Endoscopic Removal of Colorectal Lesions-Recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer

Endoscopic Resection of Large Non-Pedunculated Colonic Polyps Without Submucosal Injection Is Safe and Effective with Adequate Technique

Background/Objectives: Endoscopic resection with lift polypectomy using submucosal injection (SI) for large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps is recommended to facilitate complete mucosal resection and decrease the risk of perforation; however, there are no studies comparing the safety and efficacy of large polypectomies with and without lift polypectomy. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the polypectomy technique without SI compared to the routine use of SI. Methods: We performed a single tertiary center retrospective study evaluating all consecutive large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (≥20 mm) referred to expert endoscopists in polypectomy from 2018 through 2021. We collected and analyzed data on demographics, polyp characteristics, resection technique, complications, and polyp recurrence in 6-12 months. Results: In 200 large non-pedunculated colonic polyp resections, 110 (55%) were performed with SI. The median polyp size was slightly larger in SI (30 mm IQR [20, 40] vs. 25 mm IQR [20, 30] in no-SI, p < 0.05), with a range of 20 to 130 mm. There were no differences in delayed bleeding rates. No perforation was noted in the no-SI group, and five perforations occurred in the SI group, without a statistically significant difference between groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the polyp recurrence rate at 6-12 months between the no-SI and SI groups (12% vs. 8% in no-SI vs. SI, respectively, p = 0.48). Conclusions: Complete removal of large non-pedunculated polyps without SI is feasible and safe in this large series. This approach had similar rates of clinically significant post-polypectomy bleeding and a non-significant difference in perforation rate compared to polyp resection with routine use of SI. Randomized trials are warranted to further assess the safety and efficacy of this approach.

Soft Coagulation Versus Argon Plasma Coagulation After Large Non-pedunculated Colorectal Polyp Resection: A Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Thermal ablative methods (such as argon plasma coagulation (APC) and soft tip snare coagulation (STSC) are commonly used to treat polyp margins. We aim to appraise the current literature and compare clinical outcomes between patients with treated (with APC vs. STSC) and non-treated endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) margins.

METHODS

We searched major databases from inception until November 2023 for randomly controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EMR of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps with and without treated margins. Pooled data were analyzed for the primary outcome of recurrence at first screening colonoscopy, and adverse events. Analysis was performed using a random effects model and data were reported using 95% CIs.

RESULTS

A total of 5 RCT's were found, which included 1020 polyps (577 in treatment and 443 in control groups). Three studies included treatment with STSC and 3 studies used APC as the modality for margin ablation. Of the included patients, 53% were female and the average age was similar between treatment and control groups (65.9 vs. 66.1 y). Seventy-one percent of lesions were proximal to the splenic flexure. The mean follow-up to the first colonoscopy and average polyp size were comparable (6.3 vs. 6.2 mo; 28.2 vs. 28.0 mm, respectively). Pooled analysis showed that margin ablation was associated with significantly lower rates of recurrence [odds ratio (OR) 0.267, 95% CI 0.18-0.4, P<0.001] with low heterogeneity between studies (I2=0%, P=0.47). Pooled analysis showed no significant difference between STSC and APC in terms of recurrence (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.27-1.7, I2=0%, P=0.3) or adverse events (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.3-1.6, I2 13%, P=0.46).

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that ablation of EMR margins is very effective at preventing recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy. We found no difference between STSC or APC in terms of polyp recurrence or adverse outcomes.

Survey of the Actual Practices Used for Endoscopic Removal of Colon Polyps in Korea: A Comparison with the Current Guidelines

Background/Aims

We investigated the clinical practice patterns of Korean endoscopists for the endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps.

Methods

From September to November 2021, an online survey was conducted regarding the preferred resection methods for colorectal polyps, and responses were compared with the international guidelines.

Results

Among 246 respondents, those with <4 years, 4-9 years, and ≥10 years of experience in colonoscopy practices accounted for 25.6%, 34.1%, and 40.2% of endoscopists, respectively. The most preferred resection methods for non-pedunculated lesions were cold forceps polypectomy for ≤3 mm lesions (81.7%), cold snare polypectomy for 4-5 mm (61.0%) and 6-9 mm (43.5%) lesions, hot endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for 10-19 mm lesions (72.0%), precut EMR for 20-25 mm lesions (22.0%), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for ≥26 mm lesions (29.3%). Hot EMR was favored for pedunculated lesions with a head size <20 mm and stalk size <10 mm (75.6%) and for those with a head size ≥20 mm or stalk size ≥10 mm (58.5%). For suspected superficial and deep submucosal lesions measuring 10-19 mm and ≥20 mm, ESD (26.0% and 38.6%) and surgery (36.6% and 46.3%) were preferred, respectively. The adherence rate to the guidelines ranged from 11.2% to 96.9%, depending on the size, shape, and histology of the lesions.

Conclusions

Adherence to the guidelines for endoscopic resection techniques varied depending on the characteristics of colorectal polyps. Thus, an individualized approach is required to increase adherence to the guidelines.

Histopathologic vertical margin positivity in cold snare polypectomy and mucosal resection for sessile serrated lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Data regarding the status of the vertical margin of sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) resected using cold snare polypectomy (CSP) are lacking, and whether a histopathologically positive vertical margin is related to recurrence remains unclear. Therefore, this preliminary study aimed to clarify the rates of positive or unassessable vertical and horizontal margins and the rate of muscularis mucosae resection in SSLs treated using CSP compared with those treated with EMR.

METHODS

Histologic outcomes of patients treated with CSP or EMR for SSLs were evaluated in this single-center observational study. The primary outcome was the incidence of histopathologically positive vertical margins in CSP and EMR. Furthermore, the comparisons were adjusted for confounding factors using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Overall, 82 patients with SSLs were included in the CSP and EMR groups after matching. The incidence of positive histologic vertical margins in the CSP and EMR groups were 67.1% and 2.4%, respectively (P < .001). Regarding the evaluation of the presence of muscularis mucosae, 29.3% and 98.8% of patients in the CSP and EMR groups, respectively, had a complete muscularis mucosae resection (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

A rigorous histopathologic evaluation revealed that for SSLs, CSP more frequently leads to positive vertical margins than EMR. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN 000051569.).

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Expert endoscopist assessment of colorectal polyp size using virtual scale endoscopy, visual or snare-based estimation: a prospective video-based study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Accurate polyp size estimation during colonoscopy has an impact on clinical decision-making. A laser-based virtual scale endoscope (VSE) is available to allow measuring polyp size using a virtual adaptive scale. This study evaluates video-based polyp size measurement accuracy among expert endoscopists using either VSE or visual assessment (VA) with either snare as reference size or without any reference size information.

METHODS

A prospective, video-based study was conducted with 10 expert endoscopists. Video sequences from 90 polyps with known reference size (fresh specimen measured using calipers) were distributed on three different slide sets so that each slide set showed the same polyp only once with either VSE, VA or snare-based information. A slide set was randomly assigned to each endoscopist. Endoscopists were asked to provide size estimation based on video review.

RESULTS

Relative accuracies for VSE, VA, and snare-based estimation were 75.1% (95% CI [71.6-78.5]), 65.0% (95% CI [59.5-70.4]) and 62.0% (95% CI [54.8-69.0]), respectively. VSE yielded significantly higher relative accuracy compared to VA (p = 0.002) and to snare (p = 0.001). A significantly lower percentage of polyps 1-5 mm were misclassified as >5 mm using VSE versus VA and snare (6.52% vs. 19.6% and 17.5%, p = 0.004) and a significantly lower percentage of polyps >5 mm were misclassified as 1-5 mm using VSE versus VA and snare (11.4% vs. 31.9% and 14.9%, p = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopists estimate polyp size with the highest accuracy when virtual adaptive scale information is displayed. Using a snare to assist sizing did not improve measurement accuracy compared to displaying visual information alone.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on High-Quality Upper Endoscopy: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

The purpose of this Clinical Practice Update (CPU) Expert Review is to provide clinicians with guidance on best practices for performing a high-quality upper endoscopic exam.

METHODS

The best practice advice statements presented herein were developed from a combination of available evidence from published literature, guidelines, and consensus-based expert opinion. No formal rating of the strength or quality of the evidence was carried out, which aligns with standard processes for American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute CPUs. These statements are meant to provide practical, timely advice to clinicians practicing in the United States. This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates (CPU) Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology & Hepatology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Endoscopists should ensure that upper endoscopy is being performed for an appropriate indication and that informed consent clearly explaining the risks, benefits, alternatives, sedation plan, and potential diagnostic and therapeutic interventions is obtained. These elements should be documented by the endoscopist before the procedure. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Endoscopists should ensure that adequate visualization of the upper gastrointestinal mucosa, using mucosal cleansing and insufflation as necessary, is achieved and documented. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: A high-definition white-light endoscopy system should be used for upper endoscopy instead of a standard-definition white-light endoscopy system whenever possible. The endoscope used for the procedure should be documented in the procedure note. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Image enhancement technologies should be used during the upper endoscopic examination to improve the diagnostic yield for preneoplasia and neoplasia. Suspicious areas should be clearly described, photodocumented, and biopsied separately. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Endoscopists should spend sufficient time carefully inspecting the foregut mucosa in an anterograde and retroflexed view to improve the detection and characterization of abnormalities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Endoscopists should document any abnormalities noted on upper endoscopy using established classifications and standard terminology whenever possible. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Endoscopists should perform biopsies for the evaluation and management of foregut conditions using standardized biopsy protocols. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopists should provide patients with management recommendations based on the specific endoscopic findings (eg, peptic ulcer disease, erosive esophagitis), and this should be documented in the medical record. If recommendations are contingent upon histopathology results (eg, H pylori infection, Barrett's esophagus), then endoscopists should document that appropriate guidance will be provided after results are available. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Endoscopists should document whether subsequent surveillance endoscopy is indicated and, if so, provide appropriate surveillance intervals. If the determination of surveillance is contingent on histopathology results, then endoscopists should document that surveillance intervals will be suggested after results are available.

Outline of Japanese Guidelines for Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Endoscopic Mucosal Resection with a Short Reference to the Western Recommendations

The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society published the latest English versions of the guidelines for endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal neoplastic lesions and colorectal cold polypectomy in 2020 and 2022, respectively. In this article, I present a comprehensive overview of these guidelines, including a comparison with the Western recommendations.

Long-term outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal epithelial neoplasms in patients with severe comorbidities

Background and Aim

Long-term outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for colorectal epithelial neoplasms (CENs) in patients with severe comorbidities have not been clarified; the current study aimed to examine these long-term outcomes and compared them with those in patients with non-severe comorbidities.

Methods

We included 231 patients with CENs who underwent ESD between April 2005 and March 2023. Patients with comorbidities were categorized according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS). We conducted a propensity score-matched analysis and compared long-term outcomes of the two groups after ESD for CENs.

Results

Of the 156 patients enrolled in the study, 43 and 113 had severe (ASA-PS III) and non-severe (ASA-PS I/II) comorbidities, respectively. The 1:1 propensity score analysis matched 36 patients with severe comorbidities to 36 patients with non-severe comorbidities. After matching, there was no difference in the procedural outcomes of ESD between both groups. Regarding long-term outcomes, the 5-year overall survival rates after matching in the ASA-PS I/II and III groups were 100% and 73.5%, respectively, and patients in the ASA-PS III group exhibited significantly shorter overall survival than those in the ASA-PS I/II group (hazard ratio 7.209; 95% confidence interval 1.592-32.646; P = 0.010). No colorectal cancer-related deaths were noted in either group.

Conclusion

Overall survival after ESD for CENs was shorter in patients with severe comorbidities than in those with non-severe comorbidities. Clinicians should carefully determine whether the benefits of CEN resection with ESD outweigh the procedural risks in patients with severe comorbidities.

Endoscopic resection-related colorectal strictures: risk factors, management, and long-term outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal strictures related to endoscopic resection (ER) of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) may be problematic. Data on prevalence, risk factors, and management are limited. We report a prospective study of colorectal strictures following ER and describe our approach to management.

METHODS

We analyzed prospectively collected data over 150 months, until June 2021, for patients who underwent ER for LNPCPs ≥ 40 mm. The ER defect size was graded as < 60 %, 60 %-89 %, or ≥ 90 % of the luminal circumference. Strictures were considered "severe" if patients experienced obstructive symptoms, "moderate" if an adult colonoscope could not pass the stenosis, or "mild" if there was resistance on successful passage. Primary outcomes included stricture prevalence, risk factors, and management.

RESULTS

916 LNPCPs ≥ 40 mm in 916 patients were included (median age 69 years, interquartile range 61-76 years, male sex 484 [52.8 %]). The primary resection modality was endoscopic mucosal resection in 859 (93.8 %). Risk of stricture formation with an ER defect ≥ 90 %, 60 %-89 %, and < 60 % was 74.2 % (23/31), 25.0 % (22/88), and 0.8 % (6 /797), respectively. Severe strictures only occurred with ER defects ≥ 90 % (22.6 %, 7/31). Defects < 60 % conferred low risk of only mild strictures (0.8 %, 6/797). Severe strictures required earlier (median 0.9 vs. 4.9 months; P = 0.01) and more frequent (median 3 vs. 2; P = 0.02) balloon dilations than moderate strictures.

CONCLUSION

Most patients with ER defects ≥ 90 % of luminal circumference developed strictures, many of which were severe and required early balloon dilation. There was minimal risk with ER defects < 60 %.

Safety and Efficacy of Powered Non-Thermal Endoscopic Resection Device for Removal of Colonic Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Endoscopic mucosal resection is a frequently employed method for removing colonic polyps. Nonetheless, the recurrence of these polyps over a healed submucosal base can complicate the extraction of leftover lesions through standard procedures. EndoRotor®, a non-thermal device specifically designed for endoscopic mucosal resection, has recently been assessed for its utility in removing colonic polyps, non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus, and pancreatic necrosis. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to ascertain the safety and efficacy of EndoRotor® in resecting scared or recurrence colonic polyps.

Methods

We conducted an exhaustive review of existing literature using databases such as Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library until January 2023. Our aim was to find all studies that assessed the safety of non-thermal endoscopic resection devices in removing colonic polyps. The primary outcome we focused on was the rate of technical success. Secondary outcomes that we considered included the frequency of remaining lesions and instances of adverse events. To analyze these data, we used comprehensive meta-analysis software.

Results

Our analysis incorporated three studies comprising 54 patients who underwent resection of 60 lesions. The combined technical success rate was 93.9% (95% confidence interval (CI): 77.7-98.6%, I2 = 25.5%). In patients who had another endoscopic examination, 20 were found to have a residual lesion. After the initial session, the combined rate of remaining lesions was 39.8% (95% CI: 15.3-70.8%, I2 = 74.5%). There were eight occurrences of intraoperative bleeding and four instances of bleeding post-procedure. The combined rate of intraoperative bleeding was 13.2% (95% CI: 6.7-24.3%, I2 = 0%), and post-procedure bleeding stood at 8.5% (95% CI: 3.4-19.8%, I2 = 0%). Only one major bleeding event was recorded, and no cases of perforation were reported.

Conclusion

Our research indicates that the EndoRotor® effectively removes scarred colonic polyps, though the rate of remaining lesions is significant, potentially necessitating several sessions for a thorough removal. There is a need for broader prospective studies, mainly randomized controlled trials, to further assess EndoRotor®'s efficiency and safety in eliminating colonic polyps.

COLD SNARE POLYPECTOMY: A SAFE PROCEDURE FOR REMOVING SMALL NON-PEDUNCULATED COLORECTAL LESIONS

BACKGROUND

Polypectomy is an important treatment option for preventing colorectal cancer. Incomplete polyp resection (IPR) is re-cognized as a risk factor for interval cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to evaluate the complete polyp resection (CPR) rate for cold snare polypectomy (CSP) in small non-pedunculated polyps and, secondarily, specimen retrieval and complication rates.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated 479 polyps <10 mm removed by CSP in 276 patients by an inexperienced endoscopist.

RESULTS

A total of 476 polyps (99.4%) were resected en bloc. A negative margin (classified as CPR) was observed in 435 polyps (90.8%). An unclear or positive margin (classified as IPR) was observed in 43 cases (9.0%) and 1 case (0.2%), respectively, for an overall IPR rate of 9.2% (44/479). The IPR rate was 12.2% in the first half of cases and 5.9% in the second half (P=0.02). Dividing into tertiles, the IPR rate was 15.0% in the first tertile, 6.9% in the second tertile, and 5.7% in the third tertile (P=0.01). Dividing into quartiles, the IPR rate was 15.8% in the first quartile and 5.9% in the fourth quartile (P=0.03). The IPR rate was 6.3% for type 0-IIa lesions and 14.1% for type 0-Is lesions (P=0.01). For serrated and adenomatous lesions, the IPR rate was 9.2%. Specimen retrieval failed in 3.6% of cases. Immediate bleeding (>30 s) occurred in 1 case (0.2%), treated with argon plasma coagulation. No delayed bleeding or perforation occurred.

CONCLUSION

CSP is a safe technique that provides good results for the resection of small non-pedunculated polyps, with a short learning curve.

Computer-aided diagnosis in predicting the invasion depth of early colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection (ER) is widely applied to treat early colorectal cancer (CRC). Predicting the invasion depth of early CRC is critical in determining treatment strategies. The use of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) algorithms could theoretically make accurate and objective predictions regarding the suitability of lesions for ER indication based on invasion depth. This study aimed to assess diagnostic test accuracy of CAD algorithms in predicting the invasion depth of early CRC and to compare the performance between the CAD algorithms and endoscopists.

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched until June 30, 2022 for studies that evaluated the diagnostic performance of CAD algorithms for invasion depth of CRC. Meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy using a bivariate mixed-effects model was performed.

RESULTS

Ten studies consisting of 13 arms (13,918 images from 1472 lesions) were included. Due to significant heterogeneity, studies were stratified into Japan/Korea-based or China-based studies. For the former, the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity of the CAD algorithms were 0.89 (95% CI 0.86-0.91), 62% (95% CI 50-72%), and 96% (95% CI 93-98%), respectively. For the latter, AUC, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.94 (95% CI 0.92-0.96), 88% (95% CI 78-94%), and 88% (95% CI 80-93%), respectively. The performance of the CAD algorithms in Japan/Korea-based studies was not significantly different from that of all endoscopists (0.88 vs. 0.91, P = 0.10) but was inferior to that of expert endoscopists (0.88 vs. 0.92, P = 0.03). The performance of the CAD algorithms in China-based studies was better than that of all endoscopists (0.94 vs. 0.90, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The CAD algorithms showed comparable accuracy for prediction of invasion depth of early CRC compared to all endoscopists, which was still lower than expert endoscopists in diagnostic accuracy; more improvements should be achieved before it can be extensively applied to clinical practice.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of cold snare polypectomy and hot snare polypectomy for colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has become increasingly utilized to resect colorectal polyps, given its efficacy and safety. This study aims to compare CSP and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) for resecting small (< 10 mm) and large (10-20 mm) colorectal lesions.

METHODS

Relevant publications were obtained from Cochrane Library, Embase, Google Scholar, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. The publication search was limited by English-language and human studies. Pooled mean difference and odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled OR of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB) in the CSP group versus the HSP group was 0.29 (P = 0.0001, I2  = 29%). Subgroup analysis according to lesion size showed a significant reduction in the DPPB rate in lesion sizes 10-20 mm (pooled OR 0.08, P = 0.003, I2  = 0%) and < 10 mm (pooled OR 0.35, P = 0.001, I2  = 27%). Pooled OR of major bleeding in the CSP group was 0.23 (P = 0.0004, I2  = 0%). Subgroup analysis by lesion size revealed a significant decrease in the rate of major bleeding in the CSP group for both lesion sizes 10-20 mm (pooled OR 0.11, P = 0.04) and < 10 mm (pooled OR 0.26, P = 0.003). Complete resection, en bloc resection, and recurrence rate were comparable in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Cold snare polypectomy was associated with a lower rate of DPPB and lower risk of major bleeding compared with HSP in both small and large polyps. CSP should be considered as the polypectomy technique of choice for colorectal polyps.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Chicken skin mucosa surrounding small colorectal cancer could be an endoscopic predictive marker of submucosal invasion

BACKGROUND

Chicken skin mucosa (CSM) surrounding colon polyps is a common endoscopic finding with pale yellow-speckled mucosa during a colonoscopy screening. Although reports about CSM surrounding small colorectal cancer are scarce, and its clinical significance in intramucosal and submucosal cancers is unclear, previous studies have suggested it could be an endoscopic predictive marker for colonic neoplastic and advanced polyps. Currently, because of the inaccurate preoperative evaluation by endoscopists, many small colorectal cancers, particularly lesions with a diameter < 2 cm, are improperly treated. Therefore, more effective methods are required to better assess the depth of the lesion before treatment.

AIM

To explore potential markers of small colorectal cancer early invasion under white light endoscopy, providing patients with better treatment alternatives.

METHODS

This retrospective cross-sectional study included 198 consecutive patients [233 early colorectal cancers (ECCs)] who underwent endoscopy or surgical procedures at the Digestive Endoscopy Center of Chengdu Second People’s Hospital between January 2021 and August 2022. The participants had pathologically confirmed colorectal cancer with a lesion diameter < 2 cm and received endoscopic or surgical treatment, including endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection. Clinical pathology and endoscopy parameters, including tumor size, invasion depth, anatomical position, and morphology, were reviewed. Fisher’s exact test, the χ² test, and Student’s t-test were used to analyze the patient’s basic characteristics. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between morphological characteristics, size, CSM prevalence, and ECC invasion depth under white light endoscopy. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

The submucosal carcinoma (SM stage) was larger than the mucosal carcinoma (M stage) with a significant difference (17.2 ± 4.1 vs 13.4 ± 4.6 mm, P < 0.01). M- and SM-stage cancers were common in the left colon; however, no significant differences were found between them (151/196, 77% and 32/37, 86.5%, respectively, P = 0.199). The endoscopic features of colorectal cancer revealed that CSM, depressed areas with clear boundaries, and erosion or ulcer bleeding were more common in the SM-stage cancer group than in the M-stage cancer group (59.5% vs 26.2%, 46% vs 8.7%, and 27.3% vs 4.1%, respectively, P < 0.05). CSM prevalence in this study was 31.3% (73/233). The positive rates of CSM in flat, protruded, and sessile lesions were 18% (11/61), 30.6% (30/98), and 43.2% (32/74), respectively, with significant differences (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

CSM-related small colorectal cancer was primarily located in the left colon and could be a predictive marker of submucosal invasion in the left colon.

A Comparative Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Hot Snare Polypectomy and Cold Snare Polypectomy for Removing Small Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Both cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and hot snare polypectomy (HSP) have been shown to be effective methods for removing small colorectal polyps, but the optimal method for achieving complete resection remains unclear. To address this issue, we conducted a systematic search of relevant articles using databases such as PubMed, ProQuest, and EBSCOhost. The search criteria included randomized controlled trials that compared CSP and HSP for small colorectal polyps ≤10 mm and the articles were screened based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data were analyzed using RevMan software (version 5.4; Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom), and meta-analysis was performed with outcomes measured using pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The Mantel-Haenszel random effect model was used to calculate the OR. We selected a total of 14 randomized controlled trials involving 11601 polyps for analysis. Pooled analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the incomplete resection rate between CSP and HSP (OR: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.88-1.73, p-value: 0.27; I2: 51%), en bloc resection rate (OR: 0.66; 95%CI: 0.38-1.13; p: 0.13; I2: 60%), and polyp retrieval rate (OR: 0.97; 95%CI: 0.59-1.57; p: 0.89; I2: 17%). For safety endpoints, there is no statistically significant difference in intraprocedural bleeding rate between CSP and HSP per patient analysis (OR: 2.37, 95% CI: 0.74-7.54; p: 0.95; I2: 74%) and per polyp basis (OR: 1.84, 95% CI: 0.72-4.72; p: 0.20; I2: 85%). CSP had lower OR for the delayed bleeding outcome when compared with the HSP group per patient basis (OR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.2-0.86; p: 0.02; I2: 25%), but not in the per polyp analysis (OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.12-3; p: 0.53; I2: 0%). Total polypectomy time was significantly shorter in the CSP group (mean difference: -0.81 minutes; 95% CI: -0.96, -0.66; p:<0.00001; I2: 0%). Thus, CSP is both an efficacious and safe method for removing small colorectal polyps. Therefore, it can be recommended as a suitable alternative to HSP for the removal of small colorectal polyps. However, more studies are necessary to evaluate any long-term differences between the two methods such as polyp recurrence rates.

Incomplete resection rates of 4- to 20-mm non-pedunculated colorectal polyps when using wide-field cold snare resection with routine submucosal injection

Background and study aims  Incomplete resection of 4- to 20-mm colorectal polyps occur frequently (> 10 %), putting patients at risk for post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. We hypothesized that routine use of wide-field cold snare resection with submucosal injection (CSP-SI) might reduce incomplete resection rates (IRRs). Patients and methods  Patients aged 45 to 80 years undergoing elective colonoscopies were enrolled in a prospective clinical study. All 4- to 20-mm non-pedunculated polyps were resected using CSP-SI. Post-polypectomy margin biopsies were obtained to determine IRRs through histopathology assessment. The primary outcome was IRR, defined as remnant polyp tissue found on margin biopsies. Secondary outcomes included technical success and complication rates. Results  A total of 429 patients (median age 65 years, 47.1 % female, adenoma detection rate 40 %) with 204 non-pedunculated colorectal polyps 4 to 20 mm removed using CSP-SI were included in the final analysis. CSP-SI was technical successful in 97.5 % (199/204) of cases (5 conversion to hot snare polypectomy). IRR for CSP-SI was 3.8 % (7/183) (95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.7 %-5.5 %). IRR was 1.6 % (2/129), 16 % (4/25), and 3.4 % (1/29) for adenomas, serrated lesions, and hyperplastic polyps respectively. IRR was 2.3 % (2/87), 6.3 % (4/64), 4.0 % (6/151), and 3.1 % (1/32) for polyps 4 to 5 mm, 6 to 9 mm, < 10 mm, and 10 to 20 mm, respectively. There were no CSP-SI-related serious adverse events. Conclusions  Use of CSP-SI results in lower IRRs compared to what has previously been reported in the literature for hot or cold snare polypectomy when not using wide-field cold snare resection with submucosal injection. CSP-SI showed an excellent safety and efficacy profile, however comparative studies to CSP without SI are required to confirm these results.

Hybrid Argon Plasma Coagulation for Barrett's Esophagus and for Colonic Mucosal Resection-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Hybrid argon plasma coagulation (hAPC) is a novel technique that combines conventional argon plasma coagulation and waterjet submucosal expansion. The aims of this metanalysis were to evaluate the efficacy and safety of hAPC in the setting of Barret's esophagus (BE) ablation and as an adjunct to colonic endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Four electronic databases were searched, and the results were analyzed by two independent authors. Random-effects meta-analyses of the proportions of endoscopic and histologic remission (for BE), recurrence, and post-procedure adverse events were performed using R. Studies' reporting quality was also assessed. From the 979 identified records, 13 studies were included (10 regarding BE and three colonic EMR). The pooled percentages of endoscopic and histologic remission after hAPC for BE were 95% (95% confidence interval [CI] 91-99, I² = 34) and 90% (95%CI 84-95, I² = 46), respectively, while major adverse events and recurrence were registered in 2% (95%CI 0-5, I² = 41) and 11% (95%CI 2-27, I² = 11), respectively. Concerning hAPC-assisted EMR, the pooled percentages of major adverse events and recurrence were 5% (95%CI 2-10, I² = 0) and 1% (95%CI 0-3, I² = 40). Evidence suggests that the main advantages of hAPC are the increase in safety in the setting of BE ablation and the reduction of local recurrence after colonic EMR. Trials comparing hAPC with standard strategies are required to support its use for these indications.

A Review of Colonoscopy in Intestinal Diseases

Since the development of the fiberoptic colonoscope in the late 1960s, colonoscopy has been a useful tool to diagnose and treat various intestinal diseases. This article reviews the clinical use of colonoscopy for various intestinal diseases based on present and future perspectives. Intestinal diseases include infectious diseases, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), neoplasms, functional bowel disorders, and others. In cases of infectious diseases, colonoscopy is helpful in making the differential diagnosis, revealing endoscopic gross findings, and obtaining the specimens for pathology. Additionally, colonoscopy provides clues for distinguishing between infectious disease and IBD, and aids in the post-treatment monitoring of IBD. Colonoscopy is essential for the diagnosis of neoplasms that are diagnosed through only pathological confirmation. At present, malignant tumors are commonly being treated using endoscopy because of the advancement of endoscopic resection procedures. Moreover, the characteristics of tumors can be described in more detail by image-enhanced endoscopy and magnifying endoscopy. Colonoscopy can be helpful for the endoscopic decompression of colonic volvulus in large bowel obstruction, balloon dilatation as a treatment for benign stricture, and colon stenting as a treatment for malignant obstruction. In the diagnosis of functional bowel disorder, colonoscopy is used to investigate other organic causes of the symptom.

Management of colorectal high-grade dysplasia or cancer resected by cold snare polypectomy: a multicenter exploratory study

BACKGROUND

The clinical course and surveillance strategy for patients who undergo cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or cancer is unclear. We investigated the management of colorectal HGDs and cancers following CSP.

METHODS

This Japanese nationwide multicenter exploratory study was retrospectively conducted on patients who had undergone CSP for colorectal HGDs or cancers and follow-up colonoscopy at least once from 2014 to 2020. We investigated the detection rate of CSP scars, local recurrence rate (LRR), risk factors for local recurrence, and follow-up strategy. This study was registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000043670).

RESULTS

We included 155 patients with 156 lesions. CSP scars were identified in 22 (31.4%), 41 (54.7%), and 10 (90.9%) patients with curative, borderline, and non-curative resection, respectively. Among them, residual tumors were observed in one (4.5%), six (14.6%), and three (30.0%) cases, respectively. The total LRR was 13.7% (95% confidence interval: 6.8-23.8). R1 resection cases (either horizontal or vertical margins positive for tumors) were associated with local recurrence (p = 0.031). Salvage endoscopic and surgical resections were performed on 21 and 10 patients, respectively. Among them, the proportion of endoscopically suspected residual tumors was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the residual tumor-positive group (100%) than in the residual tumor-negative group (28.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

LRR after CSP for HGDs or cancers was 13.7% based on scar-identified cases. Salvage endoscopic or surgical resection should be performed according to the curability of the lesion and endoscopic findings during colonoscopic surveillance.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

6 sites in Taiwan, July 2018 through July 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

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

INTERVENTION

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

MEASUREMENTS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATION

An open-label, single-blind trial.

CONCLUSION

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

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Boston Scientific Corporation.

Prevalence of synchronous neoplasia in patients with large pedunculated colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND

 Large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal lesions have high rates of synchronous neoplasia and advanced neoplasia. Synchronous neoplasia prevalence in patients with large pedunculated lesions is uncertain. We describe synchronous neoplasia in patients with large pedunculated colorectal polyps, using a cohort of patients with large nonpedunculated lesions as controls.

METHODS

 This study was a retrospective assessment of a prospectively recorded database listing synchronous findings in patients with ≥ 20 mm colorectal lesions referred to a tertiary center for endoscopic resection.

RESULTS

 At least one synchronous precancerous lesion was identified in 66/78 patients with large pedunculated index lesions (84.6 %, 95 %CI 74.9-91.1) and 726/814 patients with large nonpedunculated index lesions (89.2 %, 95 %CI 87.1-91.3). Patients with a large pedunculated index lesion had mean of 4.8 synchronous conventional adenomas, 56.4 % had ≥ 1 synchronous high risk lesion (advanced adenoma or advanced serrated lesion), 48.7 % had ≥ 1 synchronous advanced conventional adenoma, and 19.2 % had a synchronous neoplastic lesion ≥ 20 mm. Compared with patients with nonpedunculated index lesions, patients with large pedunculated index lesions had comparable rates of synchronous polyps, adenomas, and sessile serrated lesions, and higher rates of synchronous adenomas with villous elements (15.6 % [95 %CI 13.3-18.3] vs. 26.9 % [95 %CI 18.3-37.7]; P = 0.01) and synchronous pedunculated polyps (9.5 % [95 %CI 7.6-11.7] vs. 33.3 % [95 %CI 23.8-44.4]; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

 In patients with large (≥ 20 mm) pedunculated colorectal lesions, rates of synchronous neoplasia and advanced synchronous neoplasia were high and comparable to or higher than rates of synchronous neoplasia in patients with large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions.

Measurement of Stricture Dimensions Using a Visual Comparative Estimation Method With Biopsy Forceps During Endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Estimation of the dimensions of endoscopic findings such as stricture diameter is largely subjective. Accurate assessment of stricture dimensions has multiple benefits including facilitating the choice of appropriately sized endoscopic therapies for treating stricture, properly tracking response to endoscopic therapies between procedures, and potentially even predicting outcomes of endoscopic therapy.

METHODS

Endoscopies performed in children with repaired esophageal atresia between August 2019 and August 2021 for which both (1) an endoscopic estimate of esophageal stricture diameter obtained by visual comparison with the known dimensions of the biopsy forceps and (2) an intraoperative esophageal fluoroscopy study were performed were included for analysis. Fluoroscopic stricture diameter measurements were manually obtained using a software ruler tool calibrated to the known dimensions of the intraluminal endoscope. Statistical concordance was calculated between the visual diameter estimates and the standard fluoroscopic stricture measurements.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-one endoscopies were included for analysis. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient was 0.92 (95% confidence interval: 0.89-0.94) between the visual diameter estimates and the fluoroscopic stricture measurements. Correlation was strongest for smaller to mid-sized stricture diameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the biopsy forceps as a visual reference of known dimensions enables accurate visual estimation of esophageal stricture diameter during endoscopy using commonly available tools, with high concordance with standard fluoroscopic measurement techniques.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Frequency and nature of endoscopic and pathologic errors leading to referral for endoscopic resection to a tertiary center

Background and study aims  We anecdotally encounter cases where referring endoscopists made errors in endoscopic interpretation of a colorectal lesion, sometimes combined with pathology errors at the referring centers, resulting in referral to our center for endoscopic resection. In this paper, we describe the frequency and nature of endoscopic and pathology errors leading to consultation for endoscopic resection. Patients and methods  Review of 760 consecutive referrals to our center over a 26-month interval. Results  In total, 28 (3.7 %) of all referred patients had ≥ 1 lesion that did not require any resection after investigation. There were 12 cases (1.6 % of all referrals) involving errors by both the referring endoscopist and the pathologist at the referring center. Errors commonly involved the ileocecal valve, lipomas, and mucosal prolapse changes. There were 15 additional referrals (2.0 % of all referrals) where no neoplastic lesion was identified at our center and either no biopsy was taken at the referring center (n = 9 patients, 10 lesions), the patient was referred although biopsy showed no neoplasia (n = 6), or the referring doctor correctly interpreted the lesion (lipoma), but the outside pathologist incorrectly reported adenoma (n = 1). Conclusions  Endoscopists at tertiary centers should expect referrals to clarify the nature of colorectal lesions as neoplastic or non-neoplastic. Community endoscopists with equivocal endoscopic findings and unexpected or equivocal pathology results can consider pathology review at their center or at an expert center before referral for endoscopic or surgical resection.

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

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

Outcomes of thin versus thick-wire snares for cold snare polypectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is commonly used for the resection of colorectal polyps ≤10 mm. Data regarding the influence of snare type on CSP effectiveness are conflicting. Hence, this meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes and safety of thin- and thick-wire snares for CSP.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the literature published between 2000 and 2021 was performed of various databases for comparative studies evaluating the outcomes of thin- versus thick-wire snares for CSP.

RESULTS

Five studies with data on 1,425 polyps were included in the analysis. The thick-wire snare was comparable to the thin-wire snare with respect to complete histological resection (risk ratio [RR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.09), overall bleeding (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.40-2.40), polyp retrieval (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97-1.04), and involvement of submucosa in the resection specimen (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.72-2.28). There was no publication bias and a small study effect, and the relative effects remained the same in the sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

CSP using a thin-wire snare has no additional benefit over thick-wire snares in small colorectal polyps. Factors other than snare design may play a role in improving CSP outcomes.

Assessment of submucosal distortion and mass effect seen at follow-up after colorectal EMR with ORISE (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

ORISE (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Mass, USA) is a viscous gel used for submucosal injection. We noted anecdotally that ORISE is associated with submucosal distortion of EMR scars at follow-up.

METHODS

We blindly reviewed photographs of 30 consecutive EMR scars at follow-up after resections using ORISE and 30 resections using other agents. Distortion was scored on a scale of 0 (no submucosal distortion) to 5 (overt submucosal distortion).

RESULTS

The median submucosal distortion score at follow-up in ORISE cases was 3 (range, 0-5) versus 0 (range, 0-2) with other fluids (P < .001, Mann-Whitney U test) by 1 reviewer and 3 (range, 0-5) versus 2 (range, 0-5), respectively, by a second reviewer (P = .018). The kappa value for agreement in the submucosal distortion scores between the 2 experts was .148 for all photographs and .214 for the ORISE cases (overall minimal agreement).

CONCLUSIONS

ORISE can cause submucosal distortion in the region of EMR scars when they are viewed at follow-up. Such distortions must not be mistaken for submucosal tumor growth.

Endoscopic submucosal resection: a technique using novel devices for incision and resection of neoplastic lesions

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are established techniques for treatment of superficial gastrointestinal neoplasia. Limitations of EMR are low en bloc resection rates for larger lesions, resulting in frequent recurrences. Major disadvantages of ESD are technical difficulty and long procedure times. We evaluated technical feasibility and safety of newly designed devices for en bloc resection of lesions measuring 20-40 mm in a technique called endoscopic submucosal resection (ESR).

METHODS

This case series included 93 lesions from different locations (11 stomach, 25 colon, 57 rectum) with a median size of 29 mm (range 10-70). ESR was performed using two novel instruments for circumferential mucosal incision and deep submucosal resection, respectively.

RESULTS

Resection by ESR was feasible in all cases. En bloc and R0 rates were insufficient when ESR was attempted without prior circumferential mucosal incision, but were 70 % and 63 %, respectively, when mucosal incision was done before application of the submucosal resection device. We observed three complications (two delayed bleedings, one microperforation) but no cases of emergency surgery or 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Results demonstrated feasibility and excellent safety of ESR using two novel devices for en bloc resection of early gastrointestinal neoplasia. The technique offered relative technical ease and high efficacy.

Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection for Colorectal Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) with an over-the-scope full-thickness resection device is a relatively new technique for the resection of colorectal lesions. Multiple centers have published the results of case series and observational cohorts regarding the use of this technique for managing difficult polyps. This study aims to aggregate the results of these studies to determine the effectiveness and safety of this technique in the resection of these technically challenging colonic lesions.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched. Articles were included if they reported technical success rate for EFTR of colonic lesions. The primary outcome was technical success rate and secondary outcomes included rate of R0 resection and overall 30-d morbidity. DerSimonian and Laird random-effects meta-analysis of proportions was used to generate effect sizes for pooled outcomes.

RESULTS

From 2211 citations, 21 studies with 1539 patients (mean age 67.2 y, 39.5% female) undergoing 1551 procedures were included. Difficult to resect benign lesions were the most commonly excised lesions (hyperplastic: 35.9%; adenomas: 30.2%), followed by T1 adenocarcinomas (25.6%) and neuroendocrine tumors (6.1%). Technical success rate was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI] 87-92), and R0 resection rate was 79% (95% CI 76-82). Mean procedure time was 53.5 min and mean specimen size was 17.5 mm. Overall 30-d morbidity was 11% (95% CI 7-13), and incidences of perforation and postpolypectomy bleeding were 2% (95% CI 1-2) and 5% (95% CI 3-7), respectively. Lesion recurrence at 3-mo follow-up was 8%.

CONCLUSIONS

EFTR requires further large sample size, comparative studies with reporting of long-term oncologic data. However, preliminary findings indicate that it is a safe and effective technique with high rates of technical success and acceptable rates of R0 resection when employed by experienced endoscopists for high-risk colonic lesions.

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.