Utility of underwater EMR for nonpolypoid superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors ≤20 mm

Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Vs Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Superficial Nonampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors in the Western Setting

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) is established as the primary treatment modality for superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs), but recently underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) has emerged as a potential alternative. The majority of previous studies focused on Asian populations and small lesions (≤20 mm). We aimed to compare the efficacy and outcomes of U-EMR vs C-EMR for SNADETs in a Western setting.

METHODS

This was a retrospective multinational study from 10 European centers that performed both C-EMR and U-EMR between January 2013 and July 2023. The main outcomes were the technical success, procedure-related adverse events (AEs), and the residual/recurrent adenoma (RRA) rate, evaluated on a per-lesion basis. We assessed the association between the type of endoscopic mucosal resection and the occurrence of AEs or RRAs using mixed-effects logistic regression models (propensity scores). Sensitivity analyses were performed for lesions ≤20 mm or >20 mm.

RESULTS

A total of 290 SNADETs submitted to endoscopic resection during the study period met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed (C-EMR: n = 201, 69.3%; U-EMR: n = 89, 30.7%). The overall technical success rate was 95.5% and comparable between groups. In logistic regression models, compared with U-EMR, C-EMR was associated with a significantly higher frequency of overall delayed AEs (odds ratio [OR], 4.95; 95% CI, 2.87-8.53), postprocedural bleeding (OR, 7.92; 95% CI, 3.95-15.89), and RRAs (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.49-5.37). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results when solely considering either small (≤20 mm) or large (>20 mm) lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with C-EMR, U-EMR was associated with a lower rate of overall AEs and RRAs, regardless of lesion size. Our results confirm the possible role of U-EMR as an effective and safe technique in the management of SNADETs.

Resectability of Small Duodenal Tumors: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Cold Snare Polypectomy

INTRODUCTION

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) and cold snare polypectomy (CSP) are novel endoscopic procedures for superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADET). However, consensus on how to use both procedures appropriately has not been established. In this study, we evaluated treatment outcomes of both procedures, including resectability.

METHODS

In this single-center randomized controlled study conducted between January 2020 and June 2022, patients with SNADET ≤12 mm were randomly allocated to UEMR and CSP groups. The primary end point was sufficient vertical R0 resection (SVR0), which was defined as R0 resection including a sufficient submucosal layer. We compared treatment outcomes including SVR0 rate between groups.

RESULTS

The SVR0 rate was significantly higher in the UEMR group than in the CSP group (65.6% vs 41.5%, P = 0.01). By contrast, the R0 resection rate was not significantly different between study groups (70.3% vs 61.5%, P = 0.29). The submucosal layer thickness was significantly greater in the UEMR group than in the CSP group (median 546 [range, 309-833] μm vs 69 [0-295] μm, P < 0.01). CSP had a shorter total procedure time (median 12 [range, 8-16] min vs 1 [1-3] min, P < 0.01) and fewer total bleeding events (9.4% vs 1.5%, P = 0.06).

DISCUSSION

UEMR has superior vertical resectability compared with CSP, but CSP has a shorter procedure time and fewer bleeding events. Although CSP is preferable for most small SNADET, UEMR should be selected for lesions that cannot be definitively diagnosed as mucosal low-grade neoplasias.

Can underwater endoscopic mucosal resection be an alternative to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors?

Objectives

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a simpler procedure for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADET) than conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (cEMR). This study aimed to evaluate whether cEMR can be substituted by UEMR for SNADET in terms of effectiveness, safety, and learning curve.

Methods

A total of 157 consecutive patients with 203 SNADETs ≤20 mm in diameter, including 107 lesions resected by cEMR and 96 lesions resected by UEMR, between January 2019 and May 2023, were retrospectively recruited. The treatment outcomes were compared between the cEMR and UEMR groups. The risk factors for incomplete resection by UEMR were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses. Lesions in the UEMR group were divided chronologically into five periods; thereafter, the en bloc resection rate and procedure time were compared.

Results

No significant differences existed between the cEMR and UEMR groups in the mean procedure time (3.9 min vs. 3.6 min, p = 0.1380) or en bloc resection rate (91% vs. 94%, p = 0.4138). No perforation was observed in either group. Tumor size was an independent risk factor for incomplete resection using UEMR (p < 0.01). The history of biopsy was not associated with incomplete resection using UEMR. The en bloc resection rate of UEMR was 100% (20/20) in the first period and ranged from 90% to 100% over all periods.

Conclusion

UEMR is safe and effective for SNADET ≤20 mm, regardless of a history of biopsy, and is easy to learn. Thus, UEMR can serve as an alternative to cEMR.

Conventional versus underwater endoscopic resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Several endoscopic resection methods have been developed as less invasive treatments for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours. This study aimed to compare outcomes of conventional endoscopic mucosal resection and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours, including resection depth and rate of the muscularis mucosa contained under the lesion.

METHODS

This single-centre retrospective cohort study conducted from January 2009 to December 2021 enrolled patients who underwent conventional endoscopic mucosal resection and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours and investigated their clinicopathological outcomes using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Of the 285 superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours, 98 conventional endoscopic mucosal resections and 187 underwater endoscopic mucosal resections were included. After propensity score matching, 64 conventional endoscopic mucosal resections and 64 underwater endoscopic mucosal resections were analysed. The R0 resection rate was significantly higher in underwater endoscopic mucosal resection cases than in conventional endoscopic mucosal resection cases (70.3% vs. 50.0%; P = 0.030). In the multivariate analysis, a lesion diameter > 10 mm (odds ratio 7.246; P = 0.001), being in the 1st-50th treatment period (odds ratio 3.405; P = 0.008), and undergoing conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio 3.617; P = 0.016) were associated with RX/R1 resection. Furthermore, in underwater endoscopic mucosal resection cases, the R0 rate was significantly higher for lesions diameter ≤10 mm than >10 mm, and was significantly higher in the 51st-treatment period than in the 1st-50th period. Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection cases showed no significant difference in resection depth and muscularis mucosa containing rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection may be more acceptable than conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours ≤ 10 mm. A steep early learning curve may be acquired for underwater endoscopic mucosal resection. Large multicentre prospective studies need to be conducted to confirm the effectiveness of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection.

The 2022 top 10 list of endoscopy topics in medical publishing: an annual review by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Editorial Board

Using a systematic literature search of original articles published during 2022 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and other high-impact medical and gastroenterology journals, the 10-member Editorial Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy composed a list of the 10 most significant topic areas in GI endoscopy during the study year. Each Editorial Board member was directed to consider 3 criteria in generating candidate lists-significance, novelty, and global impact on clinical practice-and subject matter consensus was facilitated by the Chair through electronic voting. The 10 identified areas collectively represent advances in the following endoscopic spheres: artificial intelligence, endoscopic submucosal dissection, Barrett's esophagus, interventional EUS, endoscopic resection techniques, pancreaticobiliary endoscopy, management of acute pancreatitis, endoscopic environmental sustainability, the NordICC trial, and spiral enteroscopy. Each board member was assigned a consensus topic area around which to summarize relevant important articles, thereby generating this précis of the "top 10" endoscopic advances of 2022.

Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Versus Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Superficial Non-ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors ≤20 mm: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is increasingly applied in the treatment of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of UEMR for SNADETs ≤20 mm in comparison with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR).

METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched from 2012 until November 20, 2021: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science databases, and Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes were the rates of en bloc resection and complete (R0) resection, and the secondary outcomes were procedure time, adverse events (delayed bleeding and delayed perforation), and recurrence rate.

RESULTS

A total of 6 studies with 679 lesions (331 underwent UEMR and 348 CEMR) were included in this study. The pooled analysis showed that UMER achieves a similar en bloc resection rate (87.6 vs. 89.9%; odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 3.73; P =0.64; I2 =74%), a similar R0 resection rate (67.3 vs. 73.6%; OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.55 to 2.23; P =0.78; I2 =59%), a shorter procedure time (min) (mean difference [MD], -4.05, 95% CI: -6.40 to -1.71; P =0.0007; I2 =70%) compared with CEMR. There were no significant differences in the rates of delayed bleeding, delayed perforation, and recurrence (2.4 vs. 1.7%, 0 vs. 0.6%, 2.2 vs. 4.4%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that UEMR appears to be an effective and safe alternative to CEMR for SNADETs ≤20 mm.

Endoscopic Resection Techniques for Duodenal and Ampullary Adenomas

Background and Aims

Duodenal polyps have a reported incidence of 0.3% to 4.6%. Sporadic, nonampullary duodenal adenomas (SNDAs) comprise less than 10% of all duodenal polyps, and ampullary adenomas are even less common. Nonetheless, the incidence continues to rise because of widespread endoscopy use. Duodenal polyps with villous features or those that are larger than 10 mm may raise concern for malignancy and require removal. We demonstrate endoscopic resection of SNDAs and ampullary adenomas using some of our preferred techniques.

Methods

The duodenum has several components that can make EMR of duodenal polyps technically challenging. Not only does the duodenum have a thin muscle layer, but it is also highly mobile and vascular, which may explain higher rates of perforation and bleeding of duodenal EMR reported in the literature compared with colon EMR. A standard adult gastroscope with a distal cap is commonly used for duodenal EMRs. Based on the location, however, side-viewing duodenoscopes or pediatric colonoscopes may be used. To prepare for EMR, a submucosal injection is performed for an adequate lift. The polyp is then resected via stiff monofilament snares and subsequently closed with hemostatic clips if feasible. The ampullectomy technique differs slightly from duodenal EMRs and carries the additional risk of pancreatitis. Submucosal injection in the ampulla may not lift well; thus, its utility is debatable. Biliary sphincterotomy should be performed, and based on endoscopist preference, the pancreatic duct (PD) guidewire can be left during resection to maintain access. After resection, a PD stent is placed to minimize pancreatitis risk.

Results

The video shows the aforementioned duodenal EMR techniques. Two clips of ampullectomy are also shown in the video.

Conclusions

A few common techniques used to perform duodenal EMR and ampullectomy are highlighted in the video. It is important to understand and manage adverse events associated with these procedures and to have established surveillance plans.

Efficacy and safety of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for ≤20 mm superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and aims

Superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) as a rare disease have gradually increased in recent years. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has emerged as a newly available option for the endoscopic resection of SNADETs. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UEMR for ≤20 mm SNADETs.

Methods

A literature search was performed across multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Clinical trials for studies containing tumors ≤20 mm published from January 1, 2012, to August 8, 2022. Outcomes examined were the pooled rates of en bloc resection, R0 resection, adverse events, and recurrence. Subgroup analyses of the resection rate were conducted stratified by sample size and polyp size.

Results

A total of 10 studies with UEMR performed in a total of 648 tumors were included for analysis. The pooled rate of en bloc resection and R0 resection was 88.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 82.1-93.2) and 69.1% (95% CI: 62.2-76.1), respectively. The results showed pooled rate of intraoperative bleeding rate was 2.9% (95% CI: 0-9.0), delayed bleeding rate was 0.9% (95% CI: 0.1-2), recurrence rate was 1.5% (95% CI: 0-4.9). In the subgroup analysis, R0 and en-bloc resection rates were significantly higher in <10 mm than 10-20 mm SNADETs subgroups (R0 resection rate 83.1 vs. 48.6%; en bloc resection rate 100.0 vs. 84.0%, P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection was an effective and safe technique for the optional treatment for ≤20 mm SNADETs, especially of <10 mm.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022340578.

Endoscopic Surveillance and Treatment of Upper GI Tract Lesions in Patients with Familial Adenomatous Polyposis-A New Perspective on an Old Disease

Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is an autosomal dominant disease caused by a germline mutation in the adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) gene. Patients with FAP develop up to thousands of colorectal adenomas as well as lesions in the upper GI tract. In FAP, the upper digestive lesions include gastric fundic gland polyps (FGPs), antrum adenomas, duodenal or small intestinal adenomas, and carcinoma. Patients, after colectomy, are still at significant risk for extracolonic malignancies. Advances in endoscope resolution and optical enhancement technologies allow endoscopists to provide assessments of benign and malignant polyps. For this reason, in the past decades, endoscopic resection techniques have become the first line of treatment in patients with polyps in the upper GI, whereby polyps and even early cancers can be successfully cured. In FAP patients, endoscopic ampullectomy appears to be a safe and effective way of treating patients with ampullary tumors. According to current indications, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and stenting of the main pancreatic duct follow ampullectomy.

Underwater Versus Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Superficial Non-ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Duodenal underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has been suggested as a feasible treatment option for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). However, its efficacy and safety have not been fully established yet. Thus, the objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy and safety of UEMR as compared with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) in the treatment of SNADETs.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library. Studies comparing CEMR and UEMR for the resection of SNADET were included. Outcomes included en-bloc and complete resection rates, adverse events, and procedure time.

RESULTS

A total of six studies with 2454 lesions were included in the quantitative synthesis. En-bloc and complete resection rates were not significantly different between UEMR and CEMR (OR for en-bloc resection: 0.997 [95% CI 0.439-2.266]; OR for complete resection: 0.960 [95% CI 0.628-1.468]). There was no significant risk difference for perforation (risk difference: - 0.002; 95% CI - 0.009 to 0.005) or delayed bleeding (risk difference: - 0.001; 95% CI - 0.014 to 0.011). Procedure time was significantly shorter in the UEMR (standardized mean difference: - 1.294; 95% CI - 2.461 to - 0.127). The risk of recurrence was not significantly different between UEMR and CEMR (risk difference: 0.001; 95% CI - 0.041 to 0.044).

CONCLUSION

Although our results did not show any superiority of UEMR over CEMR in the treatment of SNADETs, UEMR showed equivalent efficacy and safety as compared with CEMR and was associated with a shorter procedure time.

A feasibility study comparing gel immersion endoscopic resection and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors

BACKGROUND

Although gel immersion endoscopic resection (GIER) is a potential alternative to underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) for superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs), comparisons between the two are currently insufficient.

METHODS

40 consecutive procedures performed in 35 patients were retrospectively reviewed; the primary outcome was procedure time, and the secondary outcomes were en bloc and R0 resection rates, tumor and specimen size, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Lesions were divided into GIER (n = 22) and UEMR groups (n = 18). The median (range) procedure time was significantly shorter in the GIER group than in the UEMR group (2.75 [1-3.5] minutes vs. 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 minutes; P = 0.01). The en bloc resection rate was 100 % in the GIER group, but only 83.3 % in the UEMR group. The R0 resection rate was significantly higher in the GIER group than in the UEMR group (95.5 % vs. 66.7 %; P = 0.03). The median specimen size was larger in the GIER group than in the UEMR group (14 mm vs. 7.5 mm; P < 0.001). The tumor size was not significantly different between the groups and no adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

GIER is efficacious and safe to treat SNADETs, although additional studies are needed.

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors ≤20mm: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is an emerging technique for endoscopic resection of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). However, compared to conventional EMR, its efficacy and safety has not been widely explored.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search using the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies comparing the efficacy and safety of UEMR versus EMR for SNADETs. The main outcomes examined included en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, recurrence rate, procedure time, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 5 studies comprising 635 patients were included. All the literature included duodenal lesions smaller than 20 mm. The pooled analysis showed that UEMR could achieve a higher en bloc resection rate (OR 1.78, 95%CI: 1.17 to 2.71, P = 0.007) and shorter procedure time (MD -4.08, 95%CI: -6.44 to -1.73, P = 0.0007) than EMR. However, the pooled results did not support a superiority of UEMR over EMR for R0 resection rate (OR 1.27; 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.81, P = 0.18) or recurrence rate (OR 0.49; 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.67, P = 0.26). The occurrence of adverse events, including postoperative bleeding, intraoperative perforation, and delayed perforation, was very low in included studies.

CONCLUSION

Compared to EMR, UEMR is an effective and safe technique for SNADETs ≤20 mm.

Gel Immersion Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) for Superficial Nonampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors May Reduce Procedure Time Compared with Underwater EMR (with Video)

Materials and Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in two municipal hospitals. We identified 24 patients with SNADETs of 3–18 mm in diameter who underwent UEMR or GIEMR. One lesion was excluded from the analysis because it was found to be in the stomach after surgery. The primary outcome was procedure time.

Results

GIEMR significantly reduced the procedure time compared with UEMR (5 min vs. 10 min, P = 0.016). There was no significant difference between the UEMR and GIEMR groups for en bloc resection rate (93% vs. 100%, P = 1.0) and R0 resection rate (57% vs. 80%, P = 0.39). No serious complications were observed in either group.

Conclusions

GIEMR of SNADET has the potential to reduce procedure time compared with UEMR and may be particularly effective in areas where immersion in water is difficult.

Magnified endoscopy with texture and color enhanced imaging with indigo carmine for superficial nonampullary duodenal tumor: a pilot study

This pilot study aimed to investigate the utility of texture and color enhancement imaging (TXI) with magnified endoscopy (ME) for the preoperative diagnosis of superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). We prospectively evaluated 12 SNADETs. The visibility for ME-TXI, ME with indigo carmine (ICME)—white-light imaging (WLI), ICME-TXI compared to ME-NBI (narrow-band imaging) was scored (+ 2 to − 2 ME-NBI was set as score 0) by 3 experts. Scores + 2 and + 1 were defined as improved visibility. The intra-observer and interobserver agreement for improved visibility of surface structure (SS) was evaluated. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) for Vienna Classification (VCL) C4/5 associated with the preoperative diagnosis of ICME-TXI were analyzed. The SS visibility score of ICME-TXI was significantly higher than that of ME-NBI, ME-TXI, and ICME-WLI (P < 0.001 respectively). The kappa coefficients of reliability for intra-observer and interobserver agreement for the SS visibility improvement with ICME-TXI were 0.96, 1.00, 1.00 and 0.70, 0.96, 0.96 respectively. All endoscopists preferred ICME-TXI for visualizing SS mostly for all lesions. The sensitivity, specificity, and PPV (%) of ICME-TXI for VCL C4/5 were 80, 66.7, and 63.2, respectively. ICME-TXI facilitates the visibility of the SS of SNADETs and may contribute to their preoperative diagnosis.

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (with videos): a single center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UMER) is a new method of endoscopic resection to completely remove the lesion without submucosal injection. But few attempts have been carried out for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (rectal NETs).

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated data on the tumor characteristics and outcomes of patients with ≤ 10 mm rectal NETs who underwent UEMR or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) from January 2019 to June 2021 in our institute.

RESULTS

The endoscopic resection rate was 100% in both UEMR and ESD groups. The histological complete resection rate of the UEMR group (95.5%) was lower than that of the ESD group (96.4%) with no significant difference. The average operation time, hospitalization time and operation cost of UEMR group were less than those of ESD group (P < 0.05). The incidence of postoperative abdominal pain and abdominal distention in the UEMR group was lower than that in the ESD group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of delayed bleeding and perforation between the two groups. There was no local recurrence or distant metastasis in the two groups during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the UEMR and ESD can effectively treat ≤ 10 mm rectal NETs with invasion depth confined to the mucosa and submucosa. UEMR is superior to ESD in operation time, hospitalization time, operation cost, postoperative abdominal pain and abdominal distention.

Appropriate selection of endoscopic resection for superficial nonampullary duodenal adenomas in association with recurrence

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The appropriate selection of endoscopic resection for relatively small superficial nonampullary duodenal adenomas (SNADAs) considering recurrence is not completely clarified. Therefore, this study investigated endoscopic resection utility (EMR, underwater EMR [UEMR], and cap-assisted EMR [EMRC]) for SNADAs from the viewpoint of recurrence and short-term outcomes.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients with sporadic SNADAs who underwent EMR, UEMR, and EMRC at Chiba University Hospital between May 2004 and March 2020 and were observed for ≥12 months after endoscopic resection (EMR, 34 patients, 36 lesions; UEMR, 54 patients, 55 lesions; and EMRC, 45 patients, 48 lesions). Outcomes were evaluated using weighted logistic regression analysis. The logistic regression analysis was weighted using propensity scores.

RESULTS

EMRC showed significantly higher en-bloc and R0 resection rates than EMR. All techniques were equally safe. Only 1 case each of intraoperative perforation and postoperative perforation (in 2 different patients) occurred, which were associated with EMRC. UEMR resulted in higher R0 resection and lower postbleeding rates than EMR. Moreover, patients who underwent UEMR showed no perforation. Median observation period per lesion after endoscopic resection was 84 months (range, 16-199) for patients who underwent EMR, 25 months (range, 12-60) for patients who underwent UEMR, and 63 months (range, 12-180) for patients who underwent EMRC. No significant difference was observed between EMR versus UEMR and between EMR versus EMRC in terms of recurrence (odds ratio, .20 [95% confidence interval, .01-2.86; P = .24] and .78 [95% confidence interval, .09-6.84; P = .82], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrence risk was not different for EMR, UEMR, and EMRC. Therefore, UEMR, a simple and safe procedure, could be the first choice for relatively small SNADAs. With larger prospective studies, UEMR data may turn out to be more robust, corroborating it as the endoscopic modality of choice for certain SNADAs.