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

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

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

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 polypectomy techniques for small and diminutive colorectal polyps: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

In the management of small and diminutive polyps, cold polypectomy is favored over electrocautery polypectomy. However, the optimal cold polypectomy technique is still controversial. Hence, this review aims to investigate the most effective cold technique for small and diminutive colorectal polyps.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which were retrieved by systematically searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane through 10 February 2023. R software, (R version 4.2.0) and meta-insight software were used to pool dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio (RR) presented with the corresponding confidence interval (CI). Our protocol was prospectively published in PROSPERO with ID: CRD42022345619.

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs with 3649 patients and 4800 polyps were included in our analysis. Cold techniques (cold forceps polypectomy (CFP), jumbo forceps polypectomy (JFP), dedicated cold snare polypectomy (D-CSP), conventional cold snare polypectomy (C-CSP), underwater cold snare polypectomy (U-CSP), and cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) were included in our comparative analysis. CFP was less effective in achieving complete histological resection than C-CSP (RR: 1.10 with 95% CI [1.03-1.18]), CS-EMR (RR: 1.12 with 95% CI [1.02-1.23]), D-CSP (RR: 1.17 with 95% CI [1.04-1.32]), and U-CSP (RR: 1.21 with 95% CI [1.07-1.38]). However, the rest of the comparisons showed no difference.

CONCLUSION

CFP is the least effective method for small and diminutive polyps' removal, and any snare polypectomy technique will achieve better results, warranting more large-scale RCTs to investigate the most effective snare polypectomy technique.

Performing High-Quality, Safe, Cost-Effective, and Efficient Basic Colonoscopy in 2023: Advice From Two Experts

Based on published evidence and our expert experience, we provide recommendations to maximize the efficacy, safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of routine colonoscopy. High-quality colonoscopy begins with colon preparation using a split or same-day dose and preferably a low-volume regimen for optimal patient tolerance and compliance. Successful cecal intubation can be achieved by choosing the correct colonoscope and using techniques to facilitate navigation through challenges such as severe angulations and redundant colons. Safety is a primary goal, and complications such as perforation and splenic rupture can be prevented by avoiding pushing through fixed resistance and avoiding loops in proximal colon. Furthermore, barotrauma can be avoided by converting to water filling only (no gas insufflation) in every patient with a narrowed, angulated sigmoid. Optimal polyp detection relies primarily on compulsive attention to inspection as manifested by adequate inspection time, vigorous probing of the spaces between haustral folds, washing and removing residual debris, and achieving full distention. Achieving minimum recommended adenoma detection rate thresholds (30% in men and 20% in women) is mandatory, and colonoscopists should aspire to adenoma detection rate approaching 50% in screening patients. Distal attachments can improve mucosal exposure and increase detection while shortening withdrawal times. Complete resection of polyps complements polyp detection in preventing colorectal cancer. Cold resection is the preferred method for all polyps < 10 mm. For effective cold resection, an adequate rim of normal tissue should be captured in the snare. Finally, cost-effective high-quality colonoscopy requires the procedure not be overused, as demonstrated by following updated United States Multi Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer postpolypectomy surveillance recommendations.

Cold snare versus cold forceps polypectomy for endoscopic resection of diminutive polyps: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The practices for resection of diminutive colon polyps vary among endoscopists, and U.S. Multi-Society Task force guidelines recommend use of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for this purpose. In this meta-analysis, we compared CSP and cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) for resection of diminutive polyps.

METHODS

Several databases were reviewed to identify randomized controlled trials that compared CSP and CFP for resection of diminutive polyps. The study outcomes of interest were complete resection of all diminutive polyps, complete resection of polyps ≤3 mm in size, failure of tissue retrieval, and polypectomy time. For categorical variables, pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated; for continuous variables, mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs were calculated. Data were analyzed by using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed by using the I2 statistic.

RESULTS

We included 9 studies with 1037 patients. Rate of complete resection of all diminutive polyps was significantly higher in the CSP group (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.09-2.58). Subgroup analysis, including jumbo or large-capacity forceps, found no significant difference in complete resection between groups (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, .80-2.56). We found no significant between-groups in the rates of complete resection of polyps ≤3 mm in size (OR, .83; 95% CI, .30-2.31). Rate of failure of tissue retrieval was significantly higher in the CSP group (OR, 10.13; 95% CI, 2.29-44.74). No significant between-group difference was noted in polypectomy time.

CONCLUSIONS

CFP using large-capacity or jumbo biopsy forceps is noninferior to CSP for complete resection of diminutive polyps.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Endoscopic management of colorectal polyps

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

[Current endoscopic resection techniques in the colorectum: possibilities, perspectives, limitations]

Since the first endoscopic polypectomies have been performed, the resection of premalignant lesions during colonoscopy has become a success story in the field of gastroenterology: Incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer have been significantly reduced with the implementation of screening programs. Most polyps in the lower gastrointestinal tract are small and easy to remove. However, larger polyps, early carcinomas and subepithelial lesions can be removed with modern endoscopic resection techniques as well. Minimally invasive endoscopic resections offer an organ-preserving alternative to surgery in a growing number of patients. In this review, we discuss the advantages and limitations of traditional and novel endoscopic resection techniques, including endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic full thickness resection.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Randomized Controlled Trial Investigating Cold Snare and Forceps Polypectomy Among Small POLYPs in Rates of Complete Resection: The TINYPOLYP Trial

INTRODUCTION

Optimizing complete resection during colonoscopy is important because residual neoplastic tissue may play a role in interval cancers. The US Multi-Society Task Force recommends diminutive (≤5 mm) and small (6-9 mm) polyps be removed by cold snare polypectomy (CSP). However, evidence is less clear whether CSP retains significant advantage over cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) for polyps ≤3 mm.

METHODS

This study is a single-center prospective noninferiority randomized clinical trial evaluating CFP and CSP for nonpedunculated polyps ≤3 mm. Patients 18 years and older undergoing colonoscopy for any indication were recruited. During each colonoscopy, polyps underwent block randomization to removal with CFP or CSP. After polypectomy, 2 biopsies were taken from the polypectomy margin. The primary noninferiority outcome was the complete resection rate, defined by absence of residual polyp in the margin biopsies.

RESULTS

A total of 179 patients were included. Patients had similar distribution in age, sex, race/ethnicity, as well as indication of procedure. A total of 279 polyps ≤3 mm were identified, with 138 in the CSP group and 141 in the CFP group. Mean polypectomy time was longer for CSP compared with CFP (42.3 vs 23.2 seconds, P &lt; 0.001), although a higher proportion of polyps removed by CFP were removed in more than 1 piece compared with CSP (15.6 vs 3.6%, P &lt; 0.001). There were positive margin biopsies in 2 cases per cohort, with a complete resection rate of 98.3% in both groups. There was no significant difference in cohorts in complete resection rates (difference in complete resection rates was 0.057%, 95% confidence interval: -4.30% to 4.53%), demonstrating noninferiority of CFP compared with CSP.

DISCUSSION

Use of CFP was noninferior to CSP in the complete resection of nonpedunculated polyps ≤3 mm. CSP required significantly more time to perform compared with CFP. CFP should be considered an acceptable alternative to CSP for removal of polyps ≤3 mm.

Cold versus hot snare resection with or without submucosal injection of 6- to 15-mm colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Cold snare resection of colorectal lesions has been found to be safe and effective for an expanding set of colorectal lesions. In this study, we sought to understand the efficacy of simple cold snare resection and cold EMR versus hot snare resection and hot EMR for colorectal lesions 6 to 15 mm in size.

METHODS

At 3 U.S. centers, 235 patients with 286 colorectal lesions 6 to 15 mm in size were randomized to cold snaring, cold EMR, hot snaring, or hot EMR for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions 6 to 15 mm in size. The primary outcome was complete resection determined by 4 biopsy samples from the defect margin and 1 biopsy sample from the center of the resection defect.

RESULTS

The overall incomplete resection rate was 2.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], .8%-7.5%). All 7 incompletely removed polyps were 10 to 15 mm in size and removed by hot EMR (n = 4, 6.2%), hot snare (n = 2, 2.2%), or cold EMR (n = 1, 1.8%). Cold snaring had no incomplete resections, required less procedural time than the other methods, and was not associated with serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Cold snaring is a dominant resection technique for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions 6 to 15 mm in size. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03462706.).

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.

Prospective multicenter study of the efficacy and safety of cold forceps polypectomy for ≤ 6-mm non-ampullary duodenal low-grade adenomas

Background and study aims  Because the endoscopic treatment for non-ampullary duodenal adenoma (NADA) has a non-negligible risk of adverse events (AEs), a safe and easy treatment for NADA is desirable. This was a multicenter prospective trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) for diminutive NADAs. Patients and methods  This study was prospectively conducted at six general hospitals and one university hospital. The inclusion criteria were histologic and endoscopic diagnosis of low-grade NADA measuring ≤ 6 mm. A second endoscopy was scheduled for 1 month after CFP. After confirmation of the success of CFP, 6-month and 12-month surveillance endoscopies were scheduled. The primary endpoint was the endoscopic and histologic disease disappearance rates at the 12-month endoscopy. Results  Thirty-nine lesions from 38 patients were prospectively included. Median tumor size at enrollment was 5 mm (range 3-6 mm). There were four cases of remnant lesions at the second endoscopy, and the lesion disappearance rate of single CFP was 89.7 % (35 /39; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 76.9 %-97.9 %). In three cases, complete removal of the lesion was achieved with a single re-CFP, but one case required four repeat CFPs. The lesion disappearance rate at 12-month endoscopy was 97.4 % (38 /39; 95 %CI, 86.8 %-99.5 %). During the follow-up period, no AEs related to CFP were observed. Conclusions  CFP for NADA ≤ 6 mm was safe and effective in this study. This common endoscopic method to remove lesions may be an option for treatment of diminutive NADAs.

Randomized controlled trial investigating use of submucosal injection of EverLift™ in rates of complete resection of non-pedunculated 4-9 mm polyps

INTRODUCTION

Currently, cold snare polypectomy (CSP) without submucosal injection is recommended for removing polyps < 10 mm. Use of viscous submucosal agents has not been previously evaluated in CSP. We investigate the potential role of EverLift™ (GI Supply, Pennsylvania) in CSP.

METHODS

The study is a single-center prospective randomized non-inferiority clinical trial evaluating CSP of non-pedunculated 4-9 mm polyps, with or without submucosal injection of EverLift™. Patients 18-80 years of age presenting for colonoscopy were recruited. Eligible polyps underwent block randomization to CSP with or without EverLift™. Following CSP, two biopsies were performed at the CSP site margin. The primary non-inferiority outcome was complete resection rate, defined by absence of residual polyp in the margin biopsies (non-inferiority margin -10%).

RESULTS

A total of 291 eligible polyps underwent CSP, with 142 removed using EverLift™. There was similar polyp size and distribution of pathology between the two groups. Overall, there was a low rate of positive margins with (1.4%) or without submucosal injection (2.8%), with no significant difference in complete resection (difference 1.28%, 95% CI: -2.66 to 5.42%), demonstrating non-inferiority of EverLift™ injection. Use of EverLift™ significantly increased CSP time (109.8 vs 38.8 s, p < 0.0001) and frequency of use of hemostatic clips (13.4 vs 3.6%, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Submucosal injection of EverLift™ was non-inferior to CSP of 4-9 mm polyps without injection and increased time for resection as well as use of hemostatic clips to control acute bleeding. Our results suggest that polypectomy of 4-9 mm polyps can be safely performed without submucosal injection of EverLift™.

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.

Quality Indicators for the Detection and Removal of Colorectal Polyps and Interventions to Improve Them

Modifiable risk factors for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer include suboptimal lesion detection (missed neoplasms) and inadequate lesion removal (incomplete polypectomy) during colonoscopy. Competent detection and removal of colorectal polyps are thus fundamental to ensuring adequate colonoscopy quality. Several well-researched quality metrics for polyp detection have been implemented into clinical practice, chief among these the adenoma detection rate. Less data are available on quality indicators for polyp removal, which currently include complete resection rates and skills assessment tools. This review summarizes the available literature on quality indicators for the detection and removal of colorectal polyps, as well as interventions to improve them.

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).

Evaluation of complete cold forceps polypectomy resection rate for 3- to 5-mm colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The propriety of cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) using jumbo biopsy forceps for diminutive polyps remains controversial. We conducted a prospective study to evaluate the complete CFP resection rate of 3-5-mm polyps using additional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) specimens following CFP.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with 3-5-mm protruded or flat elevated colorectal polyps diagnosed endoscopically as adenomas or serrated lesions were prospectively enrolled. CFP using jumbo biopsy forceps was used to remove the eligible polyps and repeated until the absence of residuals were confirmed via image-enhanced endoscopy or chromoendoscopy. After CFP, saline was injected at the defect, and the marginal specimen of the defect was resected using EMR to histologically evaluate the residue. The primary outcome was the complete CFP resection rate, which was defined as no residue at the EMR site. Other outcomes were the number of CFP bites and the complete resection rate by lesion size.

RESULTS

Eighty patients with 120 polyps were enrolled. The mean polyp size was 4.1 ± 0.7 mm. The overall complete resection rate was 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.7-98.7), and the rates for 3-, 4- and 5-mm polyps were 100% (95% CI, 86.7-100), 96.0% (95% CI, 86.5-98.9) and 95.5% (95% CI, 85.1-98.8), respectively. The one-bite CFP rates were 92%, 60% and 31% for the 3-, 4- and 5-mm polyps, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The complete CFP resection rate for 3-5-mm polyps was acceptable, although the one-bite clearance rate decreased as the polyp size increased (UMIN000028841).

Colonoscopy screening and surveillance guidelines

The Colonoscopy Screening and Surveillance Guidelines were developed by the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society as basic guidelines based on the scientific methods. The importance of endoscopic screening and surveillance for both detection and post-treatment follow-up of colorectal cancer has been recognized as essential to reduce disease mortality. There is limited high-level evidence in this field; therefore, we had to focus on the consensus of experts. These clinical practice guidelines consist of 20 clinical questions and eight background knowledge topics that have been determined as the current guiding principles.

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.

Endoscopic resection of local recurrences of diminutive polyps by cold forceps polypectomy

OBJECTIVES

Cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) is an effective treatment for diminutive colorectal polyps. However, polyps occasionally recur, and there is no consensus on their long-term clinical management. Therefore, we investigated the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of re-CFP for recurrent diminutive colorectal polyps.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a follow-up of a multicenter, prospective study investigating the clinical outcomes of diminutive colorectal polyps excised by CFP with narrowband imaging-enhanced endoscopy and jumbo forceps. We evaluated short-term outcomes of re-CFP and patients at 1-year follow-up post re-CFP for recurrent colorectal polyps to determine long-term recurrence rates. Additionally, complete resection rates, clinicopathological features, number of forceps bites, and rate of short-term adverse events managed by re-CFP were evaluated.

RESULTS

At 1-year follow-up, local recurrence was identified in 18 patients from the original study. The mean size of local recurrent polyps was 1.5 ± 0.6 mm, and all recurrent lesions were < 3 mm. Re-CFP could successfully excise locally recurrent polyps in all cases. All recurrent lesions were low-grade adenomas; no adverse events were reported. Additionally, 16 of 18 patients were evaluated endoscopically at 2-year follow-up; no recurrence was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrent lesions following initial CFP were small and pathologically benign, and re-CFP was an effective treatment.

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.

Personalizing Polypectomy Techniques Based on Polyp Characteristics

Polypectomy is an essential skill for all endoscopists performing lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. Different polypectomy tools and techniques have evolved and it is important that endoscopists are familiar with these so they can select the most appropriate technique for each polyp. This narrative review updates the different concepts in tailoring polypectomy technique to the characteristics of polyps. Effective polypectomy requires different components, including the following: careful evaluation of the polyp; decision making about optimal polyp management; actual polypectomy, which includes careful positioning of the endoscope and polyp; and postpolypectomy evaluation of the results (for completeness of resection and prophylaxis of complications).

Rates of Incomplete Resection of 1- to 20-mm Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Incomplete resection of neoplastic colorectal polyps can result in postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the incomplete resection rate (IRR) of colorectal polyps and associated factors.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL to identify full-text articles that reported IRRs of polyps 1 to 20 mm, published until March 2019. Exclusion criteria were studies of inflammatory bowel disease cohorts, referrals for difficult polypectomy, polyp sizes larger than 20 mm, and endoscopic submucosal resection and/or dissection as polypectomy approaches. IRRs were calculated based on findings from biopsies taken at polypectomy sites or assessments of margins of resected polyps. The primary outcome was IRR for snare removal of polyps 1 to 20 mm. Secondary outcomes included IRR for polyps 1 to 10 mm and 10 to 20 mm, IRR for hot and cold snare removal of polyps 1 to 10 mm and 10 to 20 mm, IRR of snare removal with or without submucosal injection, and IRR for forceps and cold snare removal of polyps 1 to 5 mm.

RESULTS

We identified 6148 reports and used 32 studies, with a total of 9282 polyps, in our quantitative analysis. The IRR for snare removal of polyps 1 to 20 mm was 13.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 10.3-17.3; 13 studies, 5128 polypectomies). IRRs were 15.9% for snare removal of polyps 1 to 10 mm (95% CI 9.6-22.1; 9 studies, 2531 polypectomies) and 20.8% for snare removal of polyps 10 to 20 mm (95% CI 12.9-28.8; 6 studies, 412 polypectomies). The IRR for hot snare removal of polyps 1 to 10 mm was 14.2% (95% CI 5.2-23.2) vs 17.3% for cold snare polypectomy (95% CI 14.3‒20.3). The IRR for forceps removal of polyps 1 to 5 mm was 9.9% (95% CI 7.1-13.0) vs 4.4% for snare polypectomy (95% CI 2.9-6.1).

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that colorectal polyps 1 to 20 mm are frequently incompletely resected, and that risk increases for polyps 10 mm or larger. There is no difference in IRRs of cold vs hot snares for polyps 1 to 10 mm. Snare polypectomy should be used over forceps for polyps 1 to 5 mm.

GIE Editorial Board top 10 topics: advances in GI endoscopy in 2019

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's GIE Editorial Board reviewed original endoscopy-related articles published during 2019 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and 10 other leading medical and gastroenterology journals. Votes from each individual member were tallied to identify a consensus list of 10 topic areas of major advances in GI endoscopy. Individual board members summarized important findings published in these 10 areas of disinfection, artificial intelligence, bariatric endoscopy, adenoma detection, polypectomy, novel imaging, Barrett's esophagus, third space endoscopy, interventional EUS, and training. This document summarizes these "top 10" endoscopic advances of 2019.

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.