Search

Background and Aims The optimal technique for the resection of sessile serrated polyps (SSPs) is unknown, with established limitations and risks with conventional polypectomy. Although cold snare polypectomy is safe, the efficacy of piecemeal resection for large lesions is untested. In this study we evaluate the safety and efficacy of cold EMR for large SSPs. Methods Patients presenting for elective colonoscopy at an academic endoscopy center with 1 or more SSPs ≥10 mm in size were enrolled, excluding those on anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy other than aspirin. Lesions were resected with a cold EMR technique comprising submucosal injection of succinylated gelatin and dilute methylene blue before piecemeal cold snare resection of all visible polyp with a margin of normal tissue. Outcomes were the presence of residual serrated neoplasia in biopsy specimens from the defect margin and findings on surveillance colonoscopy. Results Cold EMR was performed on 163 SSPs during 105 procedures in 99 patients (97% women; median age, 57 years). The mean size was 17.5 mm: 61 SSPs were ≥20 mm and 13 SSPs ≥30 mm, and 97.5% were in the proximal colon. Cytologic dysplasia was present in 2 (1.2%). Margin biopsy specimens were positive in 2 lesions (1.2%). Surveillance colonoscopy for 82% of lesions (median, 5 months) showed residual serrated tissue in 1, treated with cold snare, but no evidence of recurrence in the remainder. Minor adverse events were seen in 3 patients; no delayed bleeding was observed. Conclusions Cold EMR is a safe and effective method for the removal of large SSPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims EMR of large laterally spreading lesions (LSL) in the colon is a safe and effective alternative to surgery. Post-EMR scar assessment currently involves taking biopsy specimens of the scar to detect residual or recurrent adenoma (RRA). The accuracy of endoscopic imaging of the post-EMR scar is unknown. We aimed to determine the accuracy of a standardized imaging protocol in post-EMR scar assessment. Methods Prospective, single-center data from the Australian Colonic EMR study were analyzed. Consecutive patients undergoing first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1) after EMR of a large LSL were eligible. All scars were sequentially examined with high-definition white light (HD-WL) and narrow-band imaging (NBI) in a standardized fashion and then biopsies were performed. Endoscopic recurrence (recurrence at the post-EMR scar detected by systematic endoscopic assessment) was compared with the histologic findings. Results One hundred eighty-three post-EMR scars were included. Thirty of 183 (16.4%) were confirmed to have RRA histologically at SC1. Thirty-seven of 183 (20.2%) post-EMR scars demonstrated RRA endoscopically. The sensitivity and specificity of endoscopic RRA detection were 93.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 77.9%-99.2%) and 94.1% (95% CI, 89.1%-97.3%), respectively. The positive predictive value was 75.7% (95% CI, 58.8%-88.2%) and the negative predictive value was 98.6% (95% CI, 95.1%-99.8%). The diagnostic accuracy was 94.0%. Sensitivity was higher for the combination of HD-WL and NBI as opposed to HD-WL alone (93.3% vs 66.7%). The specificity was high for both HD-WL and HD-WL + NBI (96.1% and 94.1%, respectively). Flat morphology of RRA was better seen with NBI ( P = .002). Conclusions Endoscopic detection of RRA in the post-EMR scar is highly accurate using a standardized imaging protocol with HD-WL and NBI. This allows real-time, accurate detection of recurrence and its concurrent treatment, and raises the possibility that routine biopsy of the post-EMR scar may not be necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is widely practiced; however, the endoscopic features of the CSP mucosal defect have not been studied. In particular, protrusions within the cold snare defect (CSDPs) may create concern for residual polyp. The frequency and constituents of this phenomenon are unknown. Objective To describe the frequency, predictors, and histologic constituents of CSDPs. Design Prospective observational study. Setting Tertiary-care hospital endoscopy unit. Patients Eighty-eight consecutive patients undergoing CSP for a polyp ≤ 10 mm in size. Intervention Inspection of the cold snare mucosal defect with high-definition white light and biopsy sampling of CSDPs for separate histologic assessment, when present. Main Outcome Measurement Frequency and constituents of CSDPs. Results Two hundred fifty-seven consecutive polyps ≤ 10 mm in size were removed in 88 patients (50 men [57%], mean age 63 years). Polyps were predominately adenomatous (162, 63%), located in the proximal colon (159, 62%) and flat (200, 78%). Mean lesion size was 5.5 mm (range, 2-10 mm). High-grade dysplasia was present in a single polyp for which the defect was bland. CSDPs occurred in 36 polypectomies (14%). CSDPs were associated with polyp size ≥ 6 mm (odds ratio, 3.7; P < .001 multivariable analysis) but not age, sex, lesion, histopathology, morphology, or location. Histopathologic examination of CSDPs revealed submucosa in 34 (94%) and muscularis mucosa in 29 (80%). No residual adenomatous or serrated polyp tissue was detected. Limitations Single-center study. Small number of polyps with high-grade dysplasia. Conclusion Protrusions are common within the CSP mucosal defect and are associated with polyp size ≥ 6 mm. CSDPs do not represent vascular structures, do not contain residual polyp, and are not associated with adverse outcomes in short-term follow-up. However, CSDPs represent incomplete mucosal layer resection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims Optical diagnosis allows for real-time endoscopic assessment of colorectal polyp histology and consists of the resect and discard and diagnose and leave paradigms. This survey assessed patient acceptance of optical diagnosis and their responses to a hypothetical doomsday scenario. Methods We conducted a 3-month cross-sectional survey of colonoscopy outpatients presenting to an Australian academic endoscopy center. Results A total of 981 patients completed the survey (76.0% response rate). The 60.8% of patients who supported resect and discard were more likely to be older men who co-supported diagnose and leave. Fewer patients (49.6%) supported diagnose and leave. A family history of missed cancer diagnosis (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; P = .003) was significantly associated with rejection of resect and discard, and a personal or family history of bowel cancer (OR, 0.7; P = .04) was significantly associated with rejection of diagnose and leave. In the hypothetical scenario of a cancerous polyp incorrectly left in situ leading to stage III disease, 208 (21.2%) patients would definitely ask for financial compensation, 584 (59.5%) were unsure, and 189 (19.3%) would definitely not seek compensation. The patient-proposed median value of compensation sought was $760,000 USD ($1,000,000 AUD; $1 AUD = $0.76 USD). Notably, 18.5% would be willing to give optical diagnosis another chance after this error. Conclusion Patient support for optical diagnosis is limited, and those who are not supporters are more likely to seek financial compensation if errors occur. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]