Tip-in versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for flat colorectal neoplasia 10 mm or larger in size

The efficacy and safety of precutting-endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several modified endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) techniques have been reported for colorectal tumors. Precutting-EMR (PEMR) is a modification wherein a circumferential mucosal incision is made around a lesion to facilitate en bloc resection. This review compared the efficacy and safety of PEMR with conventional EMR for colorectal lesions.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for comparative studies available before February 15, 2024. This systematic review and meta-analysis were recorded in PROSPERO, identified as CRD42024509143.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eight studies underwent screening of which seven studies were found eligible. We found no significant difference in en bloc resection rates but complete resection rates were significantly better with PEMR. The duration of the procedure was significantly longer with PEMR as compared to EMR. There was no difference in the risk of delayed bleeding and recurrence between the two groups but the risk of perforation was significantly increased with PEMR.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of PEMR for colorectal lesions can improve complete resection rates, albeit at the cost of increased duration of the procedure and higher perforation rates compared to conventional EMR. PEMR may also have a tendency of better en bloc resection rates which needs to be confirmed by further studies.

Endoscopic mucosal resection using anchored snare Tip-in versus precut technique for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Small rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) can be treated with modified endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). However, an optimal EMR method remains to be established. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of Tip-in EMR versus precut EMR (EMR-P) for treating rectal NETs.

METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial enrolled patients with rectal NETs of < 10 mm in diameter. The patients were randomly assigned to EMR-P and Tip-in EMR groups in a 1:1 ratio. Primary outcome was margin-negative (R0) resection rate between the two methods, with a noninferiority margin of 10%.

RESULTS

Seventy-five NETs in 73 patients, including 64 eligible lesions (32 lesions in each, EMR-P and Tip-in EMR groups), were evaluated. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, R0 resection rates of the EMR-P and Tip-in EMR groups were 96.9% and 90.6%, respectively, which did not demonstrate non-inferiority (risk difference, -6.3 [95% confidence interval: -18.0 to 5.5]). Resection time in the EMR-P group was longer than that in the Tip-in EMR group (p < 0.001). One case of intraprocedural bleeding was reported in each group.

CONCLUSION

We did not demonstrate the non-inferiority of Tip-in EMR compared to EMR-P for treating small rectal NETs. However, the R0 resection rates for both techniques were high enough for clinical application.

Tip-in Versus Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Colorectal Neoplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Early-stage gastrointestinal neoplasms are frequently treated with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR). However, C-EMR frequently leads to incomplete resection of large colorectal lesions. Tip-in endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), which was recently introduced for en bloc resection of colorectal neoplasms, minimizes slippage during the procedure.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies that compared Tip-in EMR with conventional EMR. We searched several electronic databases and included studies that reported on the primary outcomes of en bloc resection rate and complete resection rate, as well as secondary outcomes such as procedure time and procedure-related complications (including perforation and delayed bleeding rate). We used a random effects model to calculate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous data and weighted mean differences with 95% CIs for continuous data. We also conducted several sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of our findings.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies involving 1244 lesions (684 in the Tip-in EMR group and 560 in C-EMR group) were included in the meta-analysis. Our meta-analysis showed that compared with conventional EMR, Tip-in EMR significantly increased the en bloc resection rate in patients with colorectal neoplasia (OR=3.61; 95% CI, 2.09-6.23; P <0.00001; I2 =0%) and had a higher complete resection rate (OR=2.49; 95% CI, 1.65-3.76; P <0.0001; I2 =0%). However, the procedure time and rates of procedure-related complications did not differ significantly between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Tip-in EMR outperformed C-EMR for both the en bloc and complete resection of colorectal lesions with similar rates of procedural complications.

Anchoring endoscopic mucosal resection versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND : Colorectal polyps > 10 mm in size are often incompletely resected. Anchoring-endoscopic mucosal resection (A-EMR) is the technique of making a small incision at the oral side of the polyp using a snare tip after submucosal injection to avoid slippage during ensnaring. This study was performed to evaluate whether A-EMR could increase the complete resection rate for large colorectal polyps compared with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR). METHODS : Polyps with sizes of 10-25 mm were randomly allocated to either the A-EMR or the C-EMR groups. RESULTS : 105 and 106 polyps were resected using A-EMR and C-EMR, respectively. In the intention-to-treat population, the complete resection rate was 89.5 % in the A-EMR group and 74.5 % in the C-EMR group (relative risk [RR] 1.20, 95 %CI 1.04 to 1.38; P = 0.01). The en bloc resection rates for the A-EMR and C-EMR groups were 92.4 % vs. 76.4 % (RR 1.21, 95 %CI 1.06 to 1.37; P = 0.005) and R0 resection rates were 77.1 % vs. 64.2 % (RR 1.18, 95 %CI 0.98 to 1.42; P = 0.07), respectively. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) total procedure time was 3.2 (2.6-4.1) minutes in the A-EMR group and 3.0 (2.2-4.6) minutes in the C-EMR group (median difference 0.2 minutes, 95 %CI -0.22 to 0.73; P = 0.25). There was one episode of delayed bleeding and one perforation in the C-EMR group. CONCLUSIONS : A-EMR was superior to C-EMR for the complete resection of large colorectal polyps. A-EMR can be considered one of the standard methods for the removal of colorectal polyps of 10 mm or more in size.

Tip-in EMR as an alternative to endoscopic submucosal dissection for 20- to 30-mm nonpedunculated colorectal neoplasms

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Tip-in EMR, which includes anchoring the snare tip, has recently shown a favorable en-bloc and R0 resection rate for colorectal neoplasms. Thus, Tip-in EMR may be an alternative to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to compare clinical outcomes between Tip-in EMR and ESD for large colorectal neoplasms.

METHODS

This retrospective study evaluated consecutive patients who underwent Tip-in EMR or ESD for 20- to 30-mm nonpedunculated colorectal neoplasms at a Japanese tertiary cancer center between January 2014 and December 2019. Baseline characteristics, treatment results, and long-term outcomes were analyzed using 1:1 propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Seven hundred nine lesions were evaluated. The Tip-in EMR group included 1 lesion with a nonlifting sign but no lesions with fold convergence. After propensity score matching, each group included 140 lesions. The ESD group showed significantly higher en-bloc resection rates (99.3% vs 85.0%) and R0 resection rates (90.7% vs 62.9%). Procedure time was significantly shorter in the Tip-in EMR group (8 minutes vs 60 minutes). The Tip-in EMR and ESD groups did not differ significantly with respect to local recurrence rate (2.1% vs 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Tip-in EMR is comparable with ESD with respect to the local recurrence rate but has a shorter procedure time, despite the lower en-bloc and R0 resection rates for 20- to 30-mm nonpedunculated colorectal neoplasms without fold convergence or nonlifting sign. Thus, Tip-in EMR could be a feasible alternative to ESD in these lesions.

Endoscopic treatment for rectal neuroendocrine tumor: which method is better?

Recently, research on rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) has increased during the last few decades. Rectal NETs measuring <10 mm without atypical features and confined to the submucosal layer have only 1% risk of metastasis, and the long-term survival probability of patients without metastasis at the time of diagnosis is approximately 100%. Therefore, the current guidelines suggest endoscopic resection of rectal NETs of <10 mm is regarded as a safe therapeutic option. However, there are currently no clear recommendations for technique selection for endoscopic resection. The choice of treatment modality for rectal NETs should be based on the lesion size, endoscopic characteristics, grade of differentiation, depth of vertical involvement, lymphovascular invasion, and risk of metastasis. Moreover, the complete resection rate, complications, and experience at the center should be considered. Modified endoscopic mucosal resection is the most suitable resection method for rectal NETs of <10 mm, because it is an effective and safe technique that is relatively simple and less time-consuming compared with endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endoscopic submucosal dissection should be considered when the tumor size is >10 mm, suctioning is not possible due to fibrosis in the lesion, or when the snaring for modified endoscopic mucosal resection does not work well.

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.

Tip-in Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for 15- to 25-mm Colorectal Adenomas: A Single-Center, Randomized Controlled Trial (STAR Trial)

INTRODUCTION

One-piece endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for lesions >15 mm is still unsatisfactory, and attempted 1-piece EMR for lesions >25 mm can increase perforation risk. Therefore, modifications to ensure 1-piece EMR of 15- to 25-mm lesions would be beneficial. The aim of this study was to investigate whether Tip-in EMR, which anchors the snare tip within the submucosal layer, increases en bloc resection for 15- to 25-mm colorectal lesions compared with EMR.

METHODS

In this prospective randomized controlled trial, patients with nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasms of 15-25 mm in size were recruited and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo Tip-in EMR or standard EMR, stratified by age, sex, tumor size category, and tumor location. The primary endpoint was the odds ratio of en bloc resection adjusted by location and size category. Adverse events and procedure time were also evaluated.

RESULTS

We analyzed 41 lesions in the Tip-in EMR group and 41 lesions in the EMR group. En bloc resection was achieved in 37 (90.2%) patients undergoing Tip-in EMR and 30 (73.1%) who had EMR. The adjusted odds ratio of en bloc resection in Tip-in EMR vs EMR was 3.46 (95% confidence interval: 1.06-13.6, P = 0.040). The Tip-in EMR and EMR groups did not differ significantly in adverse event rates (0% vs 4.8%) or median procedure times (7 vs 5 minutes).

DISCUSSION

In this single-center randomized controlled trial, we found that Tip-in EMR significantly improved the en bloc resection rate for nonpolypoid lesions 15-25 mm in size, with no increase in adverse events or procedure time.

Anchoring the snare tip is a feasible endoscopic mucosal resection method for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors

Small rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) can be treated using cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-C), which requires additional effort to apply a dedicated cap and snare. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a simpler modified endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) technique, so-called anchored snare-tip EMR (ASEMR), for the treatment of small rectal NETs, comparing it with EMR-C. We retrospectively evaluated 45 ASEMR and 41 EMR-C procedures attempted on small suspected or established rectal NETs between July 2015 and May 2020. The mean (SD) lesion size was 5.4 (2.2) mm and 5.2 (1.7) mm in the ASEMR and EMR-C groups, respectively (p = 0.558). The en bloc resection rates of suspected or established rectal NETs were 95.6% (43/45) and 100%, respectively (p = 0.271). The rates of histologic complete resection of rectal NETs were 94.1% (32/34) and 88.2% (30/34), respectively (p = 0.673). The mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the ASEMR group than in the EMR-C group (3.12 [1.97] vs. 4.13 [1.59] min, p = 0.024). Delayed bleeding occurred in 6.7% (3/45) and 2.4% (1/41) of patients, respectively (p = 0.618). In conclusion, ASEMR was less time-consuming than EMR-C, and showed similar efficacy and safety profiles. ASEMR is a feasible treatment option for small rectal NETs.