How we resect colorectal polyps <20 mm in size

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 resection for colorectal polyps: where we are and where we are going?

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic resection of colonic precancerous lesions has been demonstrated to significantly decrease colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. Among resection techniques, cold snare polypectomy (CSP) has been shown as a highly feasible, effective and safe option and is widely used in clinical practice, being regarded as the first-line technique for removal of small and diminutive colorectal polyps. On the other hand, conventional hot snare polypectomy (HSP) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), namely the gold standard treatments for larger polyps, may be occasionally associated to complications due to electrocautery injury.

AREAS COVERED

To overcome these shortcomings of electrocautery-based resection techniques, in the last few years CSP has been increasingly assessed as a treatment option for additional indications, with a focus on nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥10 mm.

EXPERT OPINION

This review aims to present current and widened indications of CSP discussing the latest findings from the most remarkable studies, with an insight into technical issues, novelties and potential advances in the near future.

Extended delay in endoscopic mucosal resection is not associated with adverse outcomes: Findings from the COVID-19 pandemic

Background and study aims The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of delayed endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of colorectal polyps on health outcomes.

Patients and methods A bidirectional cohort study was completed. A baseline group consisting of all EMRs performed within a 15-month period before a province-wide, government-mandated cessation of EMR procedures due to the global pandemic was compared to EMRs impacted by the shutdown, defined as the COVID-19-delayed group. The primary outcome was the incidence of malignant polyps. Secondary outcomes included technical success, polyp recurrence at follow-up colonoscopy, advanced polyp histology, probability of meeting endoscopic criteria for adequate resection for malignant polyps, metastatic colorectal cancer, and complications.

Results A total of 268 EMR procedures were included in the study cohort, of which 208 formed the baseline group and 60 were in the COVID-19-delayed group. The median (IQR) patient age was 72 (13.0) and 113 (41.2 %) were females. The median (IQR) wait time was 92 days (87.8) in the baseline group and 191 days (127.8) in the COVID-19-delayed group (P < 0.001). Overall, there were no significant differences in the incidence of malignant polyps, technical success, polyp recurrence on follow-up colonoscopy, advanced polyp histology, adequate endoscopic resection for malignant polyps, metastatic colorectal cancer, or complications between the two groups (P > 0.05 for all outcomes).

Conclusions A longer wait time for EMR of colorectal polyps, increasing from a median of 92 to 191 days, was not associated with worse outcomes.

Outcomes of cold snare piecemeal EMR for nonampullary small-bowel adenomas larger than 1 cm: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Nonampullary small-bowel adenomas ≥10 mm are typically resected using cautery-based polypectomy, which is associated with significant adverse events. Studies have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of piecemeal cold snare EMR for removing large colon polyps. Our aim was to assess the safety and efficacy of cold snare EMR for removal of large adenomas in the small bowel.

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients who underwent lift and piecemeal cold snare EMR of small-bowel adenomas ≥1 cm between January 2014 and March 2019 was conducted at a tertiary care medical center. Polyp characteristics at the time of index and surveillance endoscopy were collected. Primary outcomes were residual or recurrent adenoma (RRA) seen on surveillance endoscopy, polyp eradication rate, and number of endoscopic procedures required for eradication. Adverse events including immediate and delayed bleeding, perforation, stricture, pancreatitis, and postpolypectomy syndrome were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 43 patients who underwent piecemeal cold snare EMR, 39 had follow-up endoscopy. Polyps ranged in size from 10 to 70 mm (mean, 26.5 mm). RRA was found in 18 patients (46%), with increased polyp size correlating with higher recurrence (P < .001). Polyp eradication was observed in 35 patients (89%), requiring a median of 2 (range, 1-6) endoscopic procedures. Only 1 patient (2.3%) had immediate postprocedural bleeding. No cases of perforation or postpolypectomy syndrome were seen.

CONCLUSIONS

Piecemeal cold snare EMR may be a feasible, safe, and efficacious technique for small-bowel polyps >10 mm. Prospective, randomized studies are needed to assess how outcomes compare with traditional cautery-based polypectomy.

Management of familial adenomatous polyposis and MUTYH-associated polyposis; new insights

Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) and MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP) are rare inherited polyposis syndromes with a high colorectal cancer (CRC) risk. Therefore, frequent endoscopic surveillance including polypectomy of relevant premalignant lesions from a young age is warranted in patients. In FAP and less often in MAP, prophylactic colectomy is indicated followed by lifelong endoscopic surveillance of the retained rectum after (sub)total colectomy and ileal pouch after proctocolectomy to prevent CRC. No consensus is reached on the right type and timing of colectomy. As patients with FAP and MAP nowadays have an almost normal life-expectancy due to adequate treatment of colorectal polyposis, challenges in the management of FAP and MAP have shifted towards the treatment of duodenal and gastric adenomas as well as desmoid treatment in FAP. Whereas up until recently upper gastrointestinal surveillance was mostly diagnostic and patients were referred for surgery once duodenal or gastric polyposis was advanced, nowadays endoscopic treatment of premalignant lesions is widely performed. Aiming to reduce polyp burden in the colorectum as well as in the upper gastrointestinal tract, several chemopreventive agents are currently being studied.

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.

Efficacy and histologic accuracy of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large (>20 mm) colorectal polyps: a comparative review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Major limitations with conventional EMR (C-EMR) include high rates of polyp recurrence and low en-bloc resection rates, especially for lesions >20 mm in size. Underwater EMR (U-EMR) has emerged as an alternate technique for en-bloc resection of larger lesions. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of the 2 techniques.

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched through June 2020 for studies that compared outcomes of U-EMR and C-EMR for colorectal lesions. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled odds ratios (ORs) of successful R0, en-bloc, and piecemeal resection of colorectal lesions. We compared the rates of polyp recurrence at follow-up, diagnostic accuracy for colorectal cancer, and adverse events with the 2 techniques.

RESULTS

Eleven studies, including 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 1851 patients were included in the final analysis. A total of 1071 lesions were removed using U-EMR, and 1049 lesions were removed using C-EMR. Although U-EMR had an overall superior en-bloc resection rate compared with C-EMR (OR, 1.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1-3.5; P = .04), both techniques were comparable in terms of polyps >20 mm in size (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-2.1; P = .75), R0 resection (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 0.74-12.6; P = .14), piecemeal resection (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 0.74-12.6; P = .13), and diagnostic accuracy for colorectal cancer (OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.6-1.8; P = .82). There were lower rates of polyp recurrence (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.8; P = .01) and incomplete resection (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.5; P = .001) with U-EMR. Both techniques have comparable resection times and safety profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results support the use of U-EMR over C-EMR for successful resection of colorectal lesions. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy of U-EMR for resecting polyps >20 mm in size.

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.

The Case for High-Quality Colonoscopy Remaining a Premier Colorectal Cancer Screening Strategy in the United States

Most colorectal cancer screening in the United States occurs in the opportunistic setting, where screening is initiated by a patient-provider interaction. Colonoscopy provides the longest-interval protection, and high-quality colonoscopy is ideally suited to the opportunistic setting. Both detection and colonoscopic resection have improved as a result of intense scientific investigation. Further improvements in detection are expected with the introduction of artificial intelligence programs into colonoscopy platforms. We may expect recommended intervals or colonoscopy after negative examinations performed by high-quality detectors to expand beyond 10 years. Thus, high-quality colonoscopy remains an excellent approach to colorectal cancer screening in the opportunistic setting.

The Cold Revolution: How Far Can It Go?

Cold resection for small colonic polyps, and larger lesions, is being rapidly and widely adopted. Driven by an impressive safety and cost profile compared with conventional polypectomy, these advantages are offset by the limitations of smaller and shallower resection, and absent thermal effects that may permit persistence of residual neoplasia. To overcome this, optimal cold snare technique requires inclusion of a margin of normal mucosa and a piecemeal resection technique for larger polyps. This article examines the fundamentals of cold snare resection and evidence for its application, theorizes on limits to its application, and identifies areas for further research.

Best Practices for Resection of Diminutive and Small Polyps in the Colorectum

Diminutive colorectal lesions are polyps and flat lesions 1 to 5 mm in size, and small are 6 to 9 mm in size. The best resection method is the cold snare. Cold forceps are acceptable for 1- to 3-mm lesions, but should not be used to piecemeal polyps. Cold snaring has few complications and is more effective than cold forceps for 4- to 5-mm polyps and as effective and more efficient than hot snaring for 6- to 9-mm polyps.