A prospective randomized study comparing jumbo biopsy forceps to cold snare for the resection of diminutive colorectal polyps

Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2024

1:  ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3:  ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6-9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10-19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5:  ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6:  ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7:  Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9:  ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10:  ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11:  ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.

Cold snare polypectomy compared to cold forceps polypectomy for endoscopic resection of guideline defined diminutive polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

BACKGROUND

International guidelines recommend cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for polyps  < 10 mm in size. However, recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) showed conflicting results for the use of cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) vs. CSP for the resection of diminutive colorectal polyps (DCPs) (≤ 5 mm), especially for polyps  ≤ 3 mm. Herein we compared CFP with CSP for patients with DCPs in this meta-analysis of RCTs.

METHODS

We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMBASE databases from inception to November 24, 2022, (Registration number INPLASY2022110135). The primary endpoint was DCP complete resection rate. The secondary endpoints were mean polypectomy time, polyp retrieval rate and complications.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs involving 1023 DCPs were included. The complete resection rate (91.6% vs. 94.7%) for CFP was not significantly lower for polyps ≤ 5 mm (relative risk [RR] = 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98-1.07). Sub-group analysis showed that the complete resection rate (88.7% vs. 92.4%) for CFP was not significantly lower for DCPs > 3 mm (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.97-1.12). Another sub-group analysis showed that the complete resection rate (97.0% vs. 96.3%) was similar for polyps ≤ 3 mm for CFP vs. CSP (RR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.98-1.03). The mean polypectomy time was not different between CFP and CSP (95% CI: -11.86-10.18). The polyp retrieval rate (100% vs. 96.9%) was not significantly higher for CFP (RR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.98-1.07). There were no reported complications in the included studies. The overall study quality was moderate except for the removal of polyps ≤ 5 mm (low-quality evidence).

CONCLUSION

CFP was comparable to CSP for the resection of polyps ≤ 3 mm; however, caution should be taken for DCPs > 3 mm because of the low complete resection rate (< 90%).

Cold polypectomy techniques for small and diminutive colorectal polyps: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

In the management of small and diminutive polyps, cold polypectomy is favored over electrocautery polypectomy. However, the optimal cold polypectomy technique is still controversial. Hence, this review aims to investigate the most effective cold technique for small and diminutive colorectal polyps.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis synthesizing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which were retrieved by systematically searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane through 10 February 2023. R software, (R version 4.2.0) and meta-insight software were used to pool dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio (RR) presented with the corresponding confidence interval (CI). Our protocol was prospectively published in PROSPERO with ID: CRD42022345619.

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs with 3649 patients and 4800 polyps were included in our analysis. Cold techniques (cold forceps polypectomy (CFP), jumbo forceps polypectomy (JFP), dedicated cold snare polypectomy (D-CSP), conventional cold snare polypectomy (C-CSP), underwater cold snare polypectomy (U-CSP), and cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) were included in our comparative analysis. CFP was less effective in achieving complete histological resection than C-CSP (RR: 1.10 with 95% CI [1.03-1.18]), CS-EMR (RR: 1.12 with 95% CI [1.02-1.23]), D-CSP (RR: 1.17 with 95% CI [1.04-1.32]), and U-CSP (RR: 1.21 with 95% CI [1.07-1.38]). However, the rest of the comparisons showed no difference.

CONCLUSION

CFP is the least effective method for small and diminutive polyps' removal, and any snare polypectomy technique will achieve better results, warranting more large-scale RCTs to investigate the most effective snare polypectomy technique.

Cold snare versus cold forceps polypectomy for endoscopic resection of diminutive polyps: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The practices for resection of diminutive colon polyps vary among endoscopists, and U.S. Multi-Society Task force guidelines recommend use of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for this purpose. In this meta-analysis, we compared CSP and cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) for resection of diminutive polyps.

METHODS

Several databases were reviewed to identify randomized controlled trials that compared CSP and CFP for resection of diminutive polyps. The study outcomes of interest were complete resection of all diminutive polyps, complete resection of polyps ≤3 mm in size, failure of tissue retrieval, and polypectomy time. For categorical variables, pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated; for continuous variables, mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs were calculated. Data were analyzed by using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed by using the I2 statistic.

RESULTS

We included 9 studies with 1037 patients. Rate of complete resection of all diminutive polyps was significantly higher in the CSP group (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.09-2.58). Subgroup analysis, including jumbo or large-capacity forceps, found no significant difference in complete resection between groups (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, .80-2.56). We found no significant between-groups in the rates of complete resection of polyps ≤3 mm in size (OR, .83; 95% CI, .30-2.31). Rate of failure of tissue retrieval was significantly higher in the CSP group (OR, 10.13; 95% CI, 2.29-44.74). No significant between-group difference was noted in polypectomy time.

CONCLUSIONS

CFP using large-capacity or jumbo biopsy forceps is noninferior to CSP for complete resection of diminutive polyps.

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.

Cold versus hot snare resection with or without submucosal injection of 6- to 15-mm colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Cold snare resection of colorectal lesions has been found to be safe and effective for an expanding set of colorectal lesions. In this study, we sought to understand the efficacy of simple cold snare resection and cold EMR versus hot snare resection and hot EMR for colorectal lesions 6 to 15 mm in size.

METHODS

At 3 U.S. centers, 235 patients with 286 colorectal lesions 6 to 15 mm in size were randomized to cold snaring, cold EMR, hot snaring, or hot EMR for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions 6 to 15 mm in size. The primary outcome was complete resection determined by 4 biopsy samples from the defect margin and 1 biopsy sample from the center of the resection defect.

RESULTS

The overall incomplete resection rate was 2.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], .8%-7.5%). All 7 incompletely removed polyps were 10 to 15 mm in size and removed by hot EMR (n = 4, 6.2%), hot snare (n = 2, 2.2%), or cold EMR (n = 1, 1.8%). Cold snaring had no incomplete resections, required less procedural time than the other methods, and was not associated with serious adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Cold snaring is a dominant resection technique for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions 6 to 15 mm in size. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03462706.).

A Pilot Randomized Trial of Polypectomy Techniques for 4 to 6 mm Colonic Polyps

BACKGROUND AND GOALS

There is variation in polypectomy techniques for resection of small polyps. Aim was to compare techniques for 4 to 6 mm polyps for recurrent adenoma, efficiency, and adverse events and to establish methodological factors for definitive trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was a randomized controlled trial. Outpatients with ≥1, 4 to 6 mm polyps were randomized to cold forceps (CF), cold snare (CS), and hot snare (HS). Polypectomy site was marked with SPOT to assess for recurrence at the original polypectomy site during surveillance colonoscopy. To assess feasibility of a definitive trial we measured (1) rates of patient refusal, participation, ineligibility; (2) retention; (3) recurrent neoplasia; and (4) sample size for a definitive trial.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty-three patients were randomized to 1 of the 3 polypectomy techniques, of whom 260 (73.6%) completed the initial colonoscopy (mean age 57 y, 50.4% women), with 91, 87, and 82 patients randomized to CF, CS, and HS polypectomy, respectively. Mean time for polyp resection for CF, CS, and HS were 198.8, 58.5, and 96.8 seconds, respectively, with CS and HS requiring less time than CF (P<0.001). One hundred sixty-four (63.1%) completed surveillance colonoscopy. Polyp recurrences were 9 (14.5%) with CF, 5 (9.6%) with CS, and 0 (0%) with HS. Although the recurrence relative risks with CF and CS polypectomy were 1.84 and 1.65 as compared with HS, respectively, neither was statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

CS and HS polypectomy require less time than CF. HS polypectomy may have a lower risk for recurrent neoplasia. High attrition rate is a challenge in conducting randomized controlled trial with polyp recurrence as endpoint.

Endoscopic polypectomy devices

Video 1Use of submucosal injection prior to en-bloc endoscopic mucosal resection.Video 2Use of a detachable loop ligating device prior to hot snare resection of a pedunculated polyp.

Is jumbo biopsy forceps comparable to cold snare for diminutive colorectal polyps? - a meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Diminutive colorectal polyps are increasingly being detected and it is not clear whether jumbo biopsy forceps (JBF) has comparable efficacy to that of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for management of these lesions. Methods  An electronic literature search was performed for studies comparing resection rates of JBF and CSP for diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm). The primary outcome was incomplete resection rate (IRR). Secondary outcomes included failure of tissue retrieval and complication rates (post-polypectomy bleeding, perforation etc.). Leave-one-out analysis was performed to examine the disproportionate role of any of the studies. Meta-analysis outcomes and heterogeneity (I ² ) were computed using Comprehensive meta-analysis software. Results  A total of 4 studies (3 randomized controlled trials and 1 retrospective study) with 407 patients and 569 total polyps (mean size of 3.62 mm) was included for analysis. IRR of JBF was slightly higher than that of CSP (10.2 % vs 7.2 %) but this was not statistically significantly different (Pooled OR 1.76; 95 % CI 0.94-3.28; I ²  = 0 ). Leave-one-out analysis showed no significant difference in the pooled OR comparison either. Two of the 4 studies reported 0 % failure of tissue retrieval for JBF and 1 % and 4.3 % for CSP. There were no complications for either group from the 2 studies that reported this outcome. The quality of the included studies was moderate to high. Conclusions  This systematic review with only limited data shows that JBF and CSP are not statistically different in completely removing diminutive polyps, although careful endoscopic assessment is needed to ensure complete removal of all polyp tissue.

[Endoscopic diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of polyps of the lower gastrointestinal tract]

BACKGROUND

The endoscopic management of polyps of the lower gastrointestinal tract (l-GIT) has emerged in recent years as a result of numerous technological innovations. However, proven expertise and experience are essential.

OBJECTIVES

Presentation of novel and standard techniques and best-practice recommendations for the characterization and resection of l‑GIT polyps.

METHODS

Recent specialist literature and current guidelines.

RESULTS

High-definition endoscopy should be the standard when performing colonoscopy. The (virtual) chromoendoscopy can improve detection and characterization of polyps, but always requires special expertise and experience of the endoscopist in advanced endoscopic imaging. In this regard, computer-aided-diagnosis (CAD) systems have the potential to support endoscopists in the future. Pedunculated polyps should be removed with a hot snare. Small flat polyps can be resected by cold snare or large forceps. Large, non-pedunculated polyps should be treated in an interdisciplinary approach at a referral center with long-standing experience depending on its malignancy potential. After complete resection of small adenoma without high grade dysplasia, surveillance endoscopy is recommended after 5-10 years. Patients with large adenoma or high grade dysplasia should undergo endoscopy after 3 years and patients with multiple adenoma earlier than 3 years. After incomplete or piecemeal resection or insufficient bowel preparation, near-term endoscopy is recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

Adequate characterization and treatment are essential for the appropriate management of l‑GIT polyps.

Rates of Incomplete Resection of 1- to 20-mm Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Incomplete resection of neoplastic colorectal polyps can result in postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the incomplete resection rate (IRR) of colorectal polyps and associated factors.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL to identify full-text articles that reported IRRs of polyps 1 to 20 mm, published until March 2019. Exclusion criteria were studies of inflammatory bowel disease cohorts, referrals for difficult polypectomy, polyp sizes larger than 20 mm, and endoscopic submucosal resection and/or dissection as polypectomy approaches. IRRs were calculated based on findings from biopsies taken at polypectomy sites or assessments of margins of resected polyps. The primary outcome was IRR for snare removal of polyps 1 to 20 mm. Secondary outcomes included IRR for polyps 1 to 10 mm and 10 to 20 mm, IRR for hot and cold snare removal of polyps 1 to 10 mm and 10 to 20 mm, IRR of snare removal with or without submucosal injection, and IRR for forceps and cold snare removal of polyps 1 to 5 mm.

RESULTS

We identified 6148 reports and used 32 studies, with a total of 9282 polyps, in our quantitative analysis. The IRR for snare removal of polyps 1 to 20 mm was 13.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 10.3-17.3; 13 studies, 5128 polypectomies). IRRs were 15.9% for snare removal of polyps 1 to 10 mm (95% CI 9.6-22.1; 9 studies, 2531 polypectomies) and 20.8% for snare removal of polyps 10 to 20 mm (95% CI 12.9-28.8; 6 studies, 412 polypectomies). The IRR for hot snare removal of polyps 1 to 10 mm was 14.2% (95% CI 5.2-23.2) vs 17.3% for cold snare polypectomy (95% CI 14.3‒20.3). The IRR for forceps removal of polyps 1 to 5 mm was 9.9% (95% CI 7.1-13.0) vs 4.4% for snare polypectomy (95% CI 2.9-6.1).

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that colorectal polyps 1 to 20 mm are frequently incompletely resected, and that risk increases for polyps 10 mm or larger. There is no difference in IRRs of cold vs hot snares for polyps 1 to 10 mm. Snare polypectomy should be used over forceps for polyps 1 to 5 mm.