Search

In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many jurisdictions and gastroenterological societies around the world have suspended nonurgent endoscopy. Subject to country-specific variability, it is projected that with current mitigation measures in place, the peak incidence of active COVID-19 infections may be delayed by over 6 months. Although this aims to prevent the overburdening of healthcare systems, prolonged deferral of elective endoscopy will become unsustainable. Herein, we propose that by incorporating readily available point-of-care tests and conducting accurate clinical risk assessments, a safe and timely return to elective endoscopy is feasible. Our algorithm not only focuses on the safety of patients and healthcare workers, but also assists in rationalizing the use of invaluable resources such as personal protective equipment., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Clinically significant postendoscopic mucosal resection bleeding (CSPEB) is the most frequent significant complication of wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (WF-EMR) of advanced mucosal neoplasia (sessile or laterally spreading colorectal lesions > 20 mm). CSPEB requires resource-intensive management and there is no strategy for preventing it. We investigated whether prophylactic endoscopic coagulation (PEC) reduces the incidence of CSPEB., Methods: We performed a prospective randomized controlled trial of 347 patients (mean age, 67.1 y; 55.3% with proximal colonic lesions) undergoing WF-EMR for advanced mucosal neoplasia at 3 Australian tertiary referral centers. Patients were assigned randomly (1:1) to groups receiving PEC (n = 172) or no additional therapy (n = 175, controls). PEC was performed with coagulating forceps, applying low-power coagulation to nonbleeding vessels in the resection defect. CSPEB was defined as bleeding requiring admission to the hospital. The primary end point was the proportion of CSPEB., Results: Patients in each group were similar at baseline. CSPEB occurred in 9 patients receiving PEC (5.2%) and 14 controls (8.0%; P = .30). CSPEB was associated significantly with proximal colonic location on multivariate analysis (odds ratio, 3.08; P = .03). Compared with the proximal colon, there was a significantly greater number (3.8 vs 2.1; P = .002) and mean size (0.5-1 vs 0.3-0.5 mm; P = .04) of visible vessels in the distal colon., Conclusions: PEC does not significantly decrease the incidence of CSPEB after WF-EMR. There were significantly more and larger vessels in the WF-EMR mucosal defect of distal colonic lesions, yet CSPEB was more frequent with proximal colonic lesions. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01368731., (Copyright © 2015 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Bleeding is the main complication of wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (WF-EMR) for large colonic lesions. Few studies have examined bleeding outcomes after WF-EMR, and there are no evidence-based guidelines for management of bleeding in this group. We analyzed outcomes of patients with clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB) and present a management algorithm based on our findings., Methods: In a prospective study, we collected data from WF-EMR of sessile colorectal polyps 20 mm or larger from 1039 patients who participated in the Australian Colonic Endoscopic resection multicenter study from July 2008 through May 2012. Data included patient and lesion characteristics and procedural, clinical, and histologic outcomes. Patients participated in a structured telephone interview 14 days after the procedure; independent predictors of a moderate or severe outcome by American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopists criteria, or any intervention for hemostasis, were identified., Results: Sixty-two patients had CSPEB (6.0%); 34 were managed conservatively (55%) and 27 underwent colonoscopy (44%). One patient had primary embolization. Endoscopic therapy was applied in 21 cases; 14 had active bleeding. Two of the conservatively managed cases underwent colonoscopy for rebleeding after discharge. On multivariable analysis, moderate or severe bleeding events were associated with hemodynamic instability (odds ratio, 12.3; P = .046) and low level of hemoglobin at presentation (odds ratio, 0.50 per 1.0 g/dL; P = .005). Intervention for hemostasis was associated with hourly or more frequent hematochezia (odds ratio, 36.7; P = .001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 2 or higher (odds ratio, 20.1; P < .001), and transfusion (odds ratio, 18.7; P = .003)., Conclusions: Based on a multicenter prospective study, CSPEB resolves spontaneously in 55% of patients. We developed a risk factor-based algorithm that might assist physicians in the management of bleeding. Patients responding to initial resuscitation can be observed, with a lower threshold for intervention in those with the identified risk factors., (Copyright © 2014 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (WF-EMR) of large sessile colonic polyps is a safe and cost-effective outpatient treatment. Bleeding is the main complication. Few studies have examined risk factors for bleeding during the procedure (intraprocedural bleeding [IPB]) or after it (clinically significant post-endoscopic bleeding [CSPEB]). We investigated factors associated with IPB and CSPEB in a large prospective study., Methods: We analyzed data from WF-EMRs of sessile colorectal polyps ≥ 20 mm in size (mean size, 35.5 mm), which were performed on 1172 patients (mean age, 67.8 years) from June 2008-March 2013 at 7 tertiary hospitals as part of the Australian Colonic Endoscopic Resection Study. Data were collected on characteristics of patients and lesions, along with outcomes of procedures and clinical and histologic analyses. Independent predictors of IPB and CSPEB were identified by multiple logistic regression analysis., Results: Of the patients studied, 133 (11.3%) had IPB. Independent predictors included increasing lesion size (odds ratio, 1.24/10 mm; P < .001), Paris endoscopic classification of 0-IIa + Is (odds ratio, 2.12; P = .004), tubulovillous or villous histology (odds ratio, 1.84; P = .007), and study institutions that performed the procedure on fewer than 75 patients (odds ratio, 3.78; P < .001). All IPB was successfully controlled endoscopically. IPB prolonged procedures and was associated with early recurrence (relative risk, 1.68; P = .011). Seventy-three patients (6.2%) had CSPEB. On multivariable analysis, CSPEB was associated with proximal colon location (odds ratio, 3.72; P < .001), use of an electrosurgical current not controlled by a microprocessor (odds ratio, 2.03; P = .038), and IPB (odds ratio, 2.16; P = .016). Lesion size and comorbidities did not predict CSPEB., Conclusions: In a prospective study of patients undergoing WF-EMR of large sessile colonic polyps, IPB is associated with larger lesions, lesion histology, and Paris endoscopic classification of type 0-IIa + Is. IPB prolongs the duration of the procedure, is a marker for recurrence, and is associated with CSPEB. CSPEB occurs most frequently in the proximal colon and less when current is controlled by a microprocessor., (Copyright © 2014 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Most colonic adenomas are ≤ 10 mm and are routinely treated by colonoscopic polypectomy with long-term health benefits. Nonpolypoid lesions ≥ 20 mm, whether sessile or flat and laterally spreading, are forms of advanced mucosal neoplasia that cannot be managed by conventional polypectomy and are often referred for surgery. However, the majority of these lesions when carefully assessed are found to be noninvasive and can be safely and effectively treated by advanced endoscopic techniques including endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection with resultant cost, morbidity, and mortality benefits. Lesion assessment is a critical component. Enhanced imaging methods provide the opportunity for accurate pathological characterization, informing treatment decisions, without the need for previous histologic confirmation. Techniques of advanced endoscopic resection are still in evolution and further improvements, including hybrid techniques, bringing less technically challenging and shorter procedures with superior safety can be reasonably expected in the next decade. Safety is a fundamental consideration. Methods of early recognition of complications, risk stratification, and management pathways are being developed and refined. Standardization, validation, and adoption of these technological developments will improve endoscopic interpretation and therapy and in combination with an increased understanding of adenoma molecular biology, will result in a progressively more individualized lesion-specific endoscopic approach. The future of advanced endoscopic resection in the colon is promising, and the next few years should see the boundaries of endoscopic resection expand well beyond the limits of what we know today., (Copyright © 2012 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Precision endoscopy in the management of colorectal polyps and early colorectal cancer has emerged as the standard of care. It includes optical characterization of polyps and estimation of submucosal invasion depth of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps to select the appropriate endoscopic resection modality. Over time, several imaging modalities have been implemented in endoscopic practice to improve optical performance. Among these, image‐enhanced endoscopy systems and magnification endoscopy represent now well‐established tools. New advanced technologies, such as endocytoscopy and confocal laser endomicroscopy, have recently shown promising results in predicting the histology of colorectal polyps. In recent years, artificial intelligence has continued to enhance endoscopic performance in the characterization of colorectal polyps, overcoming the limitations of other imaging modes. In this review we retrace the path of precision endoscopy, analyzing the yield of various endoscopic imaging techniques in personalizing management of colorectal polyps and early colorectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Endoscopic resection (ER) of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps ≥ 20 mm (LNPCPs) is safe, effective and the preferred treatment compared to surgery. Predicted histopathology of an LNPCP based on size, morphology, granularity, pit pattern and location in the colo-rectum is essential when deciding upon resection technique. Post resection defect inspection and adjuvant techniques, such as thermal ablation of the margin, have been demonstrated to reduce recurrence rates. Follow-up surveillance colonoscopy can accurately identify recurrence. Endoscopic treatment of recurrence is effective. Large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm (LNPCPs) comprise approximately 1% of all colorectal polyps. LNPCPs more commonly contain high-grade dysplasia, covert and overt cancer. These lesions can be resected using several means, including conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), cold-snare EMR (C-EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). This review aimed to provide a comprehensive, critical and objective analysis of ER techniques. Evidence-based, selective resection algorithms should be used when choosing the most appropriate technique to ensure the safe and effective removal of LNPCPs. Due to its enhanced safety and comparable efficacy, there has been a paradigm shift towards cold-snare polypectomy (CSP) for the removal of small polyps (<10 mm). This technique is now being applied to the management of LNPCPs; however, further research is required to define the optimal LNPCP subtypes to target and the viable upper size limit. Adjuvant techniques, such as thermal ablation of the resection margin, significantly reduce recurrence risk. Bleeding risk can be mitigated using through-the-scope clips to close defects in the right colon. Endoscopic surveillance is important to detect recurrence and synchronous lesions. Recurrence can be readily managed using an endoscopic approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Main recommendations: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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). 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). 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. Significant DMI is readily managed endoscopically and does not appear to affect technical success or recurrence. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe the clinical and procedural outcomes of per‐oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) for achalasia in Australia. Design, setting: Prospective observational study in three Australian tertiary referral centres, 5 May 2014 – 27 October 2019 (66 months). Participants: Patients who had undergone POEM for achalasia. Major outcome measures: Eckardt scores calculated prior to POEM and six months, one year, and two years after POEM. The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as an Eckardt score of 3 or less without a second intervention. Results: 142 patients underwent POEM for achalasia; their mean age was 52 years (SD, 18 years), 83 were men (58%), and the median length of hospital stay two days (IQR, 1–3 days). Their mean Eckardt score before POEM was 8.0 (SD, 2.4) and 1.1 (SD, 1.6) six months after POEM; it did not change significantly between six months and two years after POEM (mean monthly increase, 0.014 points; 95% CI, –0.001 to 0.029). A total of 127 patients (89%) improved clinically after POEM. Intra‐procedural capnoperitoneum was the only risk factor associated with treatment failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.08–7.51). Previous treatments — botulinum toxin injection (25 patients, 18%), endoscopic balloon dilatation (69, 49%), and Heller myotomy (14, 10%) — did not affect POEM outcomes. Five patients (4%) experienced major adverse events, including pneumonia, oesophageal leak, empyema and melaena, that were managed during admission and without sequelae. Conclusions: POEM is an effective treatment for achalasia. Significant reductions in Eckardt scores achieved by six months are sustained at two years. POEM can be both a first line definitive therapy and a salvage therapy for patients not helped by other treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Advances in minimally invasive tissue resection techniques now allow for the majority of early colorectal neoplasia to be managed endoscopically. To optimize their respective risk–benefit profiles, and, therefore, appropriately select between endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and surgery, the endoscopist must accurately predict the risk of submucosal invasive cancer and estimate depth of invasion. Herein, we discuss the evidence and our approach for optical evaluation of large (⩾ 20 mm) colorectal laterally spreading lesions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The serrated neoplasia pathway accounts for up to 30% of all sporadic colorectal cancers (CRCs). Sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (SSA/Ps) with cytological dysplasia (SSA/P-D) are a high-risk serrated CRC precursor with little existing data. We aimed to describe the clinical and endoscopic predictors of SSA/P-D and high grade dysplasia (HGD) or cancer. Design Prospective multicentre data of SSA/Ps ≥20 mm referred for treatment by endoscopic mucosal resection (September 2008-July 2013) were analysed. Imaging and lesion assessment was standardised. Histological findings were correlated with clinical and endoscopic findings. Results 268 SSA/Ps were found in 207/1546 patients (13.4%). SSA/P-D comprised 32.4% of SSA/Ps ≥20 mm. Cancer occurred in 3.9%. On multivariable analysis, SSA/P-D was associated with increasing age (OR=1.69 per decade; 95% CI (1.19 to 2.40), p0.004) and increasing lesion size (OR=1.90 per 10 mm; 95% CI (1.30 to 2.78), p0.001), an 'adenomatous' pit pattern (Kudo III, IV or V) (OR=3.98; 95% CI (1.94 to 8.15), p<0.001) and any 0-Is component within a SSA/P (OR=3.10; 95% CI (1.19 to 8.12) p0.021). Conventional type dysplasia was more likely to exhibit an adenomatous pit pattern than serrated dysplasia. HGD or cancer was present in 7.2% and on multivariable analysis, was associated with increasing age (OR=2.0 per decade; 95% CI 1.13 to 3.56) p0.017) and any Paris 0-Is component (OR=10.2; 95% CI 3.18 to 32.4, p<0.001). Conclusions Simple assessment tools allow endoscopists to predict SSA/P-D or HGD/cancer in SSA/Ps ≥20 mm. Correct prediction is limited by failure to recognise SSA/P-D which may mimic conventional adenoma. Understanding the concept of SSA/P-D and the pitfalls of SSA/P assessment may improve detection, recognition and resection and potentially reduce interval cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and study aims: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of laterally spreading lesions (LSLs) involving the ileocecal valve (ICV) is technically demanding. Conventionally, these lesions are considered too challenging for endoscopic therapy and are primarily managed surgically. The aims of the study were to describe effectiveness, safety, and outcomes following EMR of LSLs at the ICV. Patients and methods: This was a single-center, prospective, observational, cohort study performed at an academic, tertiary referral center. Patients undergoing EMR for LSLs ≥20mm involving the ICV were recruited over a 5-year period. Standard or cap-assisted colonoscopy with injectand- resect EMR technique was performed with standardized post-EMR management. Procedural success, safety, and outcomes compared with non-ICV LSLs managed during the same period were analyzed. Results: A total of 53 patients with ICV LSLs were referred for EMR (median age 69 years; median lesion size 35.0 mm; 52.8% females). Six patients went directly to surgery because of an endoscopic diagnosis of malignancy (n=2) or technical failure of EMR (n=4). EMR achieved complete adenoma clearance in 44 out of 47 attempted (93.6 %). Surgery was ultimately avoided in 43/53 (81.1 %). Complications included bleeding in 6.4 %. There were no perforations or strictures. Early adenoma recurrence was detected in 7/40 patients (17.5 %), and 1/22 (4.5 %) had late recurrence. All were successfully managed endoscopically. Factors associated with failure of ICV EMR were ileal infiltration and involvement of both ICV lips. Conclusions: In the majority of cases, LSL involving the ICV can be effectively treated by EMR on an outpatient basis. In specialized centers, complications are infrequent, and>80% of patients ultimately avoid surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The major health burden of colorectal cancer is reduced by colonoscopic polypectomy. The majority of polyps encountered are diminutive in size and easily removed; however, endoscopic removal of lesions >20 mm in size is also effective and safe. Techniques have progressed, advancing the boundaries of endoscopic therapy to include resection of circumferential lesions and selected submucosal invasive cancers. While there are cost and safety advantages over surgical management, specific limitations of endoscopic resection remain, chiefly bleeding, perforation and recurrence. Recent studies highlight the utility of risk stratification and demonstrate the effectiveness of endoscopic treatment of complications; however, strategies for prevention remain elusive. Prediction of submucosal invasive cancers through systematic assessment of lesion morphology and surface pattern is now established. Harnessing submucosal invasive cancer prediction and risk stratification allows a shift toward lesion-specific therapy, the next paradigm in the management of advanced colonic lesions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Flat and sessile colonic lesions are being identified more frequently because of increased awareness, improved endoscopic skills, and enhanced imaging. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is now a well-developed technique in the treatment of large sessile lesions and advanced mucosal neoplasia of the colon. Significant cost, morbidity, and mortality benefits may be obtained from this minimally invasive technique. Careful lesion assessment is mandatory, and the patient''s general health and comorbidities should be factored into the therapeutic plan. Recent technical advances allow resection of larger and more complex lesions in excess of 50 mm and involving more than two-thirds of the circumference of the colonic wall as an outpatient. Meticulous resection technique is crucial to maximize procedural success. EMR is associated with a small, but significant, risk of bleeding and perforation. Endoscopists need to be aware of risk factors for these events and techniques of early detection. Early identification and endoscopic treatment ameliorates the frequency and severity of adverse events. This review will discuss the general principles of EMR, including lesion assessment, equipment selection, endoscopic technique, and early identification and treatment of complications. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The last few years have seen a burgeoning interest in the measurement of clinical performance and its impact on quality standards. The advent of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program has highlighted the many deficiencies that exist in the provision of colonoscopy services in Australia. These include the absence of an agreed tool to measure the quality of colonoscopy on either an individual, departmental or regional basis and the absence of an endoscopic or colonoscopy training curriculum or an agreed standard for colonoscopy trainers. This review will discuss the current status and shortfalls of measuring quality in colonoscopy, highlight some recent initiatives by the Gastroenterological Society of Australia and articulate a direction for the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ability of optical evaluation to diagnose submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC) prior to endoscopic resection of large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) is critical to inform therapeutic decisions. Prior studies suggest that it is insufficiently accurate to detect SMIC. It is unknown whether lesion morphology influences optical evaluation performance. LNPCPs ≥20 mm referred for endoscopic resection within a prospective, multicenter, observational cohort were evaluated. Optical evaluation was performed prior to endoscopic resection with the optical prediction of SMIC based on established features (Kudo V pit pattern, depressed morphology, rigidity/fixation, ulceration). Optical evaluation performance outcomes were calculated. Outcomes were reported by dominant morphology: nodular (Paris 0–Is/0–IIa+Is) vs flat (Paris 0–IIa/0–IIb) morphology. From July 2013 to July 2019, 1583 LNPCPs (median size 35 [interquartile range, 25–50] mm; 855 flat, 728 nodular) were assessed. SMIC was identified in 146 (9.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.9%–10.8%). Overall sensitivity and specificity were 67.1% (95% CI, 59.2%–74.2%) and 95.1% (95% CI, 93.9%–96.1%), respectively. The overall SMIC miss rate was 3.0% (95% CI, 2.3%–4.0%). Significant differences in sensitivity (90.9% vs 52.7%), specificity (96.3% vs 93.7%), and SMIC miss rate (0.6% vs 5.9%) between flat and nodular LNPCPs were identified (all P <.027). Multiple logistic regression identified size ≥40 mm (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; 95% CI, 1.0–3.8), rectosigmoid location (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1–3.7), and nodular morphology (OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 2.8–18.9) as predictors of missed SMIC (all P <.039). Optical evaluation performance is dependent on lesion morphology. In the absence of features suggestive of SMIC, flat lesions can be presumed benign and be managed accordingly. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 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. 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). 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. [Display omitted] In this prospective study, 1037 large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps that underwent successful endoscopic mucosal resection with complete thermal ablation of the defect margin after endoscopic mucosal resection were enrolled. Recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy occurred in 10/707 cases (1.4%). In an international multicenter cohort of more than 1000 large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps, thermal ablation of the defect margin after endoscopic mucosal resection significantly reduced the frequency of recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author reflects on the when and whom should colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) be employed. Topics discussed include curative resection as an advantage of ESD over endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for early cancer, effectiveness and safety of ESD, and diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy.

See article in J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2011; 26: 1619-1625. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is safe and effective for the removal of small adenomas (≤10 mm); however, reported incomplete resection rates (IRRs) vary. The optimal CSP technique, where a wide margin of normal tissue is resected around the target lesion, and snare design have both been hypothesized to reduce the IRR after CSP. We sought to investigate the efficacy of a thin-wire versus thick-wire diameter snare on IRR, using the standardized CSP technique. METHODS: This was an international multicenter parallel design randomized trial with 17 endoscopists of varying experience (NCT02581254). Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the use of a thin-wire (0.30 mm) or thick-wire (0.47 mm) snare for CSP of small (≤10 mm) colorectal polyps. The primary end point was the IRR as determined by the histologic assessment of the defect margin after polypectomy. RESULTS: Over 52 months to January 2020, 1,393 patients were eligible. A total of 660 patients with polyps (57.4% male) were randomized to a thin-wire (n = 339) or thick-wire (n = 321) snare. The overall IRR of the cohort was 1.5%. There was no significant difference in the IRR between the thin- and thick-wire arms; relative risk—0.41, 95% CI (0.11–1.56), P = 0.21. No significant differences were observed in the rate of adverse events. DISCUSSION: In this multicenter randomized trial, CSP is safe and effective with very low rates of incomplete resection independent of the diameter of the snare wire used. This suggests that the optimal operator technique is more important than the snare design alone in minimizing residual adenoma after CSP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]