Endoscopic mucosal resection with circumferential incision for the treatment of large sessile polyps and laterally spreading tumors of the colorectum

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection as a salvage option for difficult colorectal conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

When total submucosal dissection is difficult to achieve during conventional colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD), the lesion can be resected by final snaring through salvage hybrid ESD (SH-ESD). This study aimed to examine the outcomes of SH-ESD and identify its indications that could achieve en bloc resection.

METHODS

We recruited 1039 consecutive patients with colorectal lesions that underwent ESD at Hiroshima University Hospital between January 2015 and December 2020. C-ESD was attempted thoroughly in 924 lesions (C-ESD group, including 9 lesions in which ESD was discontinued), and SH-ESD was performed owing to some difficulties in 115 lesions (SH-ESD group). Risk factors for incomplete resection by SH-ESD and ESD discontinuation were evaluated using multivariate analysis. The outcomes were compared between cases with remaining undissected submucosa of < 20 mm in diameter in the SH-ESD and C-ESD groups, using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis revealed that a procedure time > 80 min and remaining undissected submucosa ≥ 20 mm in diameter were significant risk factors for incomplete resection after SH-ESD and ESD discontinuation. By propensity score matching analysis, procedure time was significantly shorter in the SH-ESD group with remaining undissected submucosa < 20 mm in diameter than in the C-ESD group (71 min vs. 90 min, p = 0.0053), although no significant difference was found in the en bloc resection rate (94% vs. 87%, p = 0.0914).

CONCLUSION

SH-ESD can be an alternative surgical method when conventional ESD is difficult to continue in cases in which the remaining undissected submucosa is < 20 mm in diameter.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection, Endoscopic Mucosal Resection, and Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Management of Rectal and Anorectal Lesions: A Narrative Review

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), and transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) are modern techniques that now play a crucial role in the treatment of colorectal lesions. ESD is a minimally invasive endoscopic procedure that allows for the resection of lesions of any size in a single piece, with clear advantages regarding oncological outcomes and recurrences. However, it is a complex technique, requiring high endoscopic skills, expertise, and specialized training, with higher rates of adverse events expected compared with EMR. EMR is another endoscopic technique used to remove superficial gastrointestinal tumors, particularly those that are limited to the mucosal layer. It is a faster and more accessible procedure, with fewer adverse events, although it only allows for an en-bloc resection of lesions measuring 15-20 mm. TAMIS is a minimally invasive surgical technique used to remove rectal tumors, involving the insertion of a single-port device through the anus, allowing for a better visualization and removal of the tumor with minimal disruption. This article reviews the current applications and evidence regarding these techniques, in search for the most adequate treatment for the removal of lesions in the rectum and anorectal junction, as these locations possess distinct characteristics that demand a more specific approach.

Cap-assisted EMR versus standard inject and cut EMR for treatment of large colonic laterally spreading tumors: a randomized multicenter study (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Piecemeal EMR of colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) >20 mm is effective. Experience is limited in the use of cap-assisted EMR (EMR-C) for resection of colonic lesions. We compared the efficacy and the safety of EMR-C for the removal of colonic LSTs ≥30 mm with "inject-and-cut" standard EMR (EMR-S).

METHODS

In this randomized trial from 4 Italian centers, 138 patients were treated with EMR-C and 102 with EMR-S. The rates of residual lesions, percentage of recurrence after 12 months, and adverse events were evaluated.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-three lesions were resected with EMR-C and 102 with EMR-S. Argon plasma coagulation (APC) was used as adjunctive treatment in 2.9% of EMR-Cs and in 22.5% of EMR-Ss (P < .001). The median time required was 20 minutes for EMR-C and 30 minutes for EMR-S (P < .001). Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 14 EMR-Cs (10.1%; 2 perforations, 11 bleeding events, and 1 stenosis) and in 22 EMR-Ss (21.6%; 1 perforation and 21 bleeding events) (P = .017). Intraprocedural AEs occurred in 3.6% of EMR-Cs and 16.7% of EMR-Ss (P = .001). Overall, residual lesions within 12 months were found to be significantly higher with EMR-S (32 patients, 31.4%) than with EMR-C (8 patients, 5.8%) (P < .001). Recurrence at follow-up colonoscopy in 12 months occurred in 7 EMR-Cs (5.1%) and 17 EMR-Ss (16.7%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrated the feasibility and safety of EMR-C for removing large colorectal LSTs, with higher eradication rates, shorter resection time, and less use of APC when compared with EMR-S. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03498664.).

Comparison of precutting endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection for large (20-30 mm) flat colorectal lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The complete and safe removal of large (≥ 20 mm) colorectal lesions is an area of concern. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) effectively removes these lesions compared with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). However, ESD requires advanced techniques, longer procedure time, and high cost. Precutting EMR (EMR-P) is a modified EMR method that overcomes the limitations of EMR. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of EMR-P and ESD in large (20-30 mm) flat colorectal lesions.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of cases in which 20- to 30-mm flat colorectal lesions were resected at Seoul St. Mary's Hospital from January 2014 to December 2019. Propensity score matching was performed to control for possible confounders.

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety-nine patients were included in this study. After matching, 90 patients were assigned to each group. There were no significant difference in complete resection rates (92.2% vs 92.2%, P = 1.000), en bloc resection rates (95.6% vs 97.8%, P = 0.682), and mean size of lesions (22.9 ± 3.1 mm vs 23.0 ± 3.1 mm, P = 0.867) between EMR-P and ESD. Procedure time was significantly shorter with EMR-P (11.0 ± 6.5 min vs 37.0 ± 19.3 min, P < 0.001). The adverse events rate was not significantly different between both groups. No local recurrence occurred in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Precutting EMR was not significantly different to ESD in terms of complete resection rate and en bloc resection rate for 20- to 30-mm flat colorectal lesions without fibrosis. Furthermore, EMR-P has shorter procedure time than ESD. EMR-P could be considered one of standard treatments for large flat colorectal lesions.

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.

Endoscopic techniques to reduce recurrence rates after colorectal EMR: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an effective, safe, and minimally invasive treatment for large lateral spreading and sessile polyps. The reported high recurrence rate of approximately 20% is however one of the major drawbacks. Several endoscopic interventions have been suggested to reduce recurrence rates. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of endoscopic interventions targeting the EMR margin to reduce recurrence rates.

Methods

We searched in PubMed and Ovid for studies comparing recurrence rates after interventions targeting the EMR margin with standard EMR. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate at the first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1) assessed histologically or macroscopically. For the meta-analysis, risk ratios (RRs) were calculated and pooled using a random effects model. The secondary outcome was post-procedural complication rates.

Results

Six studies with a total of 1335 lesions were included in the meta-analysis. The techniques performed in the intervention group targeting the resection margin were argon plasma coagulation, snare tip soft coagulation, extended EMR, and precutting EMR. The interventions reduced the adenoma recurrence rate with more than 50%, resulting in a pooled RR of 0.37 (95% CI 0.18, 0.76) comparing the intervention group with the control groups. Overall post-procedural complication rates did not increase significantly in the intervention arm (RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.65, 2.58).

Conclusion

Interventions targeting the EMR margin decrease recurrence rates and may not result in more complications.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-021-08574-z.

Indications and outcomes of colorectal hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection: a large multicenter 10-year study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a colorectal lesion resection procedure that includes both planned and salvage procedures. Previous colorectal hybrid ESD studies have involved single institutions or few operators over a short timeframe, and the size for indication has not been established. In this multicentre study, we investigated the clinical outcomes of hybrid ESD for colorectal tumors that met the 30 mm lesion size criterion.

METHODS

From January 2008 to December 2018, colorectal hybrid ESD was performed for 172 lesions (diameter range, ≥ 20- < 30 mm) at Hiroshima GI Endoscopy Research Group. We compared clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes between 56 and 116 lesions in planned and salvage groups, respectively. We also compared data between 2008 and 2013 (the first period) and 2014 and 2018 (the second period) to assess operator experience.

RESULTS

No significant difference was found in the complete en bloc resection rate between the planned and salvage groups (92.9% vs. 83.6%, respectively). Procedure time was shorter in the planned group (44.5 min) than in the salvage group (72.0 min, p < 0.01). The perforation rate was higher in the salvage group (21.6%) than in the planned group (0%, p < 0.01); however, the perforation rate during snaring in the salvage group was 1.8%. During the second period relative to the first period, we recorded a significantly higher complete en bloc resection rate (95.7% vs. 75.6%, respectively, p < 0.01) and experienced operator rate (75.5% vs. 53.9%, respectively, p < 0.01). Furthermore, no significant difference was found in the complete en bloc resection rate between the planned and salvage groups during the second period (100% vs. 94.4%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Colorectal hybrid ESD, especially salvage hybrid ESD performed by experienced operators, is adoptable and safe for lesions with diameters ranging from ≥ 20 to < 30 mm.

Endoscopic mucosal resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal laterally spreading tumors: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

to assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the treatment of colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs).

METHODS

a systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI and WANFANG databases. The related references were selected according to certain inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Cochrane Collaboration's Revman 5.3 software was used for data analysis.

RESULTS

a total of 12 studies were included in the analysis. The total number of lesions was 3,062 (EMR: 1,906; ESD: 1,156). The en-bloc resection rate of ESD was 95 % (1,098/1,156), which was significantly higher than that of EMR (42.8 %, 815/1,906) (OR = 0.07, 95 % CI [0.02, 0.07], p < 0.00001). The complete resection rate of ESD was 93.2 % (109/117), which was significantly higher than that of EMR as well (71.9 %, 92/128) (OR = 0.12, 95 % CI [0.05, 0.29], p < 0.00001). The bleeding rate showed no significant difference between EMR and ESD (4.2 % vs 3.5 %) (OR = 1.04, 95 % CI [0.68, 1.60], p = 0.85). The perforation rates of EMR and ESD were 1.8 % and 2.4 %, respectively, which displayed a significant difference (OR = 0.56, 95 % CI [0.32, 0.97], p = 0.04). Nevertheless, the recurrence rate of EMR was significantly higher than that of ESD (15.9 % vs 0.5 %) (OR = 23.06, 95 % CI [11.11, 47.85], p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

endoscopic resection of LSTs is safe and effective. As compared with EMR, ESD has higher en-bloc and complete resection rates but a lower recurrence rate. Therefore, ESD is highly recommended for the treatment of LSTs.

A retrospective comparative study of argon plasma versus polypectome snare tip coagulation: effect on recurrence rate after resection of large laterally spreading type lesions

Background

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an established technique for treating large laterally spreading type (LST) lesions ≥20 mm. The aim of our study was to compare the use of argon plasma (APC) versus snare-tip coagulation on the recurrence rate of large LST lesions.

Methods

All patients with large LST lesions resected by EMR between January 2006 and December 2014 were enrolled. After piecemeal resection, patients underwent either APC or snare-tip coagulation of the rim of the resection area and any residual adenomatous tissue. Follow up included colonoscopy and biopsies. Medical records, including characteristics of patients and polyps, complications and recurrence were retrieved and collected.

Results

One hundred one patients were included in the final analysis. They were divided into the APC group (n=50) and the snare-tip coagulation group (n=51). The 2 groups were similar concerning patients’ characteristics, size of polyps and histology. Post-polypectomy coagulation syndrome was observed in 8 patients (7.9%) (APC group: n=5 and snare tip group: n=3). EMR-related bleeding occurred in 9 patients (8.9%) (APC group: n=4 and snare tip group: n=5). Total recurrence rate was 14.85% (16% and 13.7% in APC and snare-tip groups, respectively, P=0.34).

Conclusion

The effectiveness of snare-tip coagulation is comparable with that of APC with respect to recurrence rate after resection of large LST lesions. It thus represents a cost-effective alternative to APC.

Local recurrence and subsequent endoscopic treatment after endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection with or without precutting in the colorectum

Background/Aims

Precutting before endoscopic piecemeal mucosal resection (EPMR) may increase colorectal polyp resection effectiveness. We aimed to identify risk factors for recurrence after conventional EPMR (CEPMR) and precut EPMR (PEPMR) and investigated endoscopic treatment outcomes for recurrent cases.

Methods

The medical records of patients with colorectal polyps treated by EPMR were analyzed. Patients without follow-up surveillance colonoscopies were excluded.

Results

Among 359 lesions, the local recurrence rate on the first surveillance colonoscopy was 5.8% (18/312) and 6.4% (3/47) after CEPMR and PEPMR, respectively. Among lesions without recurrence at the first surveillance colonoscopy, the rates of late recurrence on subsequent surveillance colonoscopy were 3.9% (6/152) and 0% after CEPMR and PEPMR, respectively. Larger tumor size was the only independent risk factor for recurrence (odds ratio, 7.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.95–32.30; P<0.001). Endoscopic treatment was performed for all 27 recurrences. A combination of ≥2 endoscopic treatment modalities was used in 19 of 27 recurrences (70.4%). Surveillance colonoscopies were performed in 20 of 27 recurrences after endoscopic treatment. One (5.0%) had a re-recurrence and was treated by surgical resection because recurrence occurred at the appendiceal orifice. Nineteen of 20 lesions (95.0%) could be cured endoscopically, although 3 of the 19 showed second or third recurrences and were treated by repeat endoscopic resection.

Conclusions

The local recurrence rates after CEPMR and PEPMR were similar. Larger tumor size was an independent risk factor for local recurrence after EPMR. Endoscopic treatment of recurrences resulted in high cure rates, although combination methods were necessary in many cases.

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: patient selection and special considerations

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) enables en bloc resection of large complex colorectal superficial neoplastic lesions, resulting in very low rates of local recurrence, high-quality pathologic specimens for accurate histopathologic diagnosis and potentially curative treatment of early adenocarcinoma without resorting to major surgical resection. The safety and efficacy of the technique, which was pioneered in the upper gastrointestinal tract, has been established by the consistently impressive outcomes from expert centers in Japan and some other eastern countries. However, ESD is challenging to perform in the colorectum and there is a significant risk of complications, particularly in the early stages of the learning curve. Early studies from western centers raised concerns about the high complication rates, and the impressive results from Japanese centers were not replicated. As a result, many western endoscopists are skeptical about the role of ESD and few centers have incorporated the technique into their practice. Nevertheless, although the distribution of expertise, referral centers and modes of practice may differ in Japan and western countries, ESD has an important role and can be safely and effectively incorporated into western practice. Key to achieving this is meticulous lesion assessment and selection, appropriate referral to centers with the necessary expertise and experience and application of the appropriate technique individualized to the patient. This review discusses the advantages, risks and benefits of ESD to treat colorectal lesions and the importance of preprocedure lesion assessment and in vivo diagnosis and outlines a pragmatic rationale for appropriate lesion selection as well as the patient, technical and institutional factors that should be considered.

Efficacy of hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as a rescue treatment in difficult colorectal ESD cases

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), which provides a higher en bloc resection rate than conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), is considered to be a useful treatment option for large colorectal tumors. However, colorectal ESD is not widely used because of its technical difficulty, risk of complications and time required. To overcome these drawbacks, a simpler modified technique, ESD with snaring (hybrid ESD), has been developed. The aim of the present study was to retrospectively compare the safety and efficacy of hybrid ESD and conventional ESD for colorectal tumors.

METHODS

Between September 2008 and June 2016, ESD was carried out on 137 lesions and hybrid ESD on 27 lesions. All hybrid ESD cases were carried out as a rescue treatment in difficult ESD cases. We retrospectively investigated procedure time, and the rates of en bloc resection, perforation, bleeding, and local recurrence.

RESULTS

In the hybrid ESD group, procedure time was shorter compared with the ESD group (108 ± 59.5 min vs 122 ± 72.2 min), but the en bloc resection rate was lower (66.7% vs 94.2%). However, there were no significant differences in procedure time, or in rates of en bloc resection, perforation and bleeding between the two groups. Local recurrence did not develop in any of our cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Hybrid ESD as a rescue treatment in difficult ESD cases may be less effective for en bloc resection of large colorectal tumors. Indication for hybrid ESD may be limited to scheduled treatment from the outset and emergency cases with patients who present unstable vital signs during ESD.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection with Circumferential Mucosal Incision for Colorectal Neoplasms: Comparison with Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and between Two Endoscopists with Different Experiences

Background/Aims

Endoscopic mucosal resection with circumferential mucosal incision (CMI-EMR) may offer benefits comparable to those of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), while requiring less technical proficiency than ESD.

Methods

We retrospectively compared the outcomes of CMI-EMR (n=34) and size-matched ESD (n=102), which were performed by a Korean endoscopist for colorectal epithelial lesions of 20–35 mm. Procedural parameters of CMI-EMRs performed by an American ESD novice (n=30) were compared with those performed by the Korean endoscopist.

Results

The lesion size was 22.3±3.9 mm and 22.9±2.4 mm in the CMI-EMR and size-matched ESD groups, respectively (p=0.730). The resection time was 12.7±7.0 minutes in the CMI-EMR group and 45.6±30.1 minutes in the ESD group (p<0.001). The en bloc resection rate was 94.1% in the CMI-EMR group and 100% in the ESD group (p=0.061). There were no differences in the en bloc resection and complication rates of CMI-EMRs between a Korean and an American endoscopist.

Conclusions

For the treatment of moderate-size colorectal lesions, CMI-EMR showed a trend toward lower en bloc resection rate, but required shorter procedure time than ESD. CMI-EMR outcomes were similar when performed by a Korean ESD expert and an American ESD novice.

Should antibiotics be administered after endoscopic mucosalresection in patients with colon polyps?

BACKGROUND/AIM

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is widely used for treating gastrointestinal polypoid lesions. However, it is currently unclear whether antibiotic administration is necessary after EMR of colon polyps to prevent infection. We aimed to assess whether antibiotic administration is essential in such conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In total, 115 patients with colon polyps were randomly assigned to 3 groups based on the treatment given after EMR: Group A, no antibiotics treatment after EMR (n = 38); Group B, administration of levofloxacin after EMR (n = 38); and Group C, administration of ceftazidime after EMR (n = 39).

RESULTS

The colon polyps were completely removed by EMR in all cases without any serious complications. Although infection developed in 2 cases in Group A, it was resolved via levofloxacin injection over 3 days; infection did not develop in any cases in Group B and C. The postoperative infection rate was not significantly different among Groups A, B, and C. After 6 months, we noted that the wound surface had properly healed and there was no relapse of colon polyps in any patients.

CONCLUSION

The use of antibiotics after EMR of colon polyps to prevent infection did not affect the prognosis of patients.

Endoscopic Approach for Superficial Colorectal Neoplasms

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in males and the second in females, with an estimated 1.4 million cases and 693,900 deaths in 2012. Colonoscopy is the cornerstone for the detection and prevention of CRC. In addition, endoscopic treatment for CRC at an early stage can effectively improve patients' quality of life and cure rate.

SUMMARY

This review focuses on endoscopic approaches, including white light endoscopy, chromoendoscopy, magnifying endoscopy and therapeutic endoscopy, for the evaluation and treatment of superficial colorectal neoplasms.

KEY MESSAGE

Understanding the preoperative evaluation, indications and techniques of endoscopic mucosal resection/endoscopic submucosal dissection as well as postoperative surveillance for superficial colorectal neoplasms is critical for providing appropriate management to the patients.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Endoscopic therapy, a method preserving organ function and improving quality of life, is a widely applied microinvasive treatment for superficial colorectal neoplasms. This review describes the basics and developments of endoscopic approaches and may facilitate daily practice for superficial colorectal neoplasms.

Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions: A systematic review

AIM

To assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for the treatment of colorectal lesions.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted from January 2000 to May 2015. The main outcomes were: recurrence after "en bloc" and "piecemeal" resection; procedure related adverse events; the EMR endoscopic success rate and the completely eradicated resection rate (R0) after ESD.

RESULTS

A total of 66 studies were included in the analysis. The total number of lesions was 17950 (EMR: 11.873; ESD: 6077). Recurrence rate was higher in the EMR than ESD group (765/7303l vs. 50/3910 OR 8.19, 95% CI 6.2-10.9 p<0.0001). EMR-en bloc resection was achieved in 6793/10803 lesions (62.8%) while ESD-en bloc resection was obtained in 5500/6077 lesions (90.5%) (OR 0.18, p<0.0001, 95% CI 0.16-0.2). Perforation occurred more frequently in ESD than in EMR group (p<0.0001, OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.15-0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic resection of large colorectal lesions is safe and effective. Compared with EMR, ESD results in higher "en bloc" resection rate and lower local recurrence rate, however ESD has high procedure-related complication rates.

How to deal with large colorectal polyps: snare, endoscopic mucosal resection, and endoscopic submucosal dissection; resect or refer?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The importance of accurate polyp detection and removal is paramount to preventing colon cancer. Resection of large polyps can be challenging to the endoscopist based on their size, shape, or location. Large polyps have the potential of harboring malignancy and a higher risk of complications with resection. Careful assessment of each lesion and meticulous resection using the appropriate tools and techniques is essential.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the last 15 years, the development of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) techniques has presented the endoscopist with the opportunity to manage patients with large and flat lesions thereby avoiding the need for surgery. However, these techniques are complex and require extensive knowledge and skill in the use of various devices to resect a lesion completely and manage bleeding and perforation associated with these procedures.

SUMMARY

Large colon polyps manifest as either polypoid or nonpolypoid (flat) lesions. Polypoid lesions, especially those with pedicles, are removed with snare resection, whereas flat lesions may require the use of EMR or ESD. Resection of large polyps (>1 cm) requires additional tools and techniques to ensure safe and complete resection. We will discuss our approach to dealing with large colorectal polyps: snare, EMR, and ESD; resect or refer?