Improving complete EMR of colorectal neoplasia: a randomized trial comparing snares and injectate in the resection of large sessile colon polyps

Recurrence rates after endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Complete polyp resection is the main goal of endoscopic removal of large colonic polyps. Resection techniques have evolved in recent years and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with margin ablation, cold snare polypectomy (CSP), cold EMR, and underwater EMR have been introduced. Yet, efficacy of these techniques with regard to local recurrence rates (LRRs) vs traditional hot snare polypectomy and standard EMR remains unclear.

AIM

To analyze LRR of large colonic polyps in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL were searched for prospective studies reporting LRR or incomplete resection rate (IRR) after colonic polypectomy of polyps ≥ 10 mm, published between January 2011 and July 2021. Primary outcome was LRR for polyps ≥ 10 mm.

RESULTS

Six thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight publications were identified, of which 34 prospective studies were included. LRR for polyps ≥ 10 mm at up to 12 mo' follow-up was 11.0% (95%CI, 7.1%-14.8%; 15 studies; 4904 polyps). ESD (1.7%; 95%CI, 0%-3.4%; 3 studies, 221 polyps) and endoscopic mucosal resection with margin ablation (3.3%; 95%CI, 2.2%-4.5%; 2 studies, 947 polyps) significantly reduced LRR vs standard EMR without (15.2%; 95%CI, 12.5%-18.0%; 4 studies, 650 polyps) or with unsystematic margin ablation (16.5%; 95%CI, 15.2%-17.8%; 6 studies, 3031 polyps).

CONCLUSION

LRR is significantly lower after ESD or EMR with routine margin ablation; thus, these techniques should be considered standard for endoscopic removal of large colorectal polyps. Other techniques, such as CSP, cold EMR, and underwater EMR require further evaluation in prospective studies before their routine implementation in clinical practice can be recommended.

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

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic review and pooled analysis to assess the effectiveness and safety of different endoscopic resection methods for 10- to 20-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps.

METHODS

Articles in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library related to the common endoscopic treatment of 10- to 20-mm nonpedunculated polyps published as of April 2020 were searched. Primary outcomes were the R0 resection rate and en bloc resection rate. Secondary outcomes were safety and the recurrence rate. Meta-regression and subgroup analysis were also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 36 studies involving 3212 polyps were included in the final analysis. Overall, the effectiveness of resection methods with a submucosal uplifting effect, including endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), cold EMR and underwater EMR (UEMR), was better than that of methods without a nonsubmucosal uplifting effect [R0 resection rate, 90% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-0.94, I² = 84%) vs 82% (95% CI 0.78-0.85, I² = 0%); en bloc resection rate 85% (95% CI 0.79-0.91, I² = 83%) vs 74% (95% CI 0.47-0.94, I² = 94%)]. Regarding safety, the pooled data showed that hot resection [hot snare polypectomy, UEMR and EMR] had a higher risk of intraprocedural bleeding than cold resection [3% (95% CI 0.01-0.05, I² = 68%) vs 0% (95% CI 0-0.01, I² = 0%)], while the incidences of delayed bleeding, perforation and post-polypectomy syndrome were all low.

CONCLUSIONS

Methods with submucosal uplifting effects are more effective than those without for resecting 10- to 20-mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps, and cold EMR is associated with a lower risk of intraprocedural bleeding than other methods. Additional research is needed to verify the advantages of these methods, especially cold EMR.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for management of colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND

The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE) published ''Daicho Polyp Shinryo Guideline 2014'' in Japanese and a part of this guideline was published in English as "Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for management of colorectal polyps" in the Journal of Gastroenterology in 2015. A revised version of the Japanese-language guideline was published in 2020, and here we introduce a part of the contents of revised version.

METHODS

The guideline committee discussed and drew up a series of clinical questions (CQs). Recommendation statements for the CQs were limited to items with multiple therapeutic options. Items with established conclusions that had 100% agreement with previous guidelines (background questions) and items with no (or old) evidence that are topics for future research (future research questions: FRQs) were given descriptions only. To address the CQs and FRQs, PubMed, ICHUSHI, and other sources were searched for relevant articles published in English from 1983 to October 2018 and articles published in Japanese from 1983 to November 2018. The Japan Medical Library Association was also commissioned to search for relevant materials. Manual searches were performed for questions with insufficient online references.

RESULTS

The professional committee created 18 CQs and statements concerning the current concept and diagnosis/treatment of various colorectal polyps, including their epidemiology, screening, pathophysiology, definition and classification, diagnosis, management, practical treatment, complications, and surveillance after treatment, and other colorectal lesions (submucosal tumors, nonneoplastic polyps, polyposis, hereditary tumors, ulcerative colitis-associated tumors/carcinomas).

CONCLUSIONS

After evaluation by the moderators, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for management of colorectal polyps were proposed for 2020. This report addresses the therapeutic related CQs introduced when formulating these guidelines.

Effect of Instruction on Preventing Delayed Bleeding after Colorectal Polypectomy and Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

Background: The frequency of delayed bleeding after colorectal polypectomy has been reported as 0.6–2.8%. With the increasing performance of polypectomy under continuous use of antithrombotic agents, care is required regarding delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB). Better instruction to educate endoscopists is therefore needed. We aimed to evaluate the effect of instruction and factors associated with delayed bleeding after endoscopic colorectal polyp resection. Methods: This single-center, retrospective study was performed to assess instruction in checking complete hemostasis and risk factors for onset of DPPB. The incidence of delayed bleeding, comorbidities, and medications were evaluated from medical records. Characteristics of historical control patients and patients after instruction were compared. Results: A total of 3318 polyps in 1002 patients were evaluated. The control group comprised 1479 polyps in 458 patients and the after-instruction group comprised 1839 polyps in 544 patients. DPPB occurred in 1.1% of polyps in control, and 0.4% in after-instruction. Instruction significantly decreased delayed bleeding, particularly in cases with antithrombotic agents. Hot polypectomy, clip placement, and use of antithrombotic agents were significant independent risk factors for DPPB even after instruction. Conclusion: The rate of delayed bleeding significantly decreased after instruction to check for complete hemostasis. Even after instruction, delayed bleeding can still occur in cases with antithrombotic agents or hot polypectomy.

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.

Endoscopic mucosal resection with anchoring of the snare tip: multicenter retrospective evaluation of effectiveness and safety

Background  Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with snare is the recommended technique to resect non-invasive colorectal neoplastic lesions between 10 and 30 mm in diameter. The objective of EMR is to resect completely the neoplastic tissue en bloc and preferably with free margins (R0), avoiding recurrences. Anchoring the tip of the snare in the submucosa is a technical trick that allows snare sliding to be reduced and larger pieces to be caught. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of anchoring-EMR (A-EMR). Methods  This was a retrospective analysis of A-EMR procedures for lesions of diameter between 10 and 30 mm (endoscopic evaluation) performed consecutively in four French centers between May 2017 and January 2018. A-EMR was routinely performed for all EMR using Olympus conventional snares (10 or 25 mm). The primary outcome was evaluation of the proportion of R0 resections. Results  A total of 141 A-EMR procedures were performed by 10 operators. Mean lesion size was 19.8 mm. Anchoring was feasible in 96.5 % of cases. There were 81.6 % en bloc resections and 70.2 % R0 resections, with the percentage of procedures decreasing with increasing lesion size (82.8 % < 20 mm, 55.3 % 21 - 30 mm, and 50.0 % > 30 mm, P  = 0.002). Complete perforations closed endoscopically occurred in 3/141 cases (2.1 %); none occurred in lesions < 20 mm in size (0 /87). Conclusion  The A-EMR technique appears to be promising with a high proportion of R0 for lesions of 10 - 20 mm in size without any perforations. It could also offer an alternative to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), or to hybrid techniques to reach R0 for lesions between 20 and 30 mm in size.

Polyp Resection - Controversial Practices and Unanswered Questions

Detection and complete removal of precancerous neoplastic polyps are central to effective colorectal cancer screening. The prevalence of neoplastic polyps in the screening population in the United States is likely >50%. However, most persons with neoplastic polyps are never destined to develop cancer, and do not benefit for finding and removing polyps, and may only be harmed by the procedure. Further 70-80% of polyps are diminutive (≤5 mm) and such polyps almost never contain cancer. Given the questionable benefit, the high-cost and the potential risk changing our approach to the management of diminutive polyps is currently debated. Deemphasizing diminutive polyps and shifting our efforts to detection and complete removal of larger and higher-risk polyps deserves discussion and study. This article explores three controversies, and emerging concepts related to endoscopic polyp resection. First, we discuss challenges of optical resect-and-discard strategy and possible alternatives. Second, we review recent studies that support the use of cold snare resection for ≥5 mm polyps. Thirdly, we examine current evidence for prophylactic clipping after resection of large polyps.

Management of early colonic neoplasia: where are we now and where are we heading?

There have been considerable advances in the endoscopic treatment of colorectal neoplasia. The development of endoscopic submucosal dissection and full thickness resection techniques is changing the way benign disease and early cancers are managed. This article reviews the evidence behind these new techniques and discusses where this field is likely to move in the future. Areas covered: A PubMed literature review of resection techniques for colonic neoplasia was performed. The clinical and cost effectiveness of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is examined. The development of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and knife assisted resection is described and issues around training reviewed. Efficacy is compared to both EMR and transanal endoscopic microsurgery. The future is considered, including full thickness resection techniques and robotic endoscopy. Expert commentary: The perceived barriers to ESD are falling, and views that such techniques are only possible in Japan are disappearing. The key barriers to uptake will be training, and the development of educational programmes should be seen as a priority. The debate between TEMS and ESD will continue, but ESD is more flexible and cheaper. This will become less significant as the number of endoscopists trained in ESD grows and some TEMS surgeons may shift across towards ESD.

Submucosal injection with waterjet improves endoscopic mucosal resection of colorectal adenoma - a randomised controlled clinical trial

PURPOSE

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of colorectal adenomas leads to a reduced incidence of, and mortality from, colorectal carcinoma. Large adenomas are especially difficult to resect. Submucosal injection is a key part of EMR, as it allows for complete resection and decreased complications. We previously demonstrated in both animal models and a clinical trial that a focussed fluid beam applied to the mucosa creates selective fluid cushions in the submucosa selective tissue elevation by pressure (STEP). In this study, we examined the potential of this new technique compared to the standard inject and cut technique.

METHODS

This was a monocentric prospective two armed randomised controlled clinical trial comparing the STEP technique to the standard needle injection. We included patients with Yamada I and II adenomas ≥12 mm.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-five patients were treated in the trial. With the STEP technique there was a significantly higher rate of en-bloc resection, whereas piecemeal resection was more common in the standard arm. The odds ratio of piecemeal resection was 2.422 with a 95% confidence interval of 1.163-5.045 (p value .0195). There was no significant difference in resection time between the two techniques, while there was a significant difference in resections speed for the STEP technique. There was also no difference in complication rates.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that the new STEP technique leads to a higher rate of en-bloc resections than the standard injection technique in endoscopic mucosa resection of colorectal adenomas. The STEP technique can play an important role in the future of EMR.

Endoscopic management of mucosal lesions in the gastrointestinal tract

With the increasing role of endoscopy in patient evaluation, more mucosal lesions, including gastric, duodenal and colonic polyps, are encountered during routine examinations. It is imperative for gastroenterologists to become familiar with the endoscopic management of these various gastrointestinal lesions. In this article, various resection techniques will be discussed, including hot/cold forceps polypectomy, hot/cold snare polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection, and endoscopic submucosal dissection. The article will also discuss the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of these techniques and the future direction of endoscopic management of mucosal lesions in the gastrointestinal tract.

Update on Difficult Polypectomy Techniques

Endoscopists often encounter colon polyps that are technically difficult to resect. These lesions traditionally were managed surgically, with significant potential morbidity and mortality. Recent advances in endoscopic techniques and instruments have allowed endoscopists to safely and effectively remove colorectal lesions with high technical and clinical success and potentially avoid invasive surgery. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has gained acceptance as the first-line therapy for large colorectal lesions. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been reported to be associated with higher rate of en bloc resection and less risk of short-time recurrence, but with an increased risk of adverse events. Therefore, the role of colorectal ESD should be restricted to lesions with high-risk morphologic features of submucosal invasion. In this article, we review the recent literature on the endoscopic management of difficult colorectal neoplasms.

Outcome of EMR as an alternative to surgery in patients with complex colon polyps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients with complex colon polyps were traditionally referred for surgery to avoid adverse events associated with endoscopic resection. Recent advances in endoscopic imaging as well as endoscopic hemostasis and clip closure allow for the use of EMR as an alternative to surgery for such lesions. To determine the outcome of treatment of complex colon polyps with EMR as an alternative to surgery, we conducted a retrospective observational study.

METHODS

Two hundred three patients with complex colon polyps were referred to an EMR center as an alternative to surgery. Patients underwent a protocol-driven EMR. The primary endpoint was the complete resection rate. Secondary endpoints were safety, residual adenoma rate, and incidence of missed synchronous polyps.

RESULTS

EMR was performed in 155 patients and was deferred in 48 patients who were referred to surgery. EMR specimens revealed benign polyps in 149 and cancer in 6 patients. EMR adverse events occurred in 7 patients, requiring hospitalization in 5 of them. None of the patients died as a result of their adverse events. Surveillance colonoscopy at 4 to 6 months after resection of a benign lesion in 137 patients revealed residual adenoma at the scar site in 6 patients and additional synchronous precancerous lesions in 117 patients that were not removed by the referring endoscopist. None underwent surgery for failure of EMR. The overall precancerous lesion burden was 2.83 per patient, the adenoma burden was 2.13 per patient, and the serrated polyp burden was .69 per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

EMR can be used instead of surgery for complex colon polyps in 75% of patients with few adverse events and few residual adenomas at resection sites. In addition, careful repeat examination of the entire colon for synchronous lesions overlooked by the referring endoscopist is required for most patients. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01827241.).

Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection of large colonic polyps

Almost all large and complex colorectal polyps can now be resected endoscopically. Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (PEMR) is an established technique with fairly low complication risk and good short-term and medium-term outcomes. Several modifications to the basic injection and snare technique have been developed contributing to safer and more complete resections. Delayed bleeding requiring reintervention is the most troublesome complication in 2-7% of patients, particularly in those with comorbidities and large, right-sided polyps. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become popular in Japan and has theoretical advantages over PEMR in providing a complete, en bloc excision for accurate histological staging and reduced local recurrence. These advantages come at the cost of a more complex, expensive and time-consuming procedure with a higher risk of perforation, particularly early in the procedure learning curve. These factors have contributed to the slow adoption of ESD in the West and the challenge to develop new devices and endoscopic platforms that will make ESD easier and safer. Currently, ESD indications are limited to large rectal lesions, in which procedural complications are easily managed, and for colorectal polyps with a high risk of containing tiny foci of early submucosally invasive cancer, whereby ESD may be curative compared with PEMR.