Search

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a cornerstone in the management of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps. Clinically significant post-EMR bleeding occurs in 7% of cases and is most frequently encountered in the right colon. We aimed to assess the use of prophylactic clip closure in preventing clinically significant post-EMR bleeding within the right colon.We conducted a randomised controlled trial at a tertiary centre in Australia. Patients referred for the EMR of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps in the right colon were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) into the clip or control (no clip) group, using a computerised random-number generator. The primary endpoint was clinically significant post-EMR bleeding, defined as haematochezia necessitating emergency department presentation, hospitalisation, or re-intervention within 14 days post-EMR, which was analysed on the basis of intention-to-treat principles. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02196649, and has been completed.Between Feb 4, 2016, and Dec 15, 2020, 231 patients were randomly assigned: 118 to the clip group and 113 to the control group. In the intention-to-treat analysis, clinically significant post-EMR bleeding was less frequent in the clip group than in the control group (four [3·4%] of 118 patients vs 12 [10·6%] of 113; p=0·031; absolute risk reduction 7·2% [95% CI 0·7-13·8]; number needed to treat 13·9). There were no differences between groups in adverse events, including delayed perforation (one [1%] in the clip group vs one [1%] in the control group) and post-EMR pain (four [3%] vs six [5%]). No deaths were reported.Prophylactic clip closure can be performed following the EMR of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps of 20 mm or larger in the right colon to reduce the risk of clinically significant post-EMR bleeding.None.

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.)

Background Recognition of the post-endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) scar is critical for large (≥ 20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyp (LNPCP) management. The utility of intraluminal tattooing to facilitate scar identification is unknown. Methods We evaluated the ability of simple easy-to-use optical evaluation criteria to detect the post-EMR scar, with or without tattoo placement, in a prospective observational cohort of LNPCPs referred for endoscopic resection. The primary outcome was scar identification, further stratified by lesion size (20–39 mm, ≥ 40 mm) and histopathology (adenomatous, serrated). Results 1023 LNPCPs underwent both successful EMR and first surveillance colonoscopy (median size 35 mm, IQR 30–50 mm); 124 (12.1 %) had an existing tattoo or a tattoo placed at the index EMR. The post-EMR scar was identified in 1020 patients (99.7 %). The presence of a tattoo did not affect scar identification (100.0 % vs. 99.7 %; P > 0.99). There was no difference for LNPCPs 20–39 mm, LNPCPs ≥ 40 mm, adenomatous LNPCPs, and serrated LNPCPs (all P > 0.99). Conclusions The post-EMR scar can be reliably identified with simple easy-to-use optical evaluation criteria, without the need for universal tattoo placement.

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.

ObjectiveLarge (≥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.DesignConsecutive 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsIn 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.

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.

Background Intraprocedural bleeding (IPB) during multiband mucosectomy (MBM) for Barrett’s neoplasia can obscure the endoscopic field. Current hemostatic devices may affect procedure continuity and technical success. Snare-tip soft coagulation (STSC) as a first-line therapy for primary hemostasis has not previously been studied in this setting. Methods Between January 2014 and November 2019, 191 consecutive patients underwent 292 MBM procedures for Barrett’s neoplasia within a prospective observational cohort in two tertiary care centers. A standard MBM technique was performed. IPB was defined as bleeding obscuring the endoscopic field that required intervention. The primary outcome was the technical success and efficacy of STSC. Results IPB occurred in 63 MBM procedures (21.6 %; 95 % confidence interval 17.3 % – 26.7 %). STSC was attempted as first-line therapy in 51 IPBs, with the remainder requiring alternate therapies because of pooling of blood. STSC achieved hemostasis in 48 cases (94.1 % by per-protocol analysis; 76.2 % by intention-to-treat analysis). No apparatus disassembly was required to perform STSC. Conclusions STSC is a safe, effective, and efficient first-line hemostatic modality for IPB during MBM for Barrett’s neoplasia.

Endoscopic tissue resection is a rapidly evolving field. En bloc resection techniques, specifically endoscopic submucosal dissection, allow for organ-sparing curative endoscopic resection for early gastrointestinal cancers. However, using current techniques to quantify depth of invasion, it remains difficult for endoscopists to reliably select optimal endoscopic submucosal dissection candidates. In this review, we highlight that artificial intelligence platforms can now quantify the depth of invasion of esophageal, gastric, and colorectal neoplasia. While real-time performance evaluation is needed, this represents a significant advancement in endoscopic tissue resection and carries the potential to provide real-time guidance for selecting the appropriate tissue resection technique.

A healthy 41-year-old female was referred for the endoscopic management of a large rectal laterally spreading lesion (LSL). On index colonoscopy, performed for the evaluation of rectal bleeding, multiple proximal sessile serrated polyps were identified meeting diagnostic criteria for serrated polyposis syndrome. Family history was notable for a sister with a history of sessile serrated polyps. Using an Olympus 190 series high-definition colonoscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan), the lesion was evaluated under white-light (figure 1A), narrow-band imaging (NBI) (figure 1B) and near-focus (figure …

ObjectiveEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in a curative intent for submucosa-invasive early (T1) colorectal cancers (T1-CRCs) often leads to subsequent surgical resection in case of histologic parameters indicating higher risk of nodal involvement. In some cases, however, the expected benefit may be offset by the surgical risks, suggesting a more conservative approach.DesignRetrospective analysis of consecutive patients with T1-CRC who underwent ESD at 13 centres ending inclusion in 2019 (n=3373). Cases with high risk of nodal involvement (non-curative ESD: G3, submucosal invasion>1000 µm, lymphovascular involvement, budding or incomplete resection/R1) were analysed if follow-up data (endoscopy/imaging) were available, regardless of the postendoscopic management (follow-up vs surgery) selected by the multidisciplinary teams in these institutions. Comorbidities were classified according to Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Outcomes were disease recurrence, death and disease-related death rates in the two groups. Rate of residual disease (RD) at both the previous resection site and regional lymph nodes was assessed in the surgical cases as well as from follow-up in the follow-up group.ResultsOf 604 patients treated by colorectal ESD for submucosally invasive cancer, 207 non-curative resections (34.3%) were included (138 male; mean age 67.6±10.9 years); in 65.2% of cases, no complete resection was achieved (R1). Of the 207 cases, 60.9% (n=126; median CCI: 3; IQR: 2–4) underwent surgical treatment with RD in 19.8% (25/126), while 39.1% (n=81, median CCI: 5; IQR: 4–6) were followed up by endoscopy in all cases. Patients in the follow-up group had a higher overall mortality (HR=3.95) due to non-CRC causes (n=9, mean survival after ESD 23.7±13.7 months). During this follow-up time, tumour recurrence and disease-specific survival rates were not different between the groups (median follow-up 30 months; range: 6–105).ConclusionFollowing ESD for a lesion at high risk of RD, follow-up only may be a reasonable choice in patients at high risk for surgery. Also, endoscopic resection quality should be improved.Trial registration numberNCT03987828.

In this study, we aimed to develop an artificial intelligence clinical decision support solution to mitigate operator-dependent limitations during complex endoscopic procedures such as endoscopic submucosal dissection and peroral endoscopic myotomy, for example, bleeding and perforation. A DeepLabv3-based model was trained to delineate vessels, tissue structures and instruments on endoscopic still images from such procedures. The mean cross-validated Intersection over Union and Dice Score were 63% and 76%, respectively. Applied to standardised video clips from third-space endoscopic procedures, the algorithm showed a mean vessel detection rate of 85% with a false-positive rate of 0.75/min. These performance statistics suggest a potential clinical benefit for procedure safety, time and also training.

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.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.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.A rectum-specific SRA optimizes oncologic outcomes for LNPRPs and mitigates the risk of piecemeal resection of cancers.

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.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.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).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.).

A middle-aged man was referred to assess the feasibility of endoscopic removal of a 35 mm laterally spreading lesion within the sigmoid colon. The referring endoscopist appreciated a central depression (0–IIc Paris morphology) and raised the concern for submucosal invasive cancer. Using an Olympus 190 series high-definition colonoscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan), the lesion was carefully examined under white light and narrow-band imaging (NBI) (figure 1A). The central aspect of the …

A 75-year-old man was referred for the endoscopic management of an 80 mm large non-pedunculated colorectal polyp (LNPCP) in the sigmoid colon. The lesion was evaluated under white-light (figure 1A), narrow-band imaging and near-focus. Granular nodular-mixed type morphology was identified with a homogeneous surface pattern (Kudo IV, Japan NBI Expert Team IIA) consistent with benign adenomatous histopathology. Figure 1 80mm large non-pedunculated colorectal polyp (LNPCP) in the sigmoid colon. Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection was performed (figure 1A,B). After successful resection of the first specimen, defect evaluation revealed a hole within a white cautery ring, most consistent with a perforation without contamination (sydney deep mural injury (DMI) classification type IV1; figure 1D). A viscous amorphous …

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.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is poised to revolutionize healthcare. Nowhere is this more apparent than in endoscopy as it carries the potential to subvert operator dependence. In this chapter, we discuss existing evidence for AI platforms in endoscopy and explore future applications. This includes lesion detection, lesion characterization, quantifying lesion depth of invasion, inflammatory bowel disease assessment, and the role of AI in endoscopic ultrasound and risk triaging. Moreover, we discuss critical aspects for the effective dissemination of AI in endoscopy including data storage, workflow integration, regulatory, and ethical considerations.

Universal colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and minimally invasive endoscopic resection techniques are transforming serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) management. However, serrated lesions of the appendix (SLAs) are an emerging concern. The prevalence and clinical ramifications of SLAs are likely understated due to the historical role of surgery. Covert intra-appendiceal lesions are surprisingly common but cannot be detected endoscopically nor surveyed. Of those with extension into the caecum, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) all have intrinsic limitations in this location. Herein we discuss the potential role for prophylactic appendectomy in patients with SPS. Although SPS is now in the purview of the endoscopist, SLAs remain a challenge from two perspectives: (1) covert lesions which cannot be detected nor surveyed; (2) endoscopic management limitations in this location. As a true diverticulum, the appendix shares the histological layers of the colon with an average length and diameter of 8 cm and 8 mm, respectively. Assuming a cylindrical shape, it reflects 7% of the surface area of the right colon (online supplementary figure 1).1–3 However, due to its narrow calibre the appendiceal lumen cannot be evaluated. Thus, the patient remains at risk for covert disease progression and ultimately interval CRC. In a retrospective analysis of 34 patients with SPS who underwent surgery, SLAs were identified incidentally in 68%, with 26% having advanced histopathology.4 ### Supplementary data [gutjnl-2020-321445supp001.pdf] The relevance of these findings has been understated in existing SPS cohorts. Until recently, universal CRC screening has not been the international standard. Consequently, many patients with SPS are not detected by screening but present with CRC or CRC is detected at the time of …

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.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.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.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.).

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.

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.

We thank Dr Santos-Antunes and colleagues for their important letter on resection technique selection for large (≥ 20mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) in the rectum.1 2 In response, we would like to address a number of critical points. Santos-Antunes and colleagues correctly point out that a selective resection algorithm, whereby the majority of lesions are treated by endosocpic mucosal resection (EMR), is the optimal management strategy. This is due to EMR’s effectiveness, efficiency, safety and cost savings compared with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and surgery.3–5 We also agree that the rectum should be viewed as a separate organ, and requires a rectum-specific resection algorithm. This is due to the twofold increased risk of cancer in rectal LNPCPs, and the heightened risk of morbidity and permanent ostomy formation associated with distal colorectal surgery.6 The authors advocate for a universal ESD strategy for the rectum based on their experience. Among …

With interest, we read the insightful recommendations by Banks et al 1 and the British Society of Gastroenterology on the management of precancerous conditions and lesions in the stomach. They rightly identify that the management of these conditions lacks consistency not only in the UK but also in the majority of Western societies.2 With a growing appreciation for quality indicators in upper GI endoscopy,3 these guidelines are an essential resource for both general endoscopists and tissue resection specialists. Nevertheless, despite the increasing expertise in endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) outside of Japan,4 we were surprised that endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) was recommended for lesions ≤10 mm. This is in contrast to recommendations by the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES)5 and the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE).6 Three systematic reviews7–9 have compared ESD versus EMR for early gastric cancer (EGC). In …

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.