Search

Background and Aims: Conventional hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (H-EMR) is effective for the management of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colon polyps (LNPCPs) however, electrocautery-related complications may incur significant morbidity. With a superior safety profile, cold snare EMR (C-EMR) of LNPCPs is an attractive alternative however evidence is lacking. We conducted a randomised trial to compare the efficacy and safety of C-EMR to H-EMR., Methods: Flat, 15-50 mm adenomatous LNPCPs were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to C-EMR or H-EMR with margin thermal ablation at a single tertiary centre. The primary outcome was endoscopically visible and/or histologically confirmed recurrence at 6 months surveillance colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB), delayed perforation and technical success., Results: 177 LNPCPs in 177 patients were randomised to C-EMR arm (n=87) or H-EMR (n=90). Treatment groups were equivalent for technical success 86/87 (98.9%) C-EMR versus H-EMR 90/90 (100%); p=0.31. Recurrence was significantly greater in C-EMR (16/87, 18.4% vs 1/90, 1.1%; relative risk (RR) 16.6, 95% CI 2.24 to 122; p<0.001).Delayed perforation (1/90 (1.1%) vs 0; p=0.32) only occurred in the H-EMR group. CSPEB was significantly greater in the H-EMR arm (7/90 (7.8%) vs 1/87 (1.1%); RR 6.77, 95% CI 0.85 to 53.9; p=0.034)., Conclusion: Compared with H-EMR, C-EMR for flat, adenomatous LNPCPs, demonstrates superior safety with equivalent technical success. However, endoscopic recurrence is significantly greater for cold snare resection and is currently a limitation of the technique., Trial Registration Number: NCT04138030., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MJB: Research Support: Olympus Medical, Cook Medical, Boston Scientific. The remaining authors have no financial, professional or personal conflicts of interest to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is effective in treating early gastric cancer (EGC). Its role in patients with comorbidities along with more advanced disease is unknown. We sought to evaluate this in a large Western cohort., Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent ESD for EGC in a single tertiary Western endoscopy center over 10 years were prospectively analyzed. The primary outcomes were long-term overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) up to 5 years. Secondary outcomes were efficacy and serious adverse events (SAEs)., Results: ESD for 157 cases of EGC in 149 patients was performed in an elderly and comorbid cohort with a mean age of 73.7 years and age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index of 4.2. Over a median follow-up of 51.6 months, no significant differences were found in 5-year OS (88.9% vs 77.9%, P = .290) and DFS (83.2% vs 75.1%, P = .593) between absolute indication EGC and relative indication (RI) EGC. The absolute indication EGC cohort achieved higher en bloc (96.3% vs 87.5%, P = .069) and R0 resection rates (93.6% vs 62.5%, P < .001) when compared with RI EGC. No significant differences were found in SAEs (7.3% vs 12.5%, P = .363). No mortality or surgical resection ensued from adverse events from ESD., Conclusions: ESD safely confers DFS in poor surgical candidates with RI EGC in a large Western cohort. Patients who are elderly and/or with comorbidities or who decline surgical resection may benefit from ESD and avoid the risks of surgery and its long-term sequelae. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02306707.)., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following author disclosed financial relationships: N. G. Burgess: Speaker for Boston Scientific. M. J. Bourke: Research support from Olympus, Cook Medical, and Boston Scientific. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: MJB: research support from Olympus, Cook Medical and Boston Scientific. All other authors have no competing interests.

Purpose of Review: Large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥ 20 mm (LNPCPs) comprise 1% of all colorectal lesions. LNPCPs are more likely to contain advanced histology such as high-grade dysplasia and submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC). Endoscopic resection is the first-line approach for management of these lesions. Endoscopic resection options include endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), cold-snare EMR (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR). This review aimed to critically evaluate current endoscopic resection techniques., Recent Findings: Evidence-based selective resection algorithms should inform the most appropriate endoscopic resection technique. Most LNPCPs are removed by conventional EMR but there has been a trend toward C-EMR for endoscopic resection of LNPCPs. More high-quality trials are required to better define the limitations of C-EMR. Advances in our understanding of ESD technique, has clarified its role within the colorectum. More recently, the development of a full thickness resection device (FTRD) has allowed the curative endoscopic resection of select lesions., Summary: Endoscopic resection should be regarded as the principle approach for all LNPCPs. Underpinned by high-quality research, endoscopic resection has become more nuanced, leading to improved patient outcomes., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Residual or recurrent adenoma (RRA) detected during surveillance is the major limitation of EMR. The pathogenesis of RRA is unknown, although thermal ablation of the post-endoscopic resection defect (PED) margin reduces RRA. We aimed to identify a feature within the PED that could be associated with RRA., Methods: Between January 2017 and July 2020, detailed prospective procedural data on all EMR procedures performed at a single center were retrospectively analyzed. At the completion of EMR, the PED was systematically examined for features of incomplete mucosal layer excision (IME). This was defined as a demarcated area within the PED bordered by a white electrocautery ring and containing endoscopically identifiable features suggesting incomplete resection of the mucosa including lacy capillaries and/or visible fibers of the muscularis mucosae. Areas of IME were reinjected and re-excised by snare and submitted separately for blinded specialist GI pathologist review., Results: EMR was performed for 508 large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) (median size, 35 mm). In 10 PEDs (2.0%), an area of IME was identified and excised. Histopathologic examination of areas of suspected IME demonstrated muscularis mucosae in 9 of 10 (90%), residual lamina propria in 9 of 10 (90.0%), and residual adenoma in 5 of 10 (50.0%). No RRA was detected during follow-up after re-excision of IME., Conclusions: We report the novel finding of IME within the PED after EMR of LNPCPs. IME may contain microscopic residual adenoma and therefore is a risk for RRA during follow-up. After completion of EMR, the PED should be carefully evaluated. If IME is found, it should be excised. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01368289 and NCT02000141.)., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following author received research support for this study from the Westmead Research Foundation: D. J. Tate. In addition, the following authors disclosed financial relationships: D. J. Tate: Research support from Olympus Medical; consultant for Olympus EMEA. M. J. Bourke: Consultant for Olympus Medical and Boston Scientific. N. Shahidi: Speaker's honoraria from Pharmascience and Boston Scientific. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships. Research support for this study was provided by the Cancer Institute New South Wales, Australia (for a research nurse and data manager to assist with the administration of the study)., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of salvage endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for Barrett's neoplasia recurrence after radiofrequency ablation (RFA)., Methods: Data from patients at 16 centers were collected for a multicenter retrospective study. Patients who underwent at least one RFA treatment for Barrett's esophagus and thereafter underwent further esophageal ESD for neoplasia recurrence were included., Results: Data from 56 patients who underwent salvage ESD between April 2014 and November 2022 were collected. Immediate complications included one muscular tear (1.8%) treated with stent (Agree classification: grade IIIa). Two transmural perforations (3.6%; treated with clips) and five muscular tears (8.9%; two treated with clips) had no clinical impact and were not considered as adverse events. Seven patients (12.5%) developed strictures (grade IIIa), which were treated with balloon dilation. Histological analysis showed 36 adenocarcinoma, 17 high grade dysplasia, and 3 low grade dysplasia. En bloc and R0 resection rates were 89.3% and 66.1%, respectively. Resections were curative in 33 patients (58.9%), and noncurative in 22 patients (39.3%), including 11 "local risk" (19.6%) and 11 "high risk" (19.6%) resections. At the end of follow-up with a median time of 14 (0-75) months after salvage ESD, and with further endoscopic treatment if necessary (RFA, argon plasma coagulation, endoscopic mucosal resection, ESD), neoplasia remission ratio was 37/53 (69.8%) and the median remission time was 13 (1-75) months., Conclusion: In expert hands, salvage ESD was a safe and effective treatment for recurrence of Barrett's neoplasia after RFA treatment., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Michael J. Bourke: Research support from Olympus, Cook Medical and Boston Scientific. All other authors have no competing interests.

1:  ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3:  ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6-9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10-19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5:  ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6:  ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7:  Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9:  ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10:  ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11:  ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence., Competing Interests: R. Bisschops has been on the advisory boards of Pentax, Medtronic, Fujifilm, Cook, Boston Scientific, and Olympus, and has received speaker’s fees from Pentax, Medtronic, and Fujifilm; his department has received research grants, and organizational support for events from Pentax and Medtronic, and further organizational support for events from Erbe, Ovesco, and Olympus (all within the last 3 years). M.J. Bourke has received research support from Cook Medical and Olympus (2014 to date). E. Dekker has provided consultancy to Olympus and GI supply (several occasions in recent years). M. Dinis-Ribeiro has provided consultancy to Medtronic and Roche (2021 to 2022) and received a research grant from Fujifilm (2021 to 2022). H. Messmann has provided consultancy to Ambu, Boston Scientific, and Olympus (2022 to date); his department has received research support from Olympus and Satisfai (2022 to date). L. Moons has provided consultancy to Boston Scientific and Pentax (2024 to date) and is a member of the Colorectal cancer guideline committee and chair of the Dutch Guideline group on polypectomy in the rectum and colon. M. Pellisé has provided consultancy to Norgine Iberia (2015 to 2019), GI supply (2019), Fujifilm Europe (2021 to date), and Olympus (2022 to date), and received research support from Fujifilm Spain (2019), Fujifilm Europe (2020 to 2021), Casen recordati (2020), and ZuiZ (2021); her department has also received equipment on loan from Fujifilm Europe (2019 to date); she was on the Endoscopy editorial board (2015 to 2021), was ESGE Equity and diversity working group chair (2021 to 2022), councillor for SEED (2016 to 2022), and is president of AEG (2022 to date). G. Rahmi has provided consultancy to Fujifilm and Medtronic (2023 to date). A. Repici has received consultancy fees and research funding from ERBE (2020 to date) and Fujifilm (2018 to date), and speaker’s and consultancy fees, and research funding from Boston Scientific (2019 to date). M. Rutter is a member of the British Society of Gastroenterology and is the current Chair of the Joint Advisory Group for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Y. Takeuchi has provided consultancy to Boston Scientific Japan (2012 to 2022) and has received speaker’s fees from Olympus, Daiichi-Sankyo, Miyarisan Pharmaceutical, Asuka Pharmaceutical, AstraZeneca, EA Pharma, Zeria Pharmaceutical, Fujifilm, Kaneka Medix, Kyorin Pharmaceutical, and the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society. H. Uchima Koecklin has received proctorship and speaker’s fees from ERBE Spain and Olympus Iberia (2022 to 2023). E. Albeniz, A. Amato, H. Awadie, P. Bhandari, M. Ferlitsch, I. Gralnek, C. Hassan R. Jover, D. Libanio, V. Lorenzo-Zuniga, A. Moss, G. Paspatis, A. Probst, M. Risio, L.-M. Rockenbauer, K. Triantafyllou, A. Voiosu, and E. Waldmann declare that they have no conflict of interest., (European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the preferred treatment for non-invasive large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) but is associated with an early recurrence rate of up to 30%. We evaluated whether standardised EMR training could reduce recurrence rates in Dutch community hospitals., Design: In this multicentre cluster randomised trial, 59 endoscopists from 30 hospitals were randomly assigned to the intervention group (e-learning and 2-day training including hands-on session) or control group. From April 2019 to August 2021, all consecutive EMR-treated LNPCPs were included. Primary endpoint was recurrence rate after 6 months., Results: A total of 1412 LNPCPs were included; 699 in the intervention group and 713 in the control group (median size 30 mm vs 30 mm, 45% vs 52% size, morphology, site and access (SMSA) score IV, 64% vs 64% proximal location). Recurrence rates were lower in the intervention group compared with controls (13% vs 25%, OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.78; p=0.005) with similar complication rates (8% vs 9%, OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.36; p=0.720). Recurrences were more often unifocal in the intervention group (92% vs 76%; p=0.006). In sensitivity analysis, the benefit of the intervention on recurrence rate was only observed in the 20-40 mm LNPCPs (5% vs 20% in 20-29 mm, p=0.001; 10% vs 21% in 30-39 mm, p=0.013) but less evident in ≥40 mm LNPCPs (24% vs 31%; p=0.151). In a post hoc analysis, the training effect was maintained in the study group, while in the control group the recurrence rate remained high., Conclusion: A compact standardised EMR training for LNPCPs significantly reduced recurrences in community hospitals. This strongly argues for a national dedicated training programme for endoscopists performing EMR of ≥20 mm LNPCPs. Interestingly, in sensitivity analysis, this benefit was limited for LNPCPs ≥40 mm., Trial Registration Number: NTR7477., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PDS received grants or speaker fees from Pentax Japan, The eNose Company Netherlands, Microtech China, Lucid Diagnostics USA, Magentiq Eye Israel, Norgine UK/Netherlands and Motus GI USA. FV acts as a consultant for Boston Scientific. MP has received speaker fees from Norgine Iberia (2018–2023), Casen Recordati (2016–2019), Olympus (2018, 2022), Jansen (2018), Medtronic (2022) and Fujifilm (2022); a consultancy fee from GI Supply (2019) and Fujifilm Europe (2022); and research funding from Fujifilm (2019–2021), Casen Recordati (2020), Ziuz (2021) and 3-DMatrix (2021). Her department has received loan material from Fujifilm (2017–ongoing) and a consultancy service with Olympus (2022–ongoing). She is a board member of ESGE and AEG and has received a fee from Thieme as an Endoscopy coeditor (2015–2021). She has shared actions of MiWendo. MJB received research support for ethics-approved studies from Boston Scientific, Cook Medical and Olympus Medical. AAMM received research grants from the Dutch Cancer Society (KWF) and the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Innovation (ZonMW). LMGM acts as a consultant for Boston Scientific., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Aims: Circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection (cESD) in the esophagus has been reported to be feasible in small Eastern case series. We assessed the outcomes of cESD in the treatment of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in Western countries., Methods: We conducted an international study at 25 referral centers in Europe and Australia using prospective databases. We included all patients with ESCC treated with cESD before November 2022. Our main outcomes were curative resection according to European guidelines and adverse events., Results: A total of 171 cESDs were performed on 165 patients. En bloc and R0 resections rates were 98.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95.0-99.4) and 69.6% (95% CI, 62.3-76.0), respectively. Curative resection was achieved in 49.1% (95% CI, 41.7-56.6) of the lesions. The most common reason for noncurative resection was deep submucosal invasion (21.6%). The risk of stricture requiring 6 or more dilations or additional techniques (incisional therapy/stent) was high (71%), despite the use of prophylactic measures in 93% of the procedures. The rates of intraprocedural perforation, delayed bleeding, and adverse cardiorespiratory events were 4.1%, 0.6%, and 4.7%, respectively. Two patients died (1.2%) of a cESD-related adverse event. Overall and disease-free survival rates at 2 years were 91% and 79%., Conclusions: In Western referral centers, cESD for ESCC is curative in approximately half of the lesions. It can be considered a feasible treatment in selected patients. Our results suggest the need to improve patient selection and to develop more effective therapies to prevent esophageal strictures., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: E. R. de Santiago: Consultant for Olympus and Apollo Endosurgery; speaker for Norgine and Casen Recordati. R. E. Pouw: Consultant for Medtronic BV and MicroTech Europe; speaker for Pentax. B. L. A. M. Weusten: Consultant and speaker for Pentax Medical; research grant support from Pentax Medical and Aqua Medical. J. Jacques: Consultant for Olympus, Pentax, Fujifilm, and ERBE Medical; speaker for Janssen. D. Libânio: Speaker for Olympus and Fujifilm Europe. M. Dinis-Robeiro: Consultant for Roche and Medtronic. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships. A. Herreros-de-Tejada: Consultant for Boston Scientific; speaker for Norgine, Creo Medical, Olympus, and Sonoscape., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Although conventional hot snare resection (CR) of laterally spreading lesions of the major papilla (LSL-Ps) is effective, it can be associated with delayed bleeding in upward of 25% of cases. Given the excellent safety profile of cold snare polypectomy in the colorectum, we investigated the efficacy and safety of a novel hybrid resection (HR) technique for LSL-P management, consisting of hot snare papillectomy plus cold snare resection of the laterally spreading component., Methods: A prospective cohort of patients underwent HR in a tertiary referral center over 60 months until December 2022. This cohort was compared with a historical cohort of patients who underwent CR at the same institution over 120 months until August 2017. The primary outcomes were recurrence and bleeding., Results: Twenty patients underwent HR (14 female; mean age 65.2 ± 12.2 years). Median lesion size was 30 mm (interquartile range, 25.0-47.5 mm). Recurrent or residual adenoma (RRA) was greater with HR (58.8% [n = 10] vs 29.8% [n = 14]; P = .034). The odds ratio for recurrence was 3.6 times (95% CI, 1.2-11.0) higher with HR (P = .027). RRA was multifocal in 4 (40%) and had a composite RRA volume >10 mm in 7 (70%). The median number of procedures required to treat RRA was higher with HR (4 vs 1, P = .002). There was no difference between CR and HR for intraprocedural bleeding (41.1% [n = 23] vs 25% [n = 5]; P = .587) or delayed bleeding (25.0% vs 10.0%, P = .211). There were no perforations., Conclusions: The novel HR technique for LSL-P management is associated with a high rate of RRA that is recalcitrant to treatment, without mitigating the risk of intraprocedural or delayed bleeding. Therefore, CR should remain the mainstay management option for treating patients with an LSL-P. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02306603.)., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following author disclosed financial relationships: M. J. Bourke: research support: Olympus, Cook Medical, and Boston Scientific. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Large (≥20mm) adenomatous anastomotic polyps (LAAPs) are uncommon. Data pertaining to their prevalence, characteristics, and the efficacy of endoscopic resection (ER) are absent. A safe and effective strategy for ER would reduce morbidity and healthcare costs., Methods: Large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps of ≥20mm (LNPCPs) referred for ER were prospectively studied. Multiple data points were recorded including anastomotic location, polyp morphology, resection modality, complications, and technical success., Results: Over 7 years until November 2022, 2629 lesions were referred. Of these, 10 (0.4%) were LAAPs (median size 35 mm [interquartile range (IQR) 30-40mm]). All LAAPs were removed by piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), most (n=9; 90%) in combination with cold-forceps avulsion with adjuvant snare-tip soft coagulation (CAST). On comparison of the LAAP group with the conventional LNPCP group, CAST was more commonly used (90% vs. 9%; P <0.001) and deep mural injury (DMI) type II was more frequent (40% vs. 11%, P =0.003); however, significant DMI (III-V) did not occur. At 6 month (IQR 5.25-6 months) surveillance, there was no recurrence in any of the 10 cases. There were no serious adverse events., Conclusions: LAAPs present unique challenges owing to their location overlying an anastomosis. Despite these challenges they can be safely and effectively managed endoscopically without recurrence at endoscopic follow-up., Competing Interests: M. Bourke has received research support from Olympus Medical, Cook Medical, and Boston Scientific. O. Cronin, S. Gupta, J. Gauci, A. Whitfield, T. O'Sullivan, M. Abuarisha, H. Wang, E. Lee, S. Williams, and N.G. Burgess declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) after a non-curative (NC) gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and to validate and eventually refine the eCura scoring system in the Western setting. Also, to assess the rate and risk factors for parietal residual disease., Design: Retrospective multicentre multinational study of prospectively collected registries from 19 Western centres. Patients who had been submitted to surgery or had at least one follow-up endoscopy were included. The eCura system was applied to assess its accuracy in the Western setting, and a modified version was created according to the results (W-eCura score). The discriminative capacities of the eCura and W-eCura scores to predict LNM were assessed and compared., Results: A total of 314 NC gastric ESDs were analysed (72% high-risk resection (HRR); 28% local-risk resection). Among HRR patients submitted to surgery, 25% had parietal disease and 15% had LNM in the surgical specimen. The risk of LNM was significantly different across the eCura groups (areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) of 0.900 (95% CI 0.852 to 0.949)). The AUC-ROC of the W-eCura for LNM (0.916, 95% CI 0.870 to 0.961; p=0.012) was significantly higher compared with the original eCura. Positive vertical margin, lymphatic invasion and younger age were associated with a higher risk of parietal residual lesion in the surgical specimen., Conclusion: The eCura scoring system may be applied in Western countries to stratify the risk of LNM after a gastric HRR. A new score is proposed that may further decrease the number of unnecessary surgeries., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: M.J. Bourke has received research support from Olympus, Cook Medical, and Boston Scientific. R. Medas, J.L. Gauci, C. Kerrison, F.V. Mandarino, A. Whitfield, and N.G. Burgess declare that they have no competing interests.

Background:  As endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large (≥ 20 mm) adenomatous nonpedunculated colonic polyps (LNPCPs) becomes widely practiced outside expert centers, appropriate training is necessary to avoid failed resection and inappropriate surgical referral. No EMR-specific tool guides case selection for endoscopists learning EMR. This study aimed to develop an EMR case selection score (EMR-CSS) to identify potentially challenging lesions for "EMR-naïve" endoscopists developing competency., Methods:  Consecutive EMRs were recruited from a single center over 130 months. Lesion characteristics, intraprocedural data, and adverse events were recorded. Challenging lesions with intraprocedural bleeding (IPB), intraprocedural perforation (IPP), or unsuccessful resection were identified and predictive variables identified. Significant variables were used to form a numerical score and receiver operating characteristic curves were used to generate cutoff values., Results:  Of 1993 LNPCPs, 286 (14.4 %) were in challenging locations (anorectal junction, ileocecal valve, or appendiceal orifice), 368 (18.5 %) procedures were complicated by IPB and 77 (3.9 %) by IPP; 110 (5.5 %) procedures were unsuccessful. The composite end point of IPB, IPP, or unsuccessful EMR was present in 526 cases (26.4 %). Lesion size, challenging location, and sessile morphology were predictive of the composite outcome. A six-point score was generated with a cutoff value of 2 demonstrating 81 % sensitivity across the training and validation cohorts., Conclusions:  The EMR-CSS is a novel case selection tool for conventional EMR training, which identifies a subset of adenomatous LNPCPs that can be successfully and safely attempted in early EMR training., Competing Interests: M.J. Bourke has received research support from Olympus Medical, Cook Medical, and Boston Scientific.T. O'Sullivan, M. Sidhu, S. Gupta, K. Byth, J. Elhindi, D. Tate, O. Cronin, A. Whitfield, H. Wang, E. Lee, S. Williams, and N.G. Burgess declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Residual or recurrent adenoma (RRA) after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) of ≥20 mm is a major limitation. Data on outcomes of the endoscopic treatment of recurrence are scarce, and no evidence-based standard exists. We investigated the efficacy of endoscopic retreatment over time in a large prospective cohort., Design: Over 139 months, detailed morphological and histological data on consecutive RRA detected after EMR for single LNPCPs at one tertiary endoscopy centre were prospectively recorded during structured surveillance colonoscopy. Endoscopic retreatment was performed on cases with evidence of RRA and was performed predominantly using hot snare resection, cold avulsion forceps with adjuvant snare tip soft coagulation or a combination of the two., Results: 213 (14.6%) patients had RRA (168 (78.9%) at first surveillance and 45 (21.1%) thereafter). RRA was commonly 2.5-5.0 mm (48.0%) and unifocal (78.7%). Of 202 (94.8%) cases which had macroscopic evidence of RRA, 194 (96.0%) underwent successful endoscopic therapy and 161 (83.4%) had a subsequent follow-up colonoscopy. Of the latter, endoscopic therapy of recurrence was successful in 149 (92.5%) of 161 in the per-protocol analysis, and 149 (73.8%) of 202 in the intention-to-treat analysis, with a mean of 1.15 (SD 0.36) retreatment sessions. No adverse events were directly attributable to endoscopic therapy. Further RRA after endoscopic therapy was endoscopically treatable in most cases. Overall, only 9 (4.2%, 95% CI 2.2% to 7.8%) of 213 patients with RRA required surgery.Thus 159 (98.8%, 95% CI 95.1% to 99.8%) of 161 cases with initially successful endoscopic treatment of RRA and follow-up remained surgery-free for a median of 13 months (IQR 25.0) of follow-up., Conclusions: RRA after EMR of LNPCPs can be effectively treated using simple endoscopic techniques with long-term adenoma remission of >90%; only 16% required retreatment. Therefore, more technically complex, morbid and resource-intensive endoscopic or surgical techniques are required only in selected cases., Trial Registration Numbers: NCT01368289 and NCT02000141., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MJB: research support from Olympus Medical, Cook Medical and Boston Scientific. DJT: research support from Olympus Medical., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The frequency and severity of abdominal pain after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of colonic laterally spreading lesions (LSLs) of ≥ 20 mm is unknown, as are the risk factors to predict its occurrence. We aimed to prospectively characterize pain after colonic EMR , determine the rapidity and frequency of its resolution after analgesia, and estimate the frequency of needing further intervention., Methods: Procedural and lesion data on consecutive patients with LSLs who underwent EMR at a single tertiary referral center were prospectively collected. If pain after colonic EMR, graded using a visual analogue scale (VAS), lasted > 5 minutes, 1 g of paracetamol was administered. Pain lasting > 30 minutes lead to clinical review and upgrade to opiate analgesics. Investigations and interventions for pain were recorded., Results: 67/336 patients (19.9 %, 95 %CI 16.0 %-24.5 %) experienced pain after colonic EMR (median VAS 5, interquartile range 3-7). Multivariable predictors of pain were: lesion size ≥ 40 mm, odds ratio [OR] 2.15 (95 %CI 1.22-3.80); female sex, OR 1.99 (95 %CI 1.14-3.48); and intraprocedural bleeding requiring endoscopic control, OR 1.77 (95 %CI 0.99-3.16). Of 67 patients with pain, 51 (76.1 %, 95 %CI 64.7 %-84.7 %) had resolution of their "mild pain" after paracetamol and were discharged without sequelae. The remaining 16 (23.9 %) required opiate analgesia (fentanyl), after which 11/16 patients (68.8 %; "moderate pain") could be discharged. The 5/67 patients (7.5 %) with "severe pain" had no resolution despite fentanyl; all settled during hospital admission (median duration 2 days), intravenous analgesia, and antibiotics., Conclusion: Pain after colonic EMR occurs in approximately 20 % of patients and resolves rapidly and completely in the majority with administration of intravenous paracetamol. Pain despite opiates heralds a more serious scenario and further investigation should be considered., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the standard of care for the complete removal of large (≥ 10 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs). Increased detection of LNPCPs owing to screening colonoscopy, plus high observed rates of incomplete resection and need for surgery call for a standardized approach to training in EMR. 1 : Trainees in EMR should have achieved basic competence in diagnostic colonoscopy, < 10-mm polypectomy, pedunculated polypectomy, and common methods of gastrointestinal endoscopic hemostasis. The role of formal training courses is emphasized. Training may then commence in vivo under the direct supervision of a trainer. 2 : Endoscopy units training endoscopists in EMR should have specific processes in place to support and facilitate training. 3: A trained EMR practitioner should have mastered theoretical knowledge including how to assess an LNPCP for risk of submucosal invasion, how to interpret the potential difficulty of a particular EMR procedure, how to decide whether to remove a particular LNPCP en bloc or piecemeal, whether the risks of electrosurgical energy can be avoided for a particular LNPCP, the different devices required for EMR, management of adverse events, and interpretation of reports provided by histopathologists. 4: Trained EMR practitioners should be familiar with the patient consent process for EMR. 5: The development of endoscopic non-technical skills (ENTS) and team interaction are important for trainees in EMR. 6: Differences in recommended technique exist between EMR performed with and without electrosurgical energy. Common to both is a standardized technique based upon dynamic injection, controlled and precise snare placement, safety checks prior to the application of tissue transection (cold snare) or electrosurgical energy (hot snare), and interpretation of the post-EMR resection defect. 7: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to manage adverse events associated with EMR including intraprocedural bleeding and perforation, and post-procedural bleeding. Delayed perforation should be avoided by correct interpretation of the post-EMR defect and treatment of deep mural injury. 8: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to communicate EMR procedural findings to patients and provide them with a plan in case of adverse events after discharge and a follow-up plan. 9: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to detect and interrogate a post-endoscopic resection scar for residual or recurrent adenoma and apply treatment if necessary. 10: Prior to independent practice, a minimum of 30 EMR procedures should be performed, culminating in a trainer-guided assessment of competency using a validated assessment tool, taking account of procedural difficulty (e. g. using the SMSA polyp score). 11: Trained practitioners should log their key performance indicators (KPIs) of polypectomy during independent practice. A guide for target KPIs is provided in this document., Competing Interests: P. Bhandari’s department received research grants from Boston Scientific (2021) and Fujifilm (2018). R. Bisschops has received grants/research support, and speaker’s fees/honoraria from Pentax, Fujifilm, Medtronic, Cook, and Boston Scientific (2019 to present). D.J. Tate has received financial support from Olympus for research support (2019 to present).J. Anderson, M.E. Argenziano, I. Boškoski, M.J. Bourke, M. Bugajski, L. Desomer, S.J. Heitman, H. Kashida, V. Kriazhov, R.R.T. Lee, I. Lyutakov, P. Pimentel-Nunes, L. Rivero-Sánchez, T.C. Tham, S. Thomas-Gibson, H. Thorlacius declare that they have no conflict of interest., (European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Large (≥15 mm) duodenal adenomas (DAs) are premalignant and require removal. Existing endoscopic resection techniques are compromised by serious adverse events (SAEs), most notably postprocedural bleeding (PPB) and perforation. To ameliorate these problems, we sought to evaluate the novel technique of cold snare EMR (CS-EMR) against the emerging standard of conventional EMR with thermal ablation of the postresection margin (EMR-T) for the safe and effective removal of DAs., Methods: Consecutive patients were enrolled in a single tertiary center for CS-EMR and prospectively analyzed against a previously reported cohort of EMR-T from the same center. The primary outcome was rate of SAEs. Secondary outcomes were residual or recurrent adenoma at first surveillance endoscopy (SE1) at 6 months and technical success per lesion., Results: Between October 2019 and July 2022, a total of 50 DAs ≥15 mm were removed via CS-EMR (median size, 30 mm [interquartile range (IQR), 19-40 mm]; mean ± standard deviation [SD] patient age, 70 ± 9.2 years) compared with 54 DAs via EMR-T (median size, 30 mm [IQR, 19-40 mm]; mean patient age, 68 ± 12.2 years). CS-EMR had a significantly lower rate of intraprocedural bleeding (2.0% vs 37%, P < .001) and PPB (4.0% vs 16.7%, P = .036). Two cases (4.0%) of immediate perforation occurred in CS-EMR; these were recognized immediately and closed with clips without sequelae. Total SAEs (16.0% vs 16.7%, P = 1) and technical success (100% vs 100%, P = 1) were identical. Recurrence at SE1 was significantly higher with CS-EMR (24.4% vs 2.3%, P = .002)., Conclusions: CS-EMR reduces intraprocedural bleeding and PPB. However, it may increase the risk of immediate perforation and is associated with a significantly higher rate of recurrence at SE1. Further technical refinements are required to optimize endoscopic resection techniques for DAs. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02306603.)., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

ESGE suggests conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD; marking and mucosal incision followed by circumferential incision and stepwise submucosal dissection) for most esophageal and gastric lesions. ESGE suggests tunneling ESD for esophageal lesions involving more than two-thirds of the esophageal circumference. ESGE recommends the pocket-creation method for colorectal ESD, at least if traction devices are not used. The use of dedicated ESD knives with size adequate to the location/thickness of the gastrointestinal wall is recommended. It is suggested that isotonic saline or viscous solutions can be used for submucosal injection. ESGE recommends traction methods in esophageal and colorectal ESD and in selected gastric lesions. After gastric ESD, coagulation of visible vessels is recommended, and post-procedural high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (or vonoprazan). ESGE recommends against routine closure of the ESD defect, except in duodenal ESD. ESGE recommends corticosteroids after resection of  > 50 % of the esophageal circumference. The use of carbon dioxide when performing ESD is recommended. ESGE recommends against the performance of second-look endoscopy after ESD. ESGE recommends endoscopy/colonoscopy in the case of significant bleeding (hemodynamic instability, drop in hemoglobin > 2 g/dL, severe ongoing bleeding) to perform endoscopic hemostasis with thermal methods or clipping; hemostatic powders represent rescue therapies. ESGE recommends closure of immediate perforations with clips (through-the-scope or cap-mounted, depending on the size and shape of the perforation), as soon as possible but ideally after securing a good plane for further dissection., Competing Interests: P. Bhandari has received speaker's fees and research grants from Olympus, Fujifilm, and Boston Scientific (2019 to 2022). R. Bisschops has received grants/research support, and speaker’s fee/honoraria from Pentax, Fujifilm, and Medtronic (from 2019, ongoing); his department has received research grants from Pentax, Fujifilm, and Medtronic (from 2019, ongoing). M.J. Bourke has received research support from Boston Scientific (2016 to 2023, ongoing); his department has received research support from Olympus (2016 to 2023, ongoing); he has provided research support to Cook Medical (2016 to 2023, ongoing). P.H. Deprez has received teaching fees from and provided consultancy to Olympus (2021 to 2023), and received teaching fees from Erbe (2021 to 2023). M. Dinis-Ribeiro has provided consultancy to Medtronic and Roche (2021 to 2022); his department has received research support (loan) form Fufifilm (2021 to 2022); he is the Co-Editor-in-Chief of Endoscopy journal. P. Leclercq has provided paid consultancy to Medtronic (2021). A. Lemmers receives lecture fees from Creo Medical (January 2022 to June 2023); his department has received a research grant from Boston Scientific (December 2021 to February 2023). R. Maselli has provided consultancy to Erbe, Fujifilm, and Apollo Endosurgery (2018 to present). H. Messmann’s department has received support from Olympus and Satisfai; he has provided consultancy to Ambu, Boston Scientific, and Olympus. O. Pech has received speaker’s honoraria from Medtronic and Boston Scientific (2018 to 2022). M. Pioche has been involved in ESD training sessions with Olympus, Pentax, and Cook (from 2018 to (2023); his institution has applied for a patent for the A-TRACT traction device. B.L.A.M. Weusten has provided consultancy to, and received lecture fees and research funding from Pentax Medical (2020 to 2023); his department has received research funding from Aqua Medical (2020 to 2022); he has been involved in research projects with funding from C2 Therapeutics (2016 to 2020). B. Bastiaansen, G. Esposito, L. Fuccio, D. Libânio, Pedro Pimentel-Nunes, and Michael Vieth have no competing interests., (European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.)

BACKGROUND : Pre-resection biopsy (PRB) of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs, ≥ 20 mm) is often performed before referral for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). How this affects the EMR procedure is unknown. METHODS : This was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected cohort of patients with LNPCPs referred for EMR between 2013 to 2016 at an Australian tertiary center. Outcomes were differences between PRB and EMR histology, and effects of PRB on the EMR procedure. RESULTS:  Among 586 LNPCPs, lesions that underwent PRB were larger (median 35 vs. 30 mm; P  < 0.007), and more commonly morphologically flat or slightly elevated ( P  = 0.01) compared with lesions without PRB. PRB histology was upstaged in 26.1 %, downstaged in 13.8 %, and unchanged in 60.1 % after EMR. Sensitivity of PRB was 77.2 % (95 %CI 71.1-82.4) for low grade dysplasia (LGD) and 21.2 % (95 %CI 11.5-35.1) for high grade dysplasia (HGD). Where EMR specimen showed HGD, PRB had detected LGD in 76.9 %. Where EMR specimen showed cancer, PRB had detected dysplasia only. PRB was associated with more submucosal fibrosis ( P  = 0.001) and intraprocedural bleeding ( P  = 0.03). EMR success or recurrence was not affected. CONCLUSIONS:  Routine PRB of LNPCP did not reliably detect advanced histology and may have affected EMR complexity. PRB should be utilized with caution in guiding endoscopic management of LNPCPs., Competing Interests: M. Ma, D. Tate, M. Sidhu, S. Zahid, and M.J. Bourke declare that they have no conflict of interest.M. Ma and D. Tate received a scholarship from the Westmead Medical Research Foundation. These funds were not used for this study. The Cancer Institute New South Wales provided funding for a research nurse and data manager to assist with the administration of the study. There was no influence from the Institution regarding study design or conduct, data collection, management, analysis or interpretation, preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

BACKGROUND : Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in colorectal lesions is technically demanding and a significant rate of noncurative procedures is expected. We aimed to assess the rate of residual lesions after a noncurative ESD for colorectal cancer (CRC) and to establish predictive scores to be applied in the clinical setting. METHODS : Retrospective multicenter analysis of consecutive colorectal ESDs. Patients with noncurative ESDs performed for the treatment of CRC lesions submitted to complementary surgery or with at least one follow-up endoscopy were included. RESULTS : From 2255 colorectal ESDs, 381 (17 %) were noncurative, and 135 of these were performed in CRC lesions. A residual lesion was observed in 24 patients (18 %). Surgery was performed in 96 patients and 76 (79 %) had no residual lesion in the colorectal wall or in the lymph nodes. The residual lesion rate for sm1 cancers was 0 %, and for > sm1 cancers was also 0 % if no other risk factors were present. Independent risk factors for lymph node metastasis were poor differentiation and lymphatic permeation (NC-Lymph score). Risk factors for the presence of a residual lesion in the wall were piecemeal resection, poor differentiation, and positive/indeterminate vertical margin (NC-Wall score). CONCLUSIONS : Lymphatic permeation or poor differentiation warrant surgery owing to their high risk of lymph node metastasis, mainly in > sm1 cancers. In the remaining cases, en bloc and R0 resections resulted in a low risk of residual lesions in the wall. Our scores can be a useful tool for the management of patients who undergo noncurative colorectal ESDs., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Owing to its simplicity, effectiveness, and safety, EMR is the preferred treatment for the majority of large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colonic polyps (LNPCPs); however, residual and recurrent adenomas (RRAs) encountered during surveillance constitute a major limitation. Thermal ablation of the post-EMR mucosal defect margin has been shown to be highly efficacious in reducing RRA in a randomized trial setting, but data on effectiveness in clinical practice are scarce. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of this technique for reducing RRAs in routine clinical practice., Methods: We analyzed data collected in 3 hospitals in Israel: Prospective data were available in 2 hospitals where margin thermal ablation with snare-tip soft coagulation (STSC) is routinely performed after EMR of LNPCP (TA-EMR). Only retrospective data were available from the third center, which exclusively did not perform STSC (standard EMR] [S-EMR]), during the study period. Surveillance was performed 4 to 6 months after resection. RRA was assessed endoscopically with high-definition white light and optical chromoendoscopy. The primary endpoint was RRA at first surveillance colonoscopy., Results: Data from 764 patients with 824 LNPCPs were analyzed. The patient and lesion characteristics were similar between the groups. Four hundred sixty-four LNPCPs were treated by TA-EMR and 360 LNPCPs by S-EMR. RRA at first surveillance colonoscopy was detected in 14 (3.6%) of lesions in the TA-EMR group compared with 96 (31.6%) in the S-EMR group (P < .001; RR = .14; 95% CI, .07-.29). Adverse events were comparable between the 2 groups., Conclusion: TA-EMR leads to a significant reduction in post-EMR recurrence in routine clinical practice., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are complementary techniques for large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated rectal polyps (LNPRPs). A mechanism for appropriate technique selection has not been described., Methods: We evaluated the performance of a selective resection algorithm (SRA) (August 2017 to April 2021) compared with a universal EMR algorithm (UEA) (July 2008 to July 2017) for LNPRPs within a prospective observational study. In the SRA, LNPRPs with features of superficial submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC) (<1000 μm; Kudo pit pattern Vi), or with an increased risk of SMIC (Paris 0-Is or 0-IIa+Is nongranular, 0-IIa+Is granular with a dominant nodule ≥10 mm) underwent ESD. The remaining LNPRPs underwent EMR. Algorithm performance was evaluated by SMIC identified after EMR, curative oncologic resection (R0 resection, superficial SMIC, absence of negative histologic features), technical success, adverse events, and recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy., Results: A total of 480 LNPRPs were evaluated (290 UEA, 190 SRA). Median lesion size was 40 (interquartile range, 30-60) mm. SMIC was identified in 56 (11.7%) LNPRPs. Significant differences in SMIC after EMR (SRA 1 [1.0%] vs UEA 35 [12.1%]; P = .001) and curative oncologic resection (SRA n = 7 [33.3%] vs UEA n = 2 [5.7%]; P = .010) were identified. No significant differences in technical success or adverse events were identified (all P > .137). Among LNPRPs with SMIC amenable to curative oncologic resection and which underwent ESD, 100% (n = 7 of 7) were cured., Conclusions: A rectum-specific SRA optimizes oncologic outcomes for LNPRPs and mitigates the risk of piecemeal resection of cancers., (Copyright © 2023 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Management of covert submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC) discovered after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (pEMR) of large (>20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps is challenging. The residual cancer risk is largely unknown. We sought to evaluate this in a large tertiary referral cohort., Design: Cases of covert SMIC following pEMR were identified and followed. Oncological outcomes after surgery were divided based on residual intramural cancer, lymph node metastases (LNM) or both. Risk factors for residual intramural cancer and LNM were analysed based on the original pEMR histological variables. Risk parameters were analysed with respect to low and high-risk variables for residual intramural cancer and LNM., Results: Among 3372 cases of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps, 143 cases of covert SMIC (4.2%) were identified. 109 underwent surgical resection. Histological analysis of pEMR histology was available in 98 of 109 (90%) cases. 62 cases (63%) had no residual malignancy. 36 cases had residual malignancy (residual intramural cancer n=24; LNM n=5; both n=7). All cases of residual intramural cancer could be identified by a R1 histological deep margin. Cases with poor differentiation (PD) and/or lymphovascular invasion (LVI) had a high risk of LNM (12/33), with a very low risk without these criteria (<1%; 0/65). Cases at low risk for LNM with R0 deep margin have a low risk of residual intramural cancer (<1%; 0/35)., Conclusion: The majority of cases of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps with covert SMIC following pEMR will have no residual malignancy. The risk of residual malignancy can be ascertained from three key variables: PD, LVI and R1 deep margin., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: MJB: Research Support: Olympus, Cook Medical, Boston Scientific.

Background and Aims: After EMR, prophylactic clipping is often performed to prevent clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB) and other adverse events (AEs). Prior evidence syntheses have lacked sufficient power to assess clipping in relevant subgroups or in nonbleeding AEs. We performed a meta-analysis of individual patient data (IPD) from randomized trials assessing the efficacy of clipping to prevent AEs after EMR of proximal large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) ≥20 mm., Methods: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and PubMed from inception to May 19, 2021. Two reviewers screened citations in duplicate. Corresponding authors of eligible studies were invited to contribute IPD. A random-effects 1-stage model was specified for estimating pooled effects, adjusting for patient sex and age and for lesion location and size, whereas a fixed-effects model was used for traditional meta-analyses., Results: From 3145 citations, 4 trials were included, representing 1248 patients with proximal LNPCPs. The overall rate of CSPEB was 3.5% and 9.0% in clipped and unclipped patients, respectively. IPD were available for 1150 patients, in which prophylactic clipping prevented CSPEB with an odds ratio (OR) of .31 (95% confidence interval [CI], .17-.54). Clipping was not associated with perforation or abdominal pain, with ORs of .78 (95% CI, .17-3.54) and .67 (95% CI, .20-2.22), respectively., Conclusions: Prophylactic clipping is efficacious in preventing CSPEB after EMR of proximal LNPCPs. Therefore, clip closure should be considered a standard component of EMR of LNPCPs in the proximal colon., (Copyright © 2022 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: The risk of cancer in large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm (LNPCPs) in the rectum relative to the remainder of the colon is unknown. We aimed to describe differences between rectal and colonic LNPCPs to better inform treatment decisions., Methods: Patients with LNPCPs referred to tertiary centers for endoscopic resection within a prospective, multicenter, observational cohort were evaluated. Data recorded were participant demographics, LNPCP location, morphology, resection modality, and histopathologic data. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify those variables independently associated with rectal versus nonrectal location in the colon., Results: Patients with LNPCPs referred for endoscopic resection between July 2008 and July 2021 were included. Rectal LNPCPs (n = 618) were larger (median size, 40 mm vs 30 mm; P < .001) and more likely to be granular (79% vs 50%, P < .001) with a nodular component (53% vs 17%, P < .001) compared with nonrectal LNPCPs (n = 2787). Rectal LNPCPs were more likely to have tubulovillous histopathology (72% vs 47%, P < .001) and contain cancer (15% vs 6%, P < .001). After adjusting for the other features independently associated with location, cancer was more common in the rectum compared with the colon (odds ratio, 1.77; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-2.53)., Conclusions: This study suggests that compared with LNPCPs in the rest of the colon, rectal LNPCPs are more likely to be larger and contain more advanced pathology. These findings have implications for curative endoscopic resection techniques particularly where early cancer is present. (Clinical trial registration numbers: NCT01368289 and NCT02000141.)., (Crown Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

ESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based).ESGE does not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection.ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the treatment of choice for most superficial esophageal squamous cell and superficial gastric lesions.For Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated lesions, ESGE suggests the use of ESD for lesions suspicious of submucosal invasion (Paris type 0-Is, 0-IIc), for malignant lesions > 20 mm, and for lesions in scarred/fibrotic areas.ESGE does not recommend routine use of ESD for duodenal or small-bowel lesions.ESGE suggests that ESD should be considered for en bloc resection of colorectal (but particularly rectal) lesions with suspicion of limited submucosal invasion (demarcated depressed area with irregular surface pattern or a large protruding or bulky component, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm) or for lesions that otherwise cannot be completely removed by snare-based techniques.ESGE recommends that an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with histology no more advanced than intramucosal cancer (no more than m2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma), well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion or ulceration, should be considered a very low risk (curative) resection, and no further staging procedure or treatment is generally recommended.ESGE recommends that the following should be considered to be a low risk (curative) resection and no further treatment is generally recommended: an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with superficial submucosal invasion (sm1), that is well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion, of size ≤ 20 mm for an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma or ≤ 30 mm for a stomach lesion or of any size for a BE-related or colorectal lesion, and with no lymphovascular invasion, and no budding grade 2 or 3 for colorectal lesions.ESGE recommends that, after an endoscopically complete resection, if there is a positive horizontal margin or if resection is piecemeal, but there is no submucosal invasion and no other high risk criteria are met, this should be considered a local-risk resection and endoscopic surveillance or re-treatment is recommended rather than surgery or other additional treatment.ESGE recommends that when there is a diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion, or deeper infiltration than sm1, or positive vertical margins, or undifferentiated tumor, or, for colorectal lesions, budding grade 2 or 3, this should be considered a high risk (noncurative) resection, and complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments should be considered on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE recommends scheduled endoscopic surveillance with high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based) with biopsies of only the suspicious areas after a curative ESD., Competing Interests: P. Bhandari provides consultancy to Boston Scientific (2018–2022); his department has received research grants from Olympus UK (2019–2022), Fujifilm Europe (2019–2022), 3-D Matrix (2019–2022), and NEC Japan (2018–2022). M.J. Bourke has received research support from Boston Scientific, Olympus, and Cook Medical (2016 to 2022, ongoing). P.H. Deprez has received lecture fees from Olympus (2010–2021) and Erbe (2010–2020). M. Dinis Ribeiro is Co-Editor-in-Chief of Endoscopy; he has provided consultancy to Medtronic (2021) and Roche (2022); his department has received a research grant (loan) from Fujifilm (2021–2022). A. Lemmers has received consultancy fees from Cook Endoscopy (2021); his department receives a research grant from Boston Scientific (2021–2023). R. Maselli has provided consultancy to Erbe Medical (2018 to present); her department has received consultancy from Fujifilm (2018 to present). O. Pech has received speaker’s honoraria from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Fujifilm, and Olympus (over 5 years). M. Pioche has provided consultancy and training for Olympus, Pentax, Cook, and Norgine (2017–2022). J.E. van Hooft’s department has received research grants from Cook Medical (2014–2019) and Abbott (2014–2017); she has received lecture fees from Medtronics (2014–2015, 2019), Cook Medical (2019), and Abbvie (2021), and consultancy fees from Boston Scientific (2014–2017) and Olympus (2021). B.L.A.M. Weusten has received financial support for IRB-approved studies from Pentax Medical (2017–2022), and financial research support from Aqua Medical (2020–2022), and has provided consultancy to Pentax Medical (2021–2022). D. Libânio, B.A.J. Bastiaansen, R. Bisschops, G. Esposito, H. Messman, P. Pimentel-Nunes, and M. Vieth have no competing interests., (European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in the colon has been widely adopted, but there is limited data on the histopathological effects of the differing electrosurgical currents (ESCs) used. We used an in vivo porcine model to compare the tissue effects of ESCs for snare resection and adjuvant margin ablation techniques., Design: Standardised EMR was performed by a single endoscopist in 12 pigs. Two intersecting 15 mm snare resections were performed. Resections were randomised 1:1 using either a microprocessor-controlled current (MCC) or low-power coagulating current (LPCC). The lateral margins of each defect were treated with either argon plasma coagulation (APC) or snare tip soft coagulation (STSC). Colons were surgically removed at 72 hours. Two specialist pathologists blinded to the intervention assessed the specimens., Results: 88 defects were analysed (median 7 per pig, median defect size 29×17 mm). For snare ESC effects, 156 tissue sections were assessed. LPCC was comparable to MCC for deep involvement of the colon wall. For margin ablation, 172 tissue sections were assessed. APC was comparable to STSC for deep involvement of the colon wall. Islands of preserved mucosa at the coagulated margin were more likely with APC compared with STSC (16% vs 5%, p=0.010)., Conclusion: For snare resection, MCC and LPCC did not produce significantly different tissue effects. The submucosal injectate may protect the underlying tissue, and technique may more strongly dictate the depth and extent of final injury. For margin ablation, APC was less uniform and complete compared with STSC., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MJB received research support from Olympus Medical, Cook Medical and Boston Scientific., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Aims: Detailed lesion assessment of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs; ≥20 mm) can help predict the risk of submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC). Traditionally this has required the use of dye-based chromoendoscopy (DBC). We sought to assess the accuracy and incremental benefit of DBC in addition to high-definition white-light imaging (HDWLI) and virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE) for the prediction of SMIC within LNPCPs., Methods: A prospective observational study of consecutive LNPCPs at a single tertiary referral center was performed. Before resection all lesions were assessed for the presence of a demarcated area (DA), defined as an area of disordered pit or microvascular pattern, by 2 trained endoscopists before and after DBC. Diagnostic performance characteristics were calculated with histology as the reference criterion standard, and overall agreement was calculated using the κ statistic., Results: Over 39 months to March 2021, 400 consecutive LNPCPs (median lesion size, 35 mm; interquartile range, 25-45) were analyzed. The overall rate of SMIC was 6.5%. Presence of a DA had an accuracy of 91% (95% confidence interval, 87.7-93.5) for SMIC, independent of the use of DBC. The rate of interobserver agreement for presence of a DA using HDWLI + VCE was very high (κ = .96) with no benefit gained by the addition of DBC., Conclusions: The use of HDWLI and VCE is likely to be adequate for lesion assessment for the prediction of SMIC among LNPCPs. Further, the absence of a DA is strongly predictive for the absence of SMIC, independent to the use of DBC. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03506321.)., (Crown Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Although perforation is the most feared adverse event associated with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), limited data exists concerning its management. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of intra-procedural deep mural injury (DMI) in an international multi-center observational cohort of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs)., Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent EMR for a LNPCP ≥20 mm were evaluated. Significant DMI (S-DMI) was defined as Sydney DMI Classification type III (muscularis propria injury, target sign) or type IV/V (perforation without or with contamination, respectively). The primary outcome was successful S-DMI defect closure. Secondary outcomes included technical success (removal of all visible polypoid tissue during index EMR), surgical referral and recurrence at first surveillance colonscopy (SC1)., Results: Between July 2008 to May 2020, 3717 LNPCPs underwent EMR. Median lesion size was 35mm (interquartile range (IQR) 25 to 45mm). Significant DMI was identified in 101 cases (2.7%), with successful defect closure in 98 (97.0%) using a median of 4 through-the-scope clips (TTSCs; IQR 3 to 6 TTSCs). Three (3.0%) patients underwent S-DMI-related urgent surgery. Technical success was achieved in 94 (93.1%) patients, with 46 (45.5%) admitted to hospital (median duration 1 day; IQR 1 to 2 days). Comparing LNPCPs with and without S-DMI, no differences in technical success (94 (93.1%) vs 3316 (91.7%); P = .62) or SC1 recurrence (12 (20.0%) vs 363 (13.6%); P = .15) were identified., Conclusions: Significant DMI is readily managed endoscopically and does not appear to affect technical success or recurrence., (Copyright © 2022 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: The endoscopic management of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps involving the ileocecal valve (ICV-LNPCPs) remains challenging because of its unique anatomic features, with long-term outcomes inferior to LNPCPs not involving the ICV. We sought to evaluate the impact of technical innovations and advances in the EMR of ICV-LNPCPs., Methods: The performance of EMR for ICV-LNPCPs was retrospectively evaluated in a prospective observational cohort of LNPCPs ≥20 mm. Efficacy was measured by clinical success (removal of all polypoid tissue during index EMR and avoidance of surgery) and recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy. Accounting for the adoption of technical innovations, comparisons were made between an historical cohort (September 2008 to April 2016) and contemporary cohort (May 2016 to October 2020). Safety was evaluated by documenting the frequencies of intraprocedural bleeding, delayed bleeding, deep mural injury, and delayed perforation., Results: Between September 2008 to October 2020, 142 ICV-LNPCPs were referred for EMR. Median ICV-LNPCP size was 35 mm (interquartile range, 25-50 mm). When comparing the contemporary (n = 66) and historical cohorts (n = 76) of ICV-LNPCPs, there were significant differences in clinical success (93.9% vs 77.6%, P = .006) and recurrence (4.6% vs 21.0%, P = .019)., Conclusions: With technical advances, ICV-LNPCPs can be effectively and safely managed by EMR, independent of lesion complexity. Most patients experience excellent outcomes and avoid surgery., (Copyright © 2021 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Large (≥20 mm) sessile serrated lesions (L-SSL) are premalignant lesions that require endoscopic removal. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the existing standard of care but carries some risk of adverse events including clinically significant post-EMR bleeding and deep mural injury (DMI). The respective risk-effectiveness ratio of piecemeal cold snare polypectomy (p-CSP) in L-SSL management is not fully known., Design: Consecutive patients referred for L-SSL management were treated by p-CSP from April 2016 to January 2020 or by conventional EMR in the preceding period between July 2008 and March 2016 at four Australian tertiary centres. Surveillance colonoscopies were conducted at 6 months (SC1) and 18 months (SC2). Outcomes on technical success, adverse events and recurrence were documented prospectively and then compared retrospectively between the subsequent time periods., Results: A total of 562 L-SSL in 474 patients were evaluated of which 156 L-SSL in 121 patients were treated by p-CSP and 406 L-SSL in 353 patients by EMR. Technical success was equal in both periods (100.0% (n=156) vs 99.0% (n=402)). No adverse events occurred in p-CSP, whereas delayed bleeding and DMI were encountered in 5.1% (n=18) and 3.4% (n=12) of L-SSL treated by EMR, respectively. Recurrence rates following p-CSP were similar to EMR at 4.3% (n=4) versus 4.6% (n=14) and 2.0% (n=1) versus 1.2% (n=3) for surveillance colonoscopy (SC)1 and SC2, respectively., Conclusions: In a historical comparison on the endoscopic management of L-SSL, p-CSP is technically equally efficacious to EMR but virtually eliminates the risk of delayed bleeding and perforation. p-CSP should therefore be considered as the new standard of care for L-SSL treatment., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MJB: Research Support by Olympus Medical, Cook Medical, Boston Scientific., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

BACKGROUND : Clinically significant post-endoscopic bleeding (CSPEB) is a common complication following colonic endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Current prediction tools are clinical and do not use the appearance of the post-EMR mucosal defect. We aimed to predict CSPEB by analyzing blood vessel morphology within the post-EMR mucosal defect. METHODS : 43 patients with CSPEB were matched to 43 non-bleeders for clinical variables associated with CSPEB. Computerized image analysis quantified the morphologic characteristics of the blood vessels in the defect. Variables were measured in relation to the mucosal defect area. Multivariate analysis and a neural network (NNET) were used as prediction models. RESULTS : The CSPEB group vessels had larger maximum diameter (113.07 vs. 69.03; P  < 0.001), larger minimum radius (5.09 vs. 3.28; P  = 0.002), larger perimeter value (337.82 vs. 193.86; P  < 0.001), larger vessel length-of-outline (351.83 vs. 220.68; P  = 0.002), and larger fractal dimension (1.11 vs. 1.10; P  = 0.005) compared with non-bleeders. Discriminant analysis yielded 86 % sensitivity and 76.7 % specificity and an NNET classifier yielded 100 % sensitivity and 76.9 % specificity for identifying patients at risk. CONCLUSIONS : Blood vessel morphology in the post-EMR defect can be used to predict bleeding following colonic EMR., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Thermal ablation of the defect margin after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-T) for treating large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) has shown efficacy in a randomized trial, with a 4-fold reduction, in residual or recurrent adenoma (RRA) at first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1). The clinical effectiveness of this treatment, in the real world, remains unknown., Methods: We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of EMR-T in an international multicenter prospective trial (NCT02957058). The primary endpoint was the frequency of RRA at SC1. Detailed demographic, procedural, and outcome data were recorded. Exclusion criteria were LNPCPs involving the ileo-caecal valve, the appendiceal orifice, and circumferential LNPCPs., Results: During 51 months (May 2016-August 2020) 1049 LNPCPs in 1049 patients (median size, 35 mm; interquartile range, 25-45 mm; right colon location, 53.5%) were enrolled. Uniform completeness of EMR-T was achieved in 989 LNPCPs (95.4%). In this study, 755/803 (94.0%) eligible LNPCPs underwent SC1 (median time to SC1, 6 months; interquartile range, 5-7 months). For LNPCPs that underwent complete EMR-T, the frequency of RRA at SC1 was 1.4% (10/707)., Conclusions: In clinical practice, EMR-T is a simple, inexpensive, and highly effective auxiliary technique that is likely to significantly reduce RRA at first surveillance. It should be universally used for the management of LNPCPs after EMR. https://clinicaltrials.gov; Clinical Trial Number, NCT02957058., (Crown Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Large prolapse-related lesions (LPRL) of the sigmoid colon have been documented histologically but may not be readily recognized endoscopically., Methods: Colonic lesions referred for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) were enrolled prospectively. Endoscopic features were carefully documented prior to resection. Final diagnosis was made based on established histologic criteria, including vascular congestion, hemosiderin deposition, fibromuscular hyperplasia, and crypt distortion., Results: Of 134 large ( ≥ 20 mm) sigmoid lesions, 12 (9.0 %) had histologic features consistent with mucosal prolapse. Distinct endoscopic features were: broad-based morphology; vascular pattern obscured by dusky hyperemia; blurred crypts of varying size and shape; and irregular spacing of sparse crypts. Focal histologic dysplasia was identified in 6 of 12 lesions (50.0 %)., Conclusions: LPRL of the sigmoid colon exhibit a distinct endoscopic profile. Although generally non-neoplastic, dysplasia may be present, warranting consideration of EMR., Competing Interests: Michael J. Bourke receives research support from Olympus Medical, Cook Medical, and Boston Scientific. The remaining authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Laterally spreading lesions (LSLs) in the duodenum are conventionally treated by EMR. Recurrence is commonly encountered and can be difficult to treat safely due to the unique anatomic characteristics of the duodenum. Auxiliary techniques designed to prevent recurrence have not been described., Methods: We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of thermal ablation of the defect margin after EMR (EMR-T) in reducing recurrence at first surveillance endoscopy (SE1, scheduled at 6 months) in a single tertiary referral center. All duodenal LSLs ≥10 mm referred for EMR were eligible. After successful EMR, thermal ablation was performed using snare-tip soft coagulation around the entire circumference of the resection defect. The primary outcome was the frequency of recurrence at SE1. A previous, well-characterized, prospective cohort of duodenal LSLs ≥10 mm treated by conventional EMR was the comparator., Results: Over 43 months up to October 2019, 54 LSLs underwent EMR-T. One hundred twenty-five LSLs underwent conventional EMR in the comparator group. Patient and lesion characteristics were similar between the groups. Recurrence was significantly lower in the EMR-T group compared with the conventional EMR group (1 of 49 [2.3%] vs 19 of 108 [17.6%]; P = .01). No difference in technical success, EMR-related adverse outcomes, or referral to surgery were identified between the groups., Conclusions: EMR-T significantly reduces the frequency of recurrence for duodenal LSLs. This technique is safe in the duodenum and has the potential to significantly improve the effectiveness of duodenal EMR. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02306603.)., (Crown Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an effective therapy for naive large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (N-LNPCPs). The best approach for the treatment of previously attempted LNPCPs (PA-LNPCPs) is undetermined., Methods: EMR performance for PA-LNPCPs was evaluated in a prospective observational cohort of LNPCPs ≥20 mm. Efficacy was measured by technical success (removal of all visible polypoid tissue during index EMR) and recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1). Safety was assessed by clinically significant intraprocedural bleeding, deep mural injury types III-V, clinically significant post-EMR bleeding, and delayed perforation., Results: From January 2012 to October 2019, 158 PA-LNPCPs and 1,134 N-LNPCPs underwent EMR. Median PA-LNPCP size was 30 mm (interquartile range 25-46 mm). Technical success was 93.0% and increased to 95.6% after adjusting for 2-stage EMR. Cold-forceps avulsion with adjuvant snare-tip soft coagulation (CAST) was required for nonlifting polypoid tissue in 73 (46.2%). Median time to SC1 was 6 months (interquartile range 5-7 months). Recurrence occurred in 9 (7.8%). No recurrence was identified among 65 PA-LNPCPs which underwent margin thermal ablation at SC1 vs 9 (18.0%; P < 0.001) which did not. There were significant differences in resection duration (35 vs 25 minutes; P < 0.001), technical success (93.0% vs 96.6%; P = 0.026), and use of CAST (46.2% vs 7.6%; P < 0.001), between PA-LNPCPs and N-LNPCPs. When adjusting for 2-stage EMR, no difference in technical success was identified (95.6% vs 97.8%; P = 0.100). No differences in adverse events or recurrence were identified., Discussion: EMR, using auxillary techniques where necessary, can achieve high technical success and low recurrence frequencies for PA-LNPCPs., (Copyright © 2021 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Background & Aims: The best method for endoscopic resection of sessile serrated polyps (SSP) 10 mm or larger is unclear; studies report variable outcomes in comparison to conventional adenomas. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of resection of SSPs 10 mm or larger in size., Methods: We searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane databases for studies reporting data on endoscopic resection of SSPs 10 mm or larger, through May 31st, 2019. The primary outcome was rate of residual SSP, which was the rate of residual SSP found at the polypectomy site during the first follow-up colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were: technical success (rate of complete macroscopic resection), R0 resection rate (complete histological resection with absence of any polyp tissue at the lateral and deep margins after en-bloc resection), and adverse events (immediate or delayed bleeding and perforation). We performed IQR,group analyses for outcomes based on polyp size and resection techniques. Pooled proportion rates (%) or odds ratio with 95% CIs with heterogeneity (I 2 ) and P < .05., Results: A total of 14 studies met the inclusion criteria: 911 patients (50.2% male; mean age, 62.8 ± 4.9 years) who underwent resection of 1137 SSPs (574 SSPs ≥ 20 mm) with a median polyp size of 19.4 mm (interquartile range, 15.9-29.6 mm). Follow-up information was available for 832 SSPs with a median follow-up duration of 12 months (interquartile range, 6-22.5 months). Piecemeal resection was performed in 58.5% SSPs. The pooled residual SSP rate was 4.3% (95% CI, 2%-6.5%). There was a higher residual SSP rate for polyps ≥ 20 mm compared to 10-19 mm (5.9% vs 1.2%; odds ratio, 3.02; 95% CI, 1-9.2; P = .049). Cold endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) had significantly lower rates of delayed bleeding (0 vs 2.3%; P = .03) and residual polyp rate (0.9% vs 5%; P=.01) compared to hot EMR, based on univariate analysis. In multi-variate analysis there was no difference in residual polyp rate. There was no significant difference in other outcomes based on the size or method of resection., Conclusions: In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that SSPs ≥ 10 mm can be safely resected with low residual polyp rates. Polyp size ≥ 20 mm is a significant factor for residual polyp. Compared to hot EMR, cold EMR is associated with a lower rate of delayed bleeding. Randomized controlled trials comparing hot and cold resection are needed to standardize techniques and optimize outcomes., (Copyright © 2020 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)