Efficacy and safety of cold-snare endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal adenomas 10 to 14 mm in size: a prospective observational study

Efficacy and Safety of Cold Versus Hot Snare Endoscopic Mucosal Resection in Colorectal Polyp Removal: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) is hypothesized to offer a safety advantage over hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (H-EMR). The primary objective of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of C-EMR versus H-EMR for the management of colorectal lesions.

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled odds ratios (ORs) for comparing outcomes between the C-EMR and H-EMR groups.

RESULTS

The pooled OR for complete resection rates were estimated at 0.70 (95% CI: 0.36-1.36, P =0.29) and en bloc rates were 0.24 (95% CI: 0.05-1.08, P=0.06) between C-EMR group and H-EMR group. The overall complete resection rate for C-EMR was 84%, and the en bloc resection rate was 57. Notably, C-EMR was associated with a significantly lower incidence of delayed bleeding. The recurrence rate of polyps was very low (2%) when treating sessile serrated polyp (SSP) lesions, but higher (23%) for non-SSP lesions. Subgroup analysis revealed minimal recurrence of polyps after using C-EMR for lesions between 10 to 20 mm and ≥20 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggests that C-EMR could be a safer and equally effective alternative to H-EMR for resecting colorectal lesions. We recommend C-EMR as the preferred method for excising large colorectal lesions.

Cold endoscopic mucosal resection versus cold snare polypectomy for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Cold resection of colorectal lesions is widely performed because of its safety and effectiveness; however, it remains uncertain whether adding submucosal injection could improve the efficacy and safety. We aimed to compare cold endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) versus cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for colorectal lesions.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. The primary outcome was complete resection. Secondary outcomes were procedure time, en bloc resection, and adverse events (AEs). Prespecified subgroup analyses based on the size and morphology of the polyps were performed. The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference, with corresponding 95%CIs, for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I 2 statistics.

RESULTS

7 RCTs were included, comprising 1556 patients, with 2287 polyps analyzed. C-EMR and CSP had similar risk ratios for complete resection (RR 1.02, 95%CI 0.98-1.07), en bloc resection (RR 1.08, 95%CI 0.82-1.41), and AEs (RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.41-1.32). C-EMR had a longer procedure time (mean difference 42.1 seconds, 95%CI 14.5-69.7 seconds). In stratified subgroup analyses, the risk was not statistically different between C-EMR and CSP for complete resection in polyps<10 mm or ≥10 mm, or for complete resection, en bloc resection, and AEs in the two groups among nonpedunculated polyps.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that C-EMR has similar efficacy and safety to CSP, but significantly increases the procedure time.

PROSPERO

CRD42023439605.

Low-power pure-cut hot snare polypectomy for colorectal polyps 10-14 mm in size: a multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Hot snare excision using electrocautery is widely used for large colorectal polyps (>10 mm); however, adverse events occur due to deep thermal injury. Colorectal polyps measuring 10-14 mm rarely include invasive cancer. Therefore, less invasive therapeutic options for this size category are demanding. We have developed hot snare polypectomy with low-power pure-cut current (LPPC HSP), which is expected to contribute to less deep thermal damage and lower risk of adverse events. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LPPC HSP for 10-14 mm colorectal polyps, compared with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).

METHODS

In this multicenter, retrospective, observational study, clinical outcomes of EMR and LPPC HSP for 10-14 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps between January 2021 and March 2022 were compared using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

We identified 203 EMR and 208 LPPC HSP cases. After propensity score matching, the baseline characteristics between the groups were comparable, with 120 pairs. The en bloc and R0 resection rates were not significantly different between EMR and LPPC HSP groups (95.8% vs 97.5%, P = 0.72; 90.0% vs 91.7%, P = 0.82). The rates of delayed bleeding and perforation did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with conventional EMR, LPPC HSP showed a similar resection ability without an increase in adverse events. These results suggest that LPPC HSP is a safe and effective treatment for 10-14 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps.

A novel low-power pure-cut hot snare polypectomy for 10-14 mm colorectal adenomas: An ex vivo and a clinical prospective feasibility study (SHARP trial)

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Hot snare polypectomy using blend or coagulation current is widely used; however, it causes deeper tissue heat injury, leading to adverse events. We hypothesized that hot polypectomy using low-power pure cut current (PureCut, effect 1 10 W) could reduce deeper tissue heat injury. We conducted animal experiments to evaluate the deeper tissue heat injury and conducted a prospective clinical study to examine its cutting ability.

METHODS

In a porcine rectum, hot polypectomy using Blend current (EndoCut, effect 3 40 W) and low-power pure cut current was performed. The deepest part of heat destruction and thickness of the non-burned submucosal layer were evaluated histologically. Based on the results, we performed low-power pure cut current hot polypectomy for 10-14 mm adenoma. The primary endpoint was complete resection defined as one-piece resection with negative for adenoma in quadrant biopsies from the defect margin.

RESULTS

In experiments, all low-power pure-cut resections were limited within the submucosal layer whereas blend current resections coagulated the muscular layer in 13% (3/23). The remaining submucosal layer was thicker in low-power pure cut current than in blend current resections. In the clinical study, low-power pure-cut hot polypectomy removed all 100 enrolled polyps. For 98 pathologically neoplastic polyps, complete resection was achieved in 84 (85.7%, 95% confidence interval, 77-92%). The lower limit of the 95% confidence interval was not more than 15% below the pre-defined threshold of 86.6%. No severe adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel low-power pure-cut hot polypectomy may be feasible for adenoma measuring 10-14 mm. (UMIN000037678).

Mucosa color and size may indicate malignant transformation of chicken skin mucosa-positive colorectal neoplastic polyps

BACKGROUND

Lipid metabolism reprogramming is suspected to exist in pre-cancerous lesions, including colorectal adenoma. Screening colonoscopy frequently reveals chicken skin mucosa (CSM; white or yellow-white speckled mucosa) surrounding colorectal polyps, caused by macrophages engulfing and accumulating the lipids decomposed by colon cells or adjacent tumors. CSM-positive colorectal polyps are associated with various diseases; however, their prognosis varies greatly. Cold snare polypectomy is commonly used to resect lesions up to 10 to 15 mm in diameter without signs of submucosal invasion but is controversial for CSM-positive colorectal polyps. Improved imaging is required to diagnose and treat CSM-positive colorectal polyps.

AIM

To highlight the clinical significance of CSM surrounding colorectal polyps and clarify the associated treatment for endoscopists.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 177 patients with CSM-positive colorectal polyps diagnosed using endoscopy. All patient-related information was extracted from the Goldisc soft-clinic DICOM system or electronic medical record system. Based on the pathological results, patients were classified as non-neoplastic polyps (five juvenile polyps), neoplastic polyps, non-invasive high-grade neoplasia (NHGN), or submucosal invasive carcinoma (SM stage cancer). We analyzed and compared the clinical features, suspected risk factors for malignant transformation of neoplastic polyps, and early infiltration of submucosal carcinoma.

RESULTS

The diameters of NHGN and SM polyps were much smaller than those of neoplastic polyps. Most NHGN polyps had a deeper red mucosal color. On logistic regression analyses, diameter and deeper red mucosal color were independent risk factors for malignant transformation of neoplastic polyps. Type 1 CSM was more common in high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia and SM; type 2 CSM was more common in neoplastic polyps. Logistic regression analyses revealed no significant differences in the malignant transformation of neoplastic polyps or early submucosal invasion of CSM-positive colorectal cancer. Changes in the CSM mucosa surrounding neoplastic polyps and submucosal invasion of colorectal cancer disappeared within 12 months. No tumor recurrence was found during either partial or complete endoscopic resection of the CSM.

CONCLUSION

CSM-positive colorectal polyps > 1 cm in diameter or with deeper red mucosa may be related to NHGN. Resection of CSM surrounding colorectal adenomas did not affect tumor recurrence.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Appropriate and Tailored Polypectomy: Expert Review

DESCRIPTION

In this Clinical Practice Update (CPU), we provide guidance on the appropriate use of different polypectomy techniques. We focus on polyps <2 cm in size that are most commonly encountered by the practicing endoscopist, including use of classification systems to characterize polyps and various polypectomy methods. We review characteristics of polyps that require complex polypectomy techniques and provide guidance on which types of polyps require more advanced management by a therapeutic endoscopist or surgeon. This CPU does not provide a detailed review of complex polypectomy techniques, such as endoscopic submucosal dissection, which should only be performed by endoscopists with advanced training.

METHODS

This expert review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute CPU Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. These Best Practice Advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: A structured visual assessment using high-definition white light and/or electronic chromoendoscopy and with photodocumentation should be conducted for all polyps found during routine colonoscopy. Closely inspect colorectal polyps for features of submucosally invasive cancer. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Use cold snare polypectomy for polyps <10 mm in size. Cold forceps polypectomy can alternatively be used for 1- to 3-mm polyps where cold snare polypectomy is technically difficult. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Do not use hot forceps polypectomy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Clinicians should be familiar with various techniques, such as cold and hot snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection, to ensure effective, safe, and optimal resection of intermediate-size polyps (10-19 mm). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Consider using lifting agents or underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for removal of sessile polyps 10-19 mm in size. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Serrated polyps should be resected using cold resection techniques. Submucosal injection may be helpful for polyps >10 mm if margins cannot be well delineated. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Use hot snare polypectomy to remove pedunculated lesions >10 mm in size. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Do not routinely use clips to close resection sites for polyps <20 mm. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Refer patients with polyps to endoscopic referral centers in the context of size ≥20 mm, challenging polypectomy location, or recurrent polyp at a prior polypectomy site. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Tattoo lesions that may need future localization at endoscopy or surgery. Tattoos should be placed in a location that will not interfere with subsequent attempts at endoscopic resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Refer patients with nonpedunculated polyps with clear evidence of submucosally invasive cancer for surgical evaluation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Understand the endoscopy suite's electrosurgical generator settings appropriate for polypectomy or postpolypectomy thermal techniques.

Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection for colon polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

 Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) can reduce the risks associated with electrocautery during colon polyp resection. Data on efficacy are variable. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the pooled efficacy and safety rates of CS-EMR.

METHODS

 We conducted a comprehensive literature search of multiple databases, from inception to March 2023, for studies addressing outcomes of CS-EMR for colon polyps. The weighted pooled estimates with 95 %CIs were calculated using the random effects model. I2 statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity.

RESULTS

 4137 articles were reviewed, and 16 studies, including 2592 polyps in 1922 patients (51.4 % female), were included. Overall, 54.4 % of polyps were adenomas, 45 % were sessile serrated lesions (SSLs), and 0.6 % were invasive carcinomas. Polyp recurrence after CS-EMR was 6.7 % (95 %CI 2.4 %-17.4 %, I2  = 94 %). The recurrence rate was 12.3 % (95 %CI 3.4 %-35.7 %, I2  = 94 %) for polyps ≥ 20 mm, 17.1 % (95 %CI 4.6 %-46.7 %, I2  = 93 %) for adenomas, and 5.7 % (95 %CI 3.2 %-9.9 %, I2  = 50 %) for SSLs. The pooled intraprocedural bleeding rate was 2.6 % (95 %CI 1.5 %-4.5 %, I2  = 51 %), the delayed bleeding rate was 1.5 % (95 %CI 0.8 %-2.7 %, I2  = 18 %), and no perforations or post-polypectomy syndromes were reported, with estimated rates of 0.6 % (95 %CI 0.3 %-1.3 %, I2  = 0 %) and 0.6 % (95 %CI 0.3 %-1.4 %, I2  = 0 %), respectively.

CONCLUSION

 CS-EMR demonstrated an excellent safety profile for colon polyps, with variable recurrence rates based on polyp size and histology. Large prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.

The efficacy and safety of cold snare polypectomy with submucosal injection for the removal of polyps less than 20 mm in size: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Neoplastic polyp removal is important for colorectal cancer prevention. Endoscopists have proposed cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) as a solution to solve positive cutting edges and postoperative bleeding. However, many controversies regarding its specific performance in practice have been reported. The aim of this pooled analysis was to report the efficacy and safety of CS-EMR.

METHODS

PubMed/Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library searched up to January 2022 to identify studies in which CS-EMR was performed for the removal of colorectal polyps measuring less than 20 mm. The primary outcome was the complete resection rate (CRR), and the secondary outcome was the rate of adverse events.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were included in the final analysis, which included 861 colorectal polyps. The overall CRR with CS-EMR was 96.3% (95% CI, 93.9-98.2%). The early and delayed bleeding rates of CS-EMR were 3.1% (95% CI, 1.2-5.5%) and 1.4% (95% CI, 0.6-2.4%), respectively. There were no statistical significances between CS-EMR and cold snare polypectomy (CSP) in terms of the CRR and adverse events, as well as CS-EMR and hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (HS-EMR).

CONCLUSIONS

For resecting colorectal polyps measuring ≤20 mm, CS-EMR is an effective attempt. However, compared with CSP and HS-EMR, CS-EMR did not improve the efficiency and safety of polypectomy as expected. Multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to compare CSP with CS-EMR in the resection of <10 mm polyps and HSP with CS-EMR in the resection of ≥10 mm 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.

Efficacy and Safety of Cold Snare Polypectomy of Colorectal Polyps 10-15 mm with a Hybrid Snare: A Prospective Observational Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is a safe and effective procedure for small colorectal polyps ≤9 mm. There are only limited data regarding CSP of larger neoplastic lesions. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of CSP for polyps between 10 and 15 mm in size.

METHODS

In this prospective single-arm observational pilot study, patients with a least one polyp 10-15 mm were included. These polyps were preferably removed by CSP using a dedicated hybrid snare. The primary outcome was the histological complete resection rate (CRR) determined by pathologically negative margins of the specimen and no neoplastic tissue obtained from biopsies of the resection site margin. Secondary outcomes were en bloc resection rate, failure of CSP, and incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 61 neoplastic polyps were removed from 39 patients. Overall CRR was 80.3% (49/61). CSP was feasible in 78.7% (48/61) of polyps and the CRR in this group was 85.4% (41/48). When CSP failed (13/61; 21.3%), lesions were successfully resected by immediate HSP using the same snare with a CRR of 61.5% (8/13) in this group. One patient presented delayed hemorrhage after HSP of a polyp but successful hemostasis was achieved with two hemoclips. No other adverse events occurred. No recurrence was seen on follow-up colonoscopy in cases with incomplete resected polyps.

CONCLUSION

CSP seems to be efficient and safe in removing colorectal polyps up to 15 mm. A hybrid snare seems to be particularly advantageous for these polyps as it allows immediate conversion to HSP if CSP might fail in larger polyps. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04464837).

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.

Endoscopic mucosal resection using cold snare versus hot snare in treatment for 10-19 mm non-pedunculated colorectal polyps: protocol of a non-inferiority randomised controlled study

INTRODUCTION

Cold polypectomy has the advantages of simple operation, less time-consuming and fewer complications. Guidelines have recommended cold snare polypectomy (CSP) to resect small polyps sized ≤5 mm and sessile polyps sized 6-9 mm. However, evidence is scarce regarding cold resection for non-pedunculated polyps sized ≥10 mm. Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) combining CSP and submucosal injection was designed to improve the complete resection rate and reduce adverse events. We hypothesise that CS-EMR is non-inferior to conventional hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (HS-EMR) in the resection of 10-19 mm non-pedunculated colorectal polyps.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, single-centre trial. Outpatients scheduled to undergo a colonoscopy and present eligible polyps will be randomised to receive either CS-EMR or HS-EMR. The primary endpoint is the complete resection. Considering that HS-EMR of 10-19 mm colorectal polyps will yield a complete resection rate of at least 92% and a non-inferiority margin of -10%, a total of 232 polyps will be included (one-sided α, 2.5%; β, 20%). The analyses are intended to evaluate first non-inferiority (lower limit 95% CI greater than -10% for group difference) and then superiority (lower limit 95% CI>0%) if non-inferiority is achieved. Secondary endpoints include en-bloc resection, the occurrence of adverse events, the use of endoscopic clips, resection time and cost.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the institutional review board of the Peking Union Medical College Hospital (No. K2203). All participants in the trial will provide written informed consent. The results of this trial will be published in an open-access way.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05545787.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer screening in China

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the colorectal cancer screening in China, and that when the screening was implemented in a specific region.

Methods

A 13-state Markov model was established to compare four screening protocols, including annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT1), biennial fecal immunochemical testing (FIT2), electronic colonoscopy every 10 years (e-CSPY10), and electronic colonoscopy every 5 years (e-CSPY5), with no screening from the perspective of Chinese healthcare system. The model simulated the health states of a cohort of 100,000 average-risk individuals aging from 50 to 75. Additionally, scenarios including the implementation in a specific region, starting from 40, and incompletely successful treatment of cancer were also analyzed.

Results

Annual and biennial FIT could save 8.13USD (US Dollar) and 44.96USD per person, and increase 0.0705QALYs (Quality-Adjusted Life Years) and 0.2341 QALYs compared with no screening, respectively. Annual FIT could decrease costs by 36.81USD per person and increase 0.1637 QALYs in comparison to biennial FIT. The results showed that both annual and biennial FIT for screening were dominant over no screening, and annual FIT was dominant over biennial FIT. The ICER (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio) for e-CSPY10 were 1183.51USD/QALY and 536.66USD/QALY compared with FIT1 and FIT2. The ICER for e-CSPY5 were 1158.16USD/QALY and 770.85USD/QALY compared with FIT1 and FIT2. And the ICER for e-CSPY5 relative to e-CSPY10 was 358.71USD/QALY. All the ICER values were lower than the economic threshold of 2021 Chinese GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per capita in 2021(12554.42USD).

Conclusions

It is worthwhile to popularize CRC screening in mainland China, as FIT always saving costs and colonoscopy is cost-effective. Regions with high income can take electronic colonoscopy every 10 years, or even every 5 years into consideration when determining the specific strategies.

Recurrence rates after endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Complete polyp resection is the main goal of endoscopic removal of large colonic polyps. Resection techniques have evolved in recent years and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with margin ablation, cold snare polypectomy (CSP), cold EMR, and underwater EMR have been introduced. Yet, efficacy of these techniques with regard to local recurrence rates (LRRs) vs traditional hot snare polypectomy and standard EMR remains unclear.

AIM

To analyze LRR of large colonic polyps in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL were searched for prospective studies reporting LRR or incomplete resection rate (IRR) after colonic polypectomy of polyps ≥ 10 mm, published between January 2011 and July 2021. Primary outcome was LRR for polyps ≥ 10 mm.

RESULTS

Six thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight publications were identified, of which 34 prospective studies were included. LRR for polyps ≥ 10 mm at up to 12 mo’ follow-up was 11.0% (95%CI, 7.1%-14.8%; 15 studies; 4904 polyps). ESD (1.7%; 95%CI, 0%-3.4%; 3 studies, 221 polyps) and endoscopic mucosal resection with margin ablation (3.3%; 95%CI, 2.2%-4.5%; 2 studies, 947 polyps) significantly reduced LRR vs standard EMR without (15.2%; 95%CI, 12.5%-18.0%; 4 studies, 650 polyps) or with unsystematic margin ablation (16.5%; 95%CI, 15.2%-17.8%; 6 studies, 3031 polyps).

CONCLUSION

LRR is significantly lower after ESD or EMR with routine margin ablation; thus, these techniques should be considered standard for endoscopic removal of large colorectal polyps. Other techniques, such as CSP, cold EMR, and underwater EMR require further evaluation in prospective studies before their routine implementation in clinical practice can be recommended.

Modified endoscopic mucosal resection techniques for treating precancerous colorectal lesions

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a technique allowing efficacious and minimally invasive resection of precancerous lesions across the entire gastrointestinal tract. However, conventional EMR, involving injection of fluid into the submucosal space, is imperfect, given the high rate of recurrence of post-endoscopic resection adenoma, especially after piecemeal resection. In light of these observations, modifications of the technique have been proposed to overcome the weakness of conventional EMR. Some of them were designed to maximize the chance of en bloc resection—cap-assisted EMR, underwater EMR, tip-in EMR, precutting, assisted by ligation device—while others were designed to minimize the complications (cold EMR). In this review, we present their modes of action and summarize the evidence regarding their efficacy and safety.

Indications and outcomes of endoscopic resection for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions: A narrative review

In the last years, endoscopic techniques gained a crucial role in the treatment of colorectal flat lesions. At the same time, the importance of a reliable assessment of such lesions to predict the malignancy and the depth of invasion of the colonic wall emerged. The current unsolved dilemma about the endoscopic excision techniques concerns the necessity of a reliable submucosal invasive cancer assessment system that can stratify the risk of the post-procedural need for surgery. Accordingly, this narrative literature review aims to compare the available diagnostic strategies in predicting malignancy and to give a guide about the best techniques to employ. We performed a literature search using electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library). We collected all articles about endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) registering the outcomes. Moreover, we analyzed all meta-analyses comparing EMR vs ESD outcomes for colorectal sessile or non-polypoid lesions of any size, preoperatively estimated as non-invasive. Seven meta-analysis studies, mainly Eastern, were included in the analysis comparing 124 studies and overall 22954 patients who underwent EMR and ESD procedures. Of these, eighty-two were retrospective, twenty-four perspective, nine case-control, and six cohorts, while three were randomized clinical trials. A total of 18118 EMR and 10379 ESD were completed for a whole of 28497 colorectal sessile or non-polypoid lesions > 5-10 mm in size. In conclusion, it is crucial to enhance the preoperative diagnostic workup, especially in deciding the most suitable endoscopic method for radical resection of flat colorectal lesions at risk of underlying malignancy. Additionally, the ESD necessitates further improvement because of the excessively time-consuming as well as the intraprocedural technical hindrances and related complications. We found a higher rate of en bloc resections and R0 for ESD than EMR for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions. Nevertheless, despite the lower local recurrence rates, ESD had greater perforation rates and needed lengthier procedural times. The prevailing risk for additional surgery in ESD rather than EMR for complications or oncologic reasons is still uncertain.