Effectiveness and safety of the different endoscopic resection methods for 10- to 20-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: A systematic review and pooled analysis

Efficacy-cost analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection and cold snare polypectomy: A propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Although substantial evidence supports the advantages of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) in terms of polypectomy efficacy and reduced postoperative adverse events, few studies have examined the cost differences between CSP and traditional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for the treatment of intestinal polyps.

AIM

To compare the efficacy-cost of EMR and CSP in the treatment of intestinal polyps.

METHODS

A total of 100 patients with intestinal polyps were included in the retrospective data of our hospital from April 2022 to May 2023. According to the treatment methods, they were divided into EMR (n = 46) group and CSP (n = 54) group. The baseline data of the two groups were balanced by 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), and the cost-effectiveness analysis was performed on the two groups after matching. The recurrence rate of the two groups of patients was followed up for 1 year, and they were divided into recurrence group and non-recurrence group according to whether they recurred. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to screen out the influencing factors affecting the recurrence of intestinal polyps after endoscopic resection.

RESULTS

Significant disparities were observed in the number of polyps and smoking background between the two groups before PSM (P < 0.05). Following PSM, the number of polyps and smoking history were well balanced between the EMR and CSP groups. The direct cost incurred by the CSP group was markedly higher than that incurred by the EMR group. Concurrently, the cost-effectiveness ratio in the CSP group was substantially reduced when juxtaposed with that in the EMR group (P < 0.05). Upon completion of the 1-year follow-up, the rate of recurrence after endoscopic intestinal polypectomy was 38.00%. Multivariate methods revealed that age ≥ 60 years, male sex, number of polyps ≥ 3, and pathological type of adenoma were risk factors for recurrence after endoscopic intestinal polypectomy (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

CSP was more cost-effective for the treatment of intestinal polyps. An age ≥ 60 years, male sex, having a number of polyps ≥ 3, and pathological type of adenoma are independent influencing factors for recurrence.

Efficacy of cold piecemeal EMR of medium to large adenomas compared with sessile serrated lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is growing evidence for the role of cold piecemeal EMR (C-EMR) in the treatment of colorectal lesions ≥10 mm. However, it is unclear if C-EMR is equally efficacious for all histologic subtypes and sizes. This retrospective study compares the efficacy and safety of C-EMR in the resection of medium (10-19 mm) and large (≥20 mm) serrated and adenomatous lesions.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of Paris IIa colonic lesions resected by using a C-EMR technique over a 3.5-year period at our center.

RESULTS

C-EMR was performed for 242 lesions in 151 patients. Lesion size ranged between 10 and 50 mm, with a median size of 20 mm. Ninety-five polyps were adenomatous, with 147 sessile serrated lesions (SSLs). At 6-month surveillance colonoscopy, the combined recurrence rate was 6.2%. Adenomas ≥20 mm showed a higher rate of recurrence (16.1%) compared with large SSLs (4.1%), medium adenomas (3.0%), and medium SSLs (1.4%). There were no adverse events reported after C-EMR.

CONCLUSIONS

C-EMR seems to be less effective for the resection of large adenomas compared with medium adenomas or large SSLs. C-EMR is equally safe for all lesion sizes and histology.

Comparative meta-analysis of cold snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: assessing efficacy and safety

Colorectal polyps are commonly treated with surgical procedures, with cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) being the two most prevalent techniques. This meta-analysis (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022336152) aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of CSP and EMR in the management of colorectal polyps. Comprehensive searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases, covering publications up until June 2024. The primary outcome was complete resection rate, and secondary outcomes included en bloc resection rate, immediate and delayed bleeding, perforation, and procedure time. The Mantel-Haenszel method was employed for the analysis of binary endpoints, while the inverse variance method was used for continuous outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Six studies involving 15,296 patients and 17,971 polyps were included in the meta-analysis. CSP had a significantly lower complete resection rate compared to EMR (OR: 0.44, 95% CI [0.21-0.94], p = 0.0334). However, there was no significant difference between CSP and EMR in en bloc resection rate, perforation, or procedure time. Interestingly, CSP had a significantly lower delayed bleeding rate compared to EMR (OR: 0.45, 95% CI [0.27-0.77], p = 0.0034), but there was no significant difference in immediate bleeding rate. In conclusion, CSP is a safe, efficient, and effective technique comparable to EMR. The choice of technique should be based on the individual patient and polyp characteristics.

Endoscopic resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps: current standards of treatment

Colorectal cancer is a significant public health concern, and large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps pose a substantial risk for malignancy and incomplete resection, which may lead to interval cancer. The choice of resection technique is influenced by various factors, including polyp size, morphology, location, submucosal invasion depth and endoscopist expertise. For non-cancerous superficial large non-pedunculated polyps, conventional hot or cold snare polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection are common techniques for non-surgical therapeutic endoscopic resection of these polyps. This manuscript provides a comprehensive review of literature on current endoscopic resection techniques for large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps, emphasising indications, advantages, limitations and outcomes.

Cold EMR vs. Hot EMR for the removal of sessile serrated polyps larger than 10 mm: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) appears to be a promising technique for the removal of sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) ≥ 10 mm. To assess the effectiveness and safety of EMR for removing SSPs ≥ 10 mm, we conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

We conducted a thorough search of Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for relevant studies reporting on EMR of SSPs ≥ 10 mm, up until December 2023. Our primary endpoints of interest were rates of technical success, residual SSPs, and adverse events (AE).

RESULTS

Our search identified 426 articles, of which 14 studies with 2262 SSPs were included for analysis. The rates of technical success, AEs, and residual SSPs were 100%, 2.0%, and 3.1%, respectively. Subgroup analysis showed that the technical success rates were the same for polyps 10-19 and 20 mm, and en-bloc and piecemeal resection. Residual SSPs rates were similar in en-bloc and piecemeal resection, but much lower in cold EMR (1.0% vs. 4.2%, P = 0.034). AEs rates were reduced in cold EMR compared to hot EMR (0% vs. 2.9%, P = 0.168), in polyps 10-19 mm compared to 20 mm (0% vs. 4.1%, P = 0.255), and in piecemeal resection compared to en-bloc (0% vs. 0.7%, P = 0.169).

CONCLUSIONS

EMR is an effective and safe technique for removing SSPs ≥ 10 mm. The therapeutic effect of cold EMR is superior to that of hot EMR, with a lower incidence of adverse effects.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023388959.

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.

Safety and efficacy of cold endoscopic mucosal resection vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for treatment of 10-19 mm colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND

Colorectal polyps are important precancerous lesions in colorectal cancer, which require timely endoscopic treatment. For different extents of polyps, different therapies have different efficacy and safety. This study explored the efficacy and safety of two different methods for treating 10-19 mm colorectal polyps, with an aim to provide guidance for clinical treatment of colorectal polyps.

AIM

To compare the safety and efficacy of cold endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in the treatment of 10-19 mm colorectal polyps.

METHODS

A total of 192 patients with 371 colorectal polyps measuring 10-19 mm, who were hospitalized at the First Affiliated Hospital of Huzhou University from January 2021 to December 2022, were included in this study. The patients underwent either C-EMR or conventional EMR for the colorectal polyps. Age, gender, intestinal preparation score, polyp diameter, location, Paris endoscopic classification, histopathological type, complete resection rate, complete histological resection rate, incidence of complications, resection time, number of hemostatic clips used, and postoperative recurrence were compared between the two groups of patients.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in age, sex, intestinal preparation score, Paris endoscopic classification, histopathological classification, size, location, complete resection rate, or complete histological resection rate between the two groups (P > 0.05). Immediate intraoperative bleeding occurred in 5.5% (10/181) of polyps and 7.4% (7/95) of patients in the C-EMR group, and the corres-ponding percentages in the EMR group were 2.6% (5/190) and 3.1% (3/97); the difference was not statistically significant between the two groups (P > 0.05). Postoperative delayed bleeding occurred in 0.6% (1/181) of polyps and 1.1% (1/95) of patients in the C-EMR group, and the corresponding percentages in the EMR group were 5.8% (11/190) and 7.2% (7/97); the difference was statistically significant between the two groups (P < 0.05). There was no occurrence of delayed perforation during or after surgery in either group. The average resection time was significantly shorter in the C-EMR group than that of the conventional EMR group [(3.15 ± 0.61) min vs (3.46 ± 0.42) min, P < 0.05]. The average number of hemostatic clips used in the C-EMR group was (1.31 ± 0.88), which was significantly less than that of the conventional EMR group (1.65 ± 0.61; P < 0.05). A total of 164 polyps were followed for 9 to 23 mo in the two groups of patients. The total recurrence rate after resection was 2.44%, and the recurrence rate of C-EMR (2.53%) was higher than that of the conventional EMR group (2.35%), but with no statistical significance (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

C-EMR and conventional EMR have similar therapeutic effects in the treatment of 10-19 mm colorectal polyps, but C-EMR has a shorter treatment time, lower incidence of delayed bleeding, and higher safety and economic benefit ratio.

Endoscopic mucosal resection-precutting vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for sessile colorectal polyps sized 10-20 mm

BACKGROUND

The optimal method to remove sessile colorectal lesions sized 10-20 mm remains uncertain. Piecemeal and incomplete resection are major limitations in current practice, such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and cold or hot snare polypectomy. Recently, EMR with circumferential precutting (EMR-P) has emerged as an effective technique, but the quality of current evidence in comparative studies of conventional EMR (CEMR) and EMR-P is limited.

AIM

To investigate whether EMR-P is superior to CEMR in removing sessile colorectal polyps.

METHODS

This multicenter randomized controlled trial involved seven medical institutions in China. Patients with colorectal polyps sized 10-20 mm were enrolled and randomly assigned to undergo EMR-P or CEMR. EMR-P was performed following submucosal injection, and a circumferential mucosa incision (precutting) was conducted using a snare tip. Primary outcomes included a comparison of the rates of en bloc and R0 resection, defined as one-piece resection and one-piece resection with histologically assessed clear margins, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 110 patients in the EMR-P group and 110 patients in the CEMR group were finally evaluated. In the per-protocol analysis, the proportion of en bloc resections was 94.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 88.2%-97.4%] in the EMR-P group and 86% (95%CI: 78.2%-91.3%) in the CEMR group (P = 0.041), while subgroup analysis showed that for lesions > 15 mm, EMR-P also resulted in a higher en bloc resection rate (92.0% vs 58.8% P = 0.029). The proportion of R0 resections was 81.1% (95%CI: 72.6%-87.4%) in the EMR-P group and 76.6% (95%CI: 68.8%-84.4%) in the CEMR group (P = 0.521). The EMR-P group showed a longer median procedure time (6.4 vs 3.0 min; P < 0.001). No significant difference was found in the proportion of patients with adverse events (EMR-P: 9.1%; CEMR: 6.4%; P = 0.449).

CONCLUSION

In this study, EMR-P served as an alternative to CEMR for removing nonpedunculated colorectal polyps sized 10-20 mm, particularly polyps > 15 mm in diameter, with higher R0 and en bloc resection rates and without increasing adverse events. However, EMR-P required a relatively longer procedure time than CEMR. Considering its potential benefits for en bloc and R0 resection, EMR-P may be a promising technique in colorectal polyp resection.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: Best Practices for Gastrointestinal Endoscopists

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an endoscopic technique used to remove sessile or flat lesions from the gastrointestinal tract. This article reviews EMR and focuses on large colorectal polyps, which constitute the most common indication for EMR. Various methods of polyp evaluation can help gastroenterologists determine whether EMR is feasible and whether referral to an advanced endoscopist may be necessary. Techniques for performing EMR include conventional hot-snare EMR with submucosal injection and electro-cautery snare removal of colorectal lesions, as well as alternative EMR techniques such as cold-snare EMR and underwater EMR. Key adverse events associated with EMR include bleeding, perforation, and post-polypectomy coagulation syndrome. Finally, as residual or recurrent polyp formation is possible regardless of EMR technique, this article addresses the importance of surveillance post-EMR and the patients who are at highest risk for polyp recurrence.