessile serrated adenoma (study group 45% vs 32% control group). Adenoma recurrence on intervention group and pre-intervention group was 12% versus 30%; p = 0.01. On univariate analysis, biopsy prior to mucosectomy, intraprocedural bleeding, and application of STSC on mucosectomy defect were the strongest predictors of adenoma recurrence. Adenoma recurrence in the intervention group was significantly lower than in the pre-intervention group in both univariate (odds ratio, 0.3 [95% CI, 0.11-0.80]) and multivariate analyses (odds ratio, 0.2 [95% CI, 0.12-0.92]).

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of STSC of post-endoscopic mucosal resection peripheral defects is clinically feasible and significantly decreased adenoma recurrence.

Colorectal cancer

Several decades ago, colorectal cancer was infrequently diagnosed. Nowadays, it is the world's fourth most deadly cancer with almost 900 000 deaths annually. Besides an ageing population and dietary habits of high-income countries, unfavourable risk factors such as obesity, lack of physical exercise, and smoking increase the risk of colorectal cancer. Advancements in pathophysiological understanding have increased the array of treatment options for local and advanced disease leading to individual treatment plans. Treatments include endoscopic and surgical local excision, downstaging preoperative radiotherapy and systemic therapy, extensive surgery for locoregional and metastatic disease, local ablative therapies for metastases, and palliative chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy. Although these new treatment options have doubled overall survival for advanced disease to 3 years, survival is still best for those with non-metastasised disease. As the disease only becomes symptomatic at an advanced stage, worldwide organised screening programmes are being implemented, which aim to increase early detection and reduce morbidity and mortality from colorectal cancer.

Effect of time of day and daily endoscopic workload on outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection for large sessile colon polyps

Background

Endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colon polyps is challenging.

Objective

To determine if the time of day or daily endoscopic workload play a role in outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection for large non-pedunculated colon polyps greater than 20 mm.

Methods

This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colon polyps. The time of day and endoscopic workload were compared across the following outcomes: the rate of complete resection of the polyp, the rate of referral for surgery, and the rate of residual neoplasia on follow-up.

Results

One hundred and three endoscopic mucosal resection procedures were performed. There were no differences in the rates of complete resection (80.8% vs. 70.0%; P = 0.25), the need for surgery (27.4% vs. 33.3%; P = 0.55), and rate of residual neoplasia (24.5% vs. 50.0%; P = 0.07) when comparing the time of day. Colon polyps greater than 40 mm were less likely to be completely resected versus polyps sized 20-39 mm (56.8% vs. 91.9%; P < 0.001). In cases with no residual neoplasia on follow-up, the mean duration for the index procedure was 45.6 minutes versus 60.7 minutes when there was residual neoplasia (P < 0.01).

Conclusion

The time of day and endoscopic workload does not affect outcomes for endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colon polyps, but the size of large non-pedunculated colon polyps and resection times do.

Adenoma recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection: propensity score analysis of old and new colonoscopes and Sydney recurrence tool implementation

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Risk factors for colorectal adenoma recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) have been well documented. We assessed the efficacy of the newer 190 colonoscope versus the standard 180 colonoscope for complete resection of lateral spreading lesions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 A single-center, retrospective study of patients who underwent EMR with Olympus 180 or 190 colonoscopes from January 1, 2010 to September 30, 2016. We included patients with lesions ≥ 20 mm and surveillance colonoscopy (SC1) after index EMR. A propensity score approach with inverse probability weighting was used to control for potential confounders. A secondary aim was to identify risk factors for recurrence and assess the applicability of the Sydney EMR recurrence tool (SERT) by grading each lesion of our cohort and analyzing associations with recurrence.

RESULTS

 Two hundred ninety-one lesions met inclusion criteria for the study. Odds ratio (OR) for recurrence with the 190 colonoscope was 1.06 ( P  = .85). Adenoma size ( P  = .02) and use of argon plasma coagulation (APC; P  < .001) were risk factors for recurrence. Lesions with SERT scores > 0 had a higher recurrence risk during follow-up (32 % vs 21 %; OR 1.71; P  = .05). Lesions with SERT scores = 0 reached a plateau for recurrence at 12 and 18 months in Kaplan-Meier curves.

CONCLUSIONS

 The use of 190 colonoscopes did not measurably affect adenoma recurrence at SC1. Recurrence was associated with adenoma size, complementary APC for resection, and SERT scores > 0. Lesions with SERT scores = 0 that remain negative for recurrence at 18 months may return to routine surveillance.

Recent Advances in Endoscopy

In this narrative review, invited by the Editors of Gastroenterology, we summarize recent advances in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy. We have chosen articles published primarily in the past 2-3 years. Although a thorough literature review was performed for each topic, the nature of the article is subjective and systematic and is based on the authors' experience and expertise regarding articles we believed were most likely to be of high clinical and scientific importance.