Modified endoscopic mucosal resection techniques for treating precancerous colorectal lesions

Thermal ablation of margins for recurrence prevention after endoscopic mucosal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large colorectal lesions can be challenging, and residual lesions after EMR can progress to colorectal cancer. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding thermal ablation of margins [using argon plasma coagulation (APC) or snare tip soft coagulation (STSC)] in reducing recurrence rates after EMR.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes were overall adverse events (AEs) and delayed bleeding. We pre-specified subgroup analyses by lesion size, thermal ablation technique, and resection type. The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran's Q test and I2 statistics.

RESULTS

We included four RCTs (815 patients and 872 colorectal lesions). Thermal ablation reduced recurrence rates [RR 0.31; 95%CI (0.20-0.47); I2 = 0%], while the risk of overall AEs [RR 0.93; 95%CI (0.73-1.17); I2 = 0%] was similar between both groups. The results were consistent in subgroup analyses of APC, STSC, polyps > 20 mm, and piece-meal resection.

CONCLUSION

Thermal ablation of margins following EMR reduced recurrence rates while maintaining a comparable safety profile.

The efficacy and safety of precutting-endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Several modified endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) techniques have been reported for colorectal tumors. Precutting-EMR (PEMR) is a modification wherein a circumferential mucosal incision is made around a lesion to facilitate en bloc resection. This review compared the efficacy and safety of PEMR with conventional EMR for colorectal lesions.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for comparative studies available before February 15, 2024. This systematic review and meta-analysis were recorded in PROSPERO, identified as CRD42024509143.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eight studies underwent screening of which seven studies were found eligible. We found no significant difference in en bloc resection rates but complete resection rates were significantly better with PEMR. The duration of the procedure was significantly longer with PEMR as compared to EMR. There was no difference in the risk of delayed bleeding and recurrence between the two groups but the risk of perforation was significantly increased with PEMR.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of PEMR for colorectal lesions can improve complete resection rates, albeit at the cost of increased duration of the procedure and higher perforation rates compared to conventional EMR. PEMR may also have a tendency of better en bloc resection rates which needs to be confirmed by further studies.

Endoscopic Resection for Colorectal Tumors

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection techniques for colorectal tumors are constantly evolving with improvements.

SUMMARY

Over the past decade, there has been a paradigm shift toward cold polypectomy for the removal of small lesions (<10 mm), known as the "cold revolution". In recent years, underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has emerged as an alternative to conventional EMR and has been gaining popularity for resection of intermediate and large-sized lesions (≥10 mm). Although colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) requires a high level of advanced skills, improvements in dissection techniques and devices have facilitated the procedure. In Japan, the safety and efficacy of ESD for resecting large lesions (≥20 mm) have been demonstrated in a large-scale, multicenter, prospective cohort study (CREATE-J). ESD is also being increasingly adopted in Western countries. As endoscopic resection continues to advance and include large and more complex defects, a variety of closure techniques and new devices are being developed. Meanwhile, the number of endoscopic resections for T1-colorectal cancer (T1-CRC), including those intended for total excisional biopsy, has been increasing owing to the aging population and improvements in endoscopic technique.

KEY MESSAGES

This review provides a broad summary of endoscopic resection for colorectal tumors including advancements in closure techniques and devices for mucosal defects, as well as the potential role of endoscopic resection for patients with T1-CRC.

Cold endoscopic mucosal resection versus cold snare polypectomy for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Cold resection of colorectal lesions is widely performed because of its safety and effectiveness; however, it remains uncertain whether adding submucosal injection could improve the efficacy and safety. We aimed to compare cold endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) versus cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for colorectal lesions.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) identified from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. The primary outcome was complete resection. Secondary outcomes were procedure time, en bloc resection, and adverse events (AEs). Prespecified subgroup analyses based on the size and morphology of the polyps were performed. The random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and mean difference, with corresponding 95%CIs, for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I 2 statistics.

RESULTS

7 RCTs were included, comprising 1556 patients, with 2287 polyps analyzed. C-EMR and CSP had similar risk ratios for complete resection (RR 1.02, 95%CI 0.98-1.07), en bloc resection (RR 1.08, 95%CI 0.82-1.41), and AEs (RR 0.74, 95%CI 0.41-1.32). C-EMR had a longer procedure time (mean difference 42.1 seconds, 95%CI 14.5-69.7 seconds). In stratified subgroup analyses, the risk was not statistically different between C-EMR and CSP for complete resection in polyps<10 mm or ≥10 mm, or for complete resection, en bloc resection, and AEs in the two groups among nonpedunculated polyps.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that C-EMR has similar efficacy and safety to CSP, but significantly increases the procedure time.

PROSPERO

CRD42023439605.

Wound infection prevention strategies in colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection: A meta-analysis of prophylactic measures

Colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is associated with the risk of postoperative wound infections, prompting investigations into effective prophylactic measures. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of various prophylactic interventions in reducing the incidence of wound infections following EMR. Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive search across multiple databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies from 2015 to 2022. We included studies that compared the efficacy of antibiotic prophylaxis and antiseptic measures, with clear data on post-procedure infection rates. Eight studies met our inclusion criteria, and data were extracted for meta-analysis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The meta-analysis included 3765 patients from eight RCTs. Prophylactic antibiotics (cefixime and cefuroxime) showed moderate to high efficacy, with infection rates as low as 0% and 0.76%. Prophylactic endoscopic closure and clipping showed the highest efficacy, with zero reported infections. The standardized surgical site infection prevention bundle had lower effectiveness, with an infection incidence of 3.83%. The risk of bias assessment indicated potential performance bias due to lack of blinding, but overall evidence quality was upheld by proper random sequence generation and diligent outcome data monitoring. The effectiveness of specific prophylactic measures, notably prophylactic antibiotics and mechanical closure techniques, has been shown in significantly reducing the risk of wound infections following colorectal EMR.