The efficacy and safety of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for ≥10-mm colorectal polyps: systematic review and meta-analysis

Safety and efficacy of underwater EMR for 10- to 20-mm colorectal serrated lesions (SEA CLEAR study)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Colorectal serrated lesions (SLs) are precursors of colorectal carcinoma via the serrated neoplasia pathway. However, the success rate of endoscopic resection of large SLs is low. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of underwater EMR (UEMR) for SLs sized 10 to 20 mm.

METHODS

This 2-center, prospective, observational study included patients with at least 1 SL sized 10 to 20 mm. We resected the SLs by UEMR and performed tattooing at the resection site. Surveillance colonoscopy was performed 12 months postoperatively to evaluate local recurrence. The primary outcome was the complete resection rate of UEMR, which was defined as en bloc resection with no serrated tissue in the 4 marginal biopsy samples and histologically negative margins.

RESULTS

UEMR was performed for 65 SLs in 58 patients, with a median lesion size of 14 mm. The en bloc, R0 resection, and complete resection rates were 87.7% (57 of 65), 61.5% (40 of 65), and 60.0% (39 of 65), respectively. Adverse events included 1 (1.5%) immediate bleeding and 1 (1.5%) delayed perforation. Surveillance colonoscopy was performed in 50 patients with 57 scars, and the rates of identification for tattoos and scars were 94.7% (54 of 57) and 100% (57 of 57), respectively. The recurrence rate was 5.3% (3 of 57), and all 3 recurrent lesions were completely resected endoscopically.

CONCLUSIONS

This 2-center prospective study demonstrated that UEMR for SLs sized 10 to 20 mm was comparable to previous conventional EMR outcomes.

Underwater versus conventional EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Underwater EMR (UEMR) is an alternative procedure to conventional EMR (CEMR) to treat large, nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (LNPCLs). In this multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of UEMR versus CEMR on LNPCLs.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial from February 2018 to February 2020 in 11 hospitals in Spain. A total of 298 patients (311 lesions) were randomized to the UEMR (n = 149) and CEMR (n = 162) groups. The main outcome was the lesion recurrence rate in at least 1 follow-up colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included technical aspects, en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rates, and adverse events, among others.

RESULTS

There were no differences in the overall recurrence rate (9.5% UEMR vs 11.7% CEMR; absolute risk difference, -2.2%; 95% CI, -9.4 to 4.9). However, considering polyp sizes between 20 and 30 mm, the recurrence rate was lower for UEMR (3.4% UEMR vs 13.1% CEMR; absolute risk difference, -9.7%; 95% CI, -19.4 to 0). The R0 resection showed the same tendency, with significant differences favoring UEMR only for polyps between 20 and 30 mm. Overall, UEMR was faster and easier to perform than CEMR. Importantly, the techniques were equally safe.

CONCLUSIONS

UEMR is a valid alternative to CEMR for treating LNPCLs and could be considered the first option of treatment for lesions between 20 and 30 mm due to its higher en bloc and R0 resection rates. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03567746.).

Protocol design for randomized clinical trial to compare underwater cold snare polypectomy to conventional cold snare polypectomy for non-pedunculated colon polyps of size 5-10 mm (COLDWATER study)

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is internationally the third leading cause of death from a malignant disease. The aim of screening colonoscopy in adults > 45 years of age is early diagnosis and treatment of precancerous polyps. Endoscopic polyp removal (polypectomy) can be achieved with various techniques depending on the size, morphology, and location of the polyp. According to current guidelines, small non-pedunculated polyps should be removed with a cold snare after the colorectal lumen has been insufflated with air (conventional cold snare polypectomy).In recent years, several studies have described the benefits of water aided colonoscopy, as well as the safety and efficacy of underwater cold snare polypectomy for large colon polyps. However, there are insufficient data on conventional and underwater techniques for small polyps, the most commonly diagnosed colorectal polyps.

METHODS

We have designed a prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial to compare the safety and efficacy of conventional and underwater cold snare polypectomy for non-pedunculated polyps 5-10 mm in size. A total of 398 polyps will be randomized. Randomization will be carried out using the random numbers method of Microsoft Excel 2016. The primary endpoint is the muscularis mucosa resection rate. Secondary endpoints are the depth and percentage of R0 excisions, complications, and the recurrence rate at follow-up endoscopy 6-12 months after polypectomy.

DISCUSSION

We hypothesize underwater polypectomy will result in a higher muscularis mucosa resection rate. The results of our study will provide useful data for the development of guidelines in polypectomy techniques for non-pedunculated polyps 5-10 mm in size.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05273697.

Efficacy and safety of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for ≤20 mm superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) as a rare disease have gradually increased in recent years. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has emerged as a newly available option for the endoscopic resection of SNADETs. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UEMR for ≤20 mm SNADETs.

METHODS

A literature search was performed across multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Clinical trials for studies containing tumors ≤20 mm published from January 1, 2012, to August 8, 2022. Outcomes examined were the pooled rates of en bloc resection, R0 resection, adverse events, and recurrence. Subgroup analyses of the resection rate were conducted stratified by sample size and polyp size.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies with UEMR performed in a total of 648 tumors were included for analysis. The pooled rate of en bloc resection and R0 resection was 88.2% (95% confidence interval (CI): 82.1-93.2) and 69.1% (95% CI: 62.2-76.1), respectively. The results showed pooled rate of intraoperative bleeding rate was 2.9% (95% CI: 0-9.0), delayed bleeding rate was 0.9% (95% CI: 0.1-2), recurrence rate was 1.5% (95% CI: 0-4.9). In the subgroup analysis, R0 and en-bloc resection rates were significantly higher in <10 mm than 10-20 mm SNADETs subgroups (R0 resection rate 83.1 vs. 48.6%; en bloc resection rate 100.0 vs. 84.0%, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection was an effective and safe technique for the optional treatment for ≤20 mm SNADETs, especially of <10 mm.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022340578.

Safety and effectiveness of underwater cold snare resection without submucosal injection of large non-pedunculated colorectal lesions

Background and study aims  Adverse events are uncommon with cold snaring, but cold techniques are generally reserved for lesions ≤ 9 mm out of concern for incomplete resection or inability to mechanically resect larger lesions. In a non-distended, water-filled lumen, colorectal lesions are not stretched, enabling capture and en bloc resection of large lesions. We assessed the effectiveness and safety of underwater cold snare resection (UCSR) without submucosal injection (SI) of ≥ 10 mm non-pedunculated, non-bulky (≤ 5 mm elevation) lesions with small, thin wire snares. Patients and methods  Retrospective analysis of an observational cohort of lesions removed by UCSR during colonoscopy. A single endoscopist performed procedures using a small thin wire (9-mm diameter) cold or (10-mm diameter) hybrid snare. Results  Fifty-three lesions (mean 15.8 mm [SD 6.9]; range 10-35 mm) were removed by UCSR from 44 patients. Compared to a historical cohort, significantly more lesions were resected en bloc by UCSR (84.9 % [45/53]; P  = 0.04) compared to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) (64.0 % [32/50]). Results were driven by high en bloc resection rates for 10- to 19-mm lesions (97.3 % [36/37]; P  = 0.01). Multiple logistic regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders showed en bloc resection was significantly associated with UCSR compared to conventional EMR (OR 3.47, P  = 0.027). Omission of SI and forgoing prophylactic clipping of post-resection sites did not result in adverse outcomes. Conclusions  UCSR of ≥ 10 mm non-pedunculated, non-bulky colorectal lesions is feasible with high en bloc resection rates without adverse outcomes. Omission of SI and prophylactic clipping decreased resource utilization with economic benefits. UCSR deserves further evaluation in a prospective comparative study.

Is underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of colon polyps superior to conventional techniques? A network analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection

Background and study aims  Evidence from recent trials comparing conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to underwater EMR (UEMR) have matured. However, studies comparing UEMR to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are lacking. Hence, we sought to conduct a comprehensive network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of UEMR, ESD, and EMR. Methods  Embase and Medline databases were searched from inception to December 2020 for articles comparing UEMR with EMR and ESD. Outcomes of interest included rates of en bloc and complete polyp resection, risk of perforation and bleeding, and local recurrence. A network meta-analysis comparing all three approaches was conducted. In addition, a conventional comparative meta-analysis comparing UEMR to EMR was performed. Analysis was stratified according to polyp sizes (< 10 mm, ≥ 10 mm, and ≥ 20 mm). Results  Twenty-two articles were included in this study. For polyps ≥ 10 mm, UEMR was inferior to ESD in achieving en bloc resection ( P  = 0.02). However, UEMR had shorter operating time for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P  < 0.001), and ≥20 mm ( P  = 0.019) with reduced perforation risk for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P  = 0.05) compared to ESD. In addition, en bloc resection rates were similar between UEMR and EMR, although UEMR had reduced recurrence for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P  = 0.013) and ≥ 20 mm ( P  = 0.014). UEMR also had shorter mean operating than EMR for polyps ≥ 10 mm ( P  < 0.001) and ≥ 20 mm ( P  < 0.001). Risk of bleeding and perforation with UEMR and EMR were similar for polyp of all sizes. Conclusions  UEMR has demonstrated technical and oncological outcomes comparable to ESD and EMR, along with a desirable safety profile. UEMR appears to be a safe and effective alternative to conventional methods for resection of polyps ≥ 10 mm.

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.

Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for 10 mm or Larger Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background/Aims

Recent studies have reported the favorable outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) for colorectal polyps. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the efficacy and safety of UEMR for nonpedunculated polyps ≥10 mm.

Methods

We performed a comprehensive search of multiple databases (through May 2020) to identify studies reporting the outcomes of UEMR for ≥10 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps. The assessed outcomes were recurrence rate on the first follow-up, en bloc resection, incomplete resection, and adverse events after UEMR.

Results

A total of 1276 polyps from 16 articles were included in our study. The recurrence rate was 7.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.3–12) and 5.9% (95% CI, 3.6–9.4) for nonpedunculated polyps ≥10 and ≥20 mm, respectively. For nonpedunculated polyps ≥10 mm, the en bloc resection, R0 resection, and incomplete resection rates were 57.7% (95% CI, 42.4–71.6), 58.9% (95% CI, 42.4–73.6), and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8–2.6), respectively. The rates of pooled adverse events, intraprocedural bleeding, and delayed bleeding were 7.0%, 5.4%, and 2.9%, respectively. The rate of perforation and postpolypectomy syndrome was 0.8%.

Conclusions

Our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that UEMR for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥10 mm is safe and effective with a low rate of recurrence.