Tip-in endoscopic mucosal resection for R0 resection of a poorly lifted colonic laterally spreading tumor with possible submucosal invasion

Low-power pure-cut hot snare polypectomy for colorectal polyps 10-14 mm in size: a multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Hot snare excision using electrocautery is widely used for large colorectal polyps (>10 mm); however, adverse events occur due to deep thermal injury. Colorectal polyps measuring 10-14 mm rarely include invasive cancer. Therefore, less invasive therapeutic options for this size category are demanding. We have developed hot snare polypectomy with low-power pure-cut current (LPPC HSP), which is expected to contribute to less deep thermal damage and lower risk of adverse events. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LPPC HSP for 10-14 mm colorectal polyps, compared with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).

METHODS

In this multicenter, retrospective, observational study, clinical outcomes of EMR and LPPC HSP for 10-14 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps between January 2021 and March 2022 were compared using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

We identified 203 EMR and 208 LPPC HSP cases. After propensity score matching, the baseline characteristics between the groups were comparable, with 120 pairs. The en bloc and R0 resection rates were not significantly different between EMR and LPPC HSP groups (95.8% vs 97.5%, P = 0.72; 90.0% vs 91.7%, P = 0.82). The rates of delayed bleeding and perforation did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with conventional EMR, LPPC HSP showed a similar resection ability without an increase in adverse events. These results suggest that LPPC HSP is a safe and effective treatment for 10-14 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps.

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.

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.

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

PURPOSE

A modified endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) technique, Tip-in EMR, was recently introduced to enhance the complete resection of colorectal neoplasia (CRN). We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of Tip-in EMR for flat CRNs.

METHODS

From January to September 2018, conventional or Tip-in EMR was consecutively performed for 112 flat CRNs ≥ 10 mm in diameter. Tip-in EMR was performed when en bloc snaring was impossible with conventional EMR or when a lesion was inadequately lifted owing to a previous forceps biopsy. We retrospectively collected the clinical, procedural, and histologic data of the conventional and Tip-in EMR groups and compared the en bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, and complications between the two groups.

RESULTS

Among 112 flat CRNs of 80 patients, conventional EMR and Tip-in EMR were performed for 74 and 38 lesions, respectively. The median lesion size was 12 (10-27) mm. Tip-in EMR was superior to conventional EMR in terms of en bloc resection (94.7% vs. 77.0%, p = 0.018) and histologic complete resection (76.3% vs. 54.1%, p = 0.022). There was no difference in postprocedural bleeding between the two groups; however, overall adverse events, including bleeding and postpolypectomy electrocoagulation syndrome, were more frequent in the Tip-in EMR group.

CONCLUSIONS

Tip-in EMR is a feasible technique for flat colorectal lesions ≥ 10 mm and is superior to conventional EMR with respect to en bloc and complete resection rates. The safety profiles of Tip-in EMR and conventional EMR should be compared via large-scale prospective studies.