Lesion size is an independent risk factor for recurrence following endoscopic mucosal resection of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps. Post-resection margin thermal ablation (MTA) reduces the risk of recurrence. Its impact on the uncommon larger (≥40 mm) lesions is unknown.

We sought to analyse the impact of MTA on ≥40 mm lesions in a large, prospective cohort.

A prospective cohort of patients with colorectal polyps ≥20 mm treated with piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection in an expert tissue resection centre was divided into three phases: 'pre-MTA', July 2009-June 2012; 'MTA-adoption', July 2012-June 2017 and 'standardised-MTA', July 2017-July 2023. Recurrence was defined as adenomatous tissue endoscopically and/or histologically detected at the first surveillance colonoscopy. The primary outcome was the recurrence rate over the three time periods in three size groups: 20-39 mm, 40-59 mm and ≥60 mm.

Over 14 years until July 2023, 1872 sporadic colorectal polyps ≥20 mm in 1872 patients underwent endoscopic mucosal resection (median lesion size 35 mm (IQR 25-45mm)). Of these, 1349 patients underwent surveillance colonoscopy at a median of 6 months (IQR 4-8 months). The overall rates of recurrence in the pre-MTA, MTA-adoption and standardised-MTA phases were 13.5% (n=42/310), 12.6% (n=72/560) and 2.1% (n=10/479), respectively, (p≤0.001). When MTA was applied in the standardised-MTA phase, the rate of recurrence was the same among 20-39 mm (1.5% (3/205)), 40-59 mm (1.6% (3/190)) and ≥60 mm polyps (1.4% (1/73)) (p=1.00).

MTA negates the effect of size on the incidence of recurrence after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection of colorectal polyps ≥40 mm.

Australian Colonic Endoscopic Resection cohort (NCT01368289; NCT02000141).

Large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm (LNPCPs) constitute approximately 1% of all colorectal polyps and present a spectrum of risks, including overt and covert submucosal invasive cancer (T1 colorectal cancer (CRC)). Importantly, a curative resection may be achieved for LNPCPs with superficial T1 CRC (T1a or T1b <1000 µm into submucosa), if an enbloc R0 excision (clear margins) with favourable histology is achieved (ie, absence of high-grade tumour budding, lympho-vascular invasion, and poor differentiation). Thus, while consensus recommendations advocate for endoscopic resection as the primary treatment option for LNPCPs, thorough optical assessment is imperative for selecting the most suitable ER strategy. In this review, we highlight the critical components of optical evaluation that assist in predicting the risk of T1 CRC, including morphology (Paris and LST classifications), surface pit/vascular pattern (JNET and Kudo classifications), and lesion location. Different resection modalities, including endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection are discussed, along with important considerations that may influence the resection strategy of choice, such as access to the LNPCP and submucosal fibrosis.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection is increasingly promoted for the treatment of all large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) to cure potential low-risk cancers (superficial submucosal invasion without additional high-risk histopathologic features). The effect of a universal en bloc strategy on oncologic outcomes for the treatment of LNPCPs in the right colon is unknown. We evaluated this in a large Western population.

A prospective cohort of patients referred for endoscopic resection (ER) of LNPCPs was analyzed. Patients found to have cancer after ER and those referred directly to surgery were included. The primary outcome was to determine the proportion of right colon LNPCPs with low-risk cancer.

Over 180 months until June 2023, 3294 sporadic right colon LNPCPs in 2956 patients were referred for ER at 7 sites (median size 30 [interquartile range 22.5-37.5] mm). A total of 63 (2.1%) patients were referred directly to surgery, and cancer was proven in 56 (88.9%). A total of 2851 (96.4%) of 2956 LNPCPs underwent ER (median size 35 [interquartile range 25-45] mm), of which 75 (2.6%) were cancers. The overall prevalence of cancer in the right colon was 4.4% (n = 131 of 2956). Detailed histopathologic analysis was possible in 115 (88%) of 131 cancers (71 after ER, 44 direct to surgery). After excluding missing histopathologic data, 23 (0.78%) of 2940 sporadic right colon LNPCPs were low-risk cancers.

The proportion of right colon LNPCPs referred for ER containing low-risk cancer amenable to endoscopic cure was <1%, in a large, multicenter Western cohort. A universal endoscopic submucosal dissection strategy for the management of right colon LNPCPs is unlikely to yield improved patient outcomes given the minimal impact on oncologic outcomes.

gov, Numbers: NCT01368289, NCT02000141.

Thermal ablative methods (such as argon plasma coagulation (APC) and soft tip snare coagulation (STSC) are commonly used to treat polyp margins. We aim to appraise the current literature and compare clinical outcomes between patients with treated (with APC vs. STSC) and non-treated endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) margins.

We searched major databases from inception until November 2023 for randomly controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EMR of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps with and without treated margins. Pooled data were analyzed for the primary outcome of recurrence at first screening colonoscopy, and adverse events. Analysis was performed using a random effects model and data were reported using 95% CIs.

A total of 5 RCT's were found, which included 1020 polyps (577 in treatment and 443 in control groups). Three studies included treatment with STSC and 3 studies used APC as the modality for margin ablation. Of the included patients, 53% were female and the average age was similar between treatment and control groups (65.9 vs. 66.1 y). Seventy-one percent of lesions were proximal to the splenic flexure. The mean follow-up to the first colonoscopy and average polyp size were comparable (6.3 vs. 6.2 mo; 28.2 vs. 28.0 mm, respectively). Pooled analysis showed that margin ablation was associated with significantly lower rates of recurrence [odds ratio (OR) 0.267, 95% CI 0.18-0.4, P<0.001] with low heterogeneity between studies (I2=0%, P=0.47). Pooled analysis showed no significant difference between STSC and APC in terms of recurrence (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.27-1.7, I2=0%, P=0.3) or adverse events (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.3-1.6, I2 13%, P=0.46).

Our study shows that ablation of EMR margins is very effective at preventing recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy. We found no difference between STSC or APC in terms of polyp recurrence or adverse outcomes.

The European Guidelines for colorectal cancer screening of 2006 state that only high-risk endoscopically resected malignant colorectal polyps (MCPs), defined as poor/no differentiation or positive resection margins or lymphovascular invasion, require colonic resection.

A multicentre series of 954 patients with screen-detected MCP (northern Italy, 2005-2016, age 50-69) was studied to identify (1) the factors affecting the choice of colonic resection, and (2) the factors associated with deviation from the European Guidelines for low- and high-risk patients. Data analysis was based on multilevel logistic regression models.

Five hundred sixty-four (59.1 %) patients underwent colonic resection. The factors significantly associated with surgical referral included: distal and rectal versus proximal tumour site (inverse association); sessile and flat versus pedunculated morphology (direct association); tumour size (direct); moderate/poor versus good differentiation (direct); adenocarcinoma of not otherwise specified type versus adenocarcinoma with a residual adenoma component (direct); positive versus negative resection margins (direct); lymphovascular invasion (direct); and high-grade versus low-grade/absent tumour budding (direct). In low-risk MCPs, tumour budding encouraged strongly the decision for surgery. In high-risk MCPs, a distal/rectal tumour site encouraged the follow-up option.

The identification of factors associated with treatment choices other than those currently recommended may help prioritise the clinical questions in the development of future guidelines.

Data of long-term follow up for large non pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) ≥4 cm removed with piecemeal wide field endoscopic mucosal resection (PWF-EMR) are limited. We primarily evaluated the recurrence rates and secondarily the rates of post colonoscopic polypectomy colorectal cancer (PCPCRC) on a long-term basis.

We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively-stored electronic database of all patients who underwent PWF-EMR for LNPCPs at the Venizeleion General Hospital, between 2009 and 2020. Eligible patients were those with LNPCPs ≥4 cm, deemed completely removed by endoscopic means and followed-up for a minimum of 36 months with at least two surveillance colonoscopies, the first one (SC1) (4-6) months after the initial PWF-EMR procedure and the second one (SC2) after (12-18) months. In 2023, all cases were checked for PCPCRC development.

Residual/early recurrent tissue was detected in 44 (31 %) cases among the 142 (82 males, 60 females) assessed during SC1. Late recurrent tissue was detected in 9 (6.6 %) cases among the 137 surveyed during SC2. Investigation did not reveal any case of PCPCRC .

This historical cohort shows that the PWF-EMR for LNPCPs ≥4 cm is a safe and definitive removal method while it is not associated with the appearance of PCPCRC.

Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is routinely performed for small colorectal polyps (≤10 mm). However, challenges include insufficient resection depth and immediate bleeding, hindering precise pathological evaluation. We aimed to compare the outcomes of cold endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) with that of CSP for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm, using data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Multiple databases were searched in December 2023 for RCTs reporting outcomes of CSP versus CEMR for colorectal polyps ≤10 mm in size. Our primary outcomes were rates of complete and en-bloc resections, while our secondary outcomes were total resection time (seconds) and adverse events, including immediate bleeding, delayed bleeding, and perforation.

The complete resection rates did not significantly differ (CSP, 91.8% vs. CEMR 94.6%), nor did the rates of en-bloc resection (CSP, 98.9% vs. CEMR, 98.3%) or incomplete resection (CSP, 6.7% vs. CEMR, 4.8%). Adverse event rates were similarly insignificant in variance. However, CEMR had a notably longer mean resection time (133.51 vs. 91.30 seconds).

Our meta-analysis of seven RCTs showed that while both CSP and CEMR are equally safe and effective for resecting small (≤10 mm) colorectal polyps, the latter is associated with a longer resection time.

To investigate the potential of prophylactic closure of mucosal defects to prevent adverse events following endoscopic resection of superficial layers of the gastrointestinal (GI) wall.

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library for studies eligible for inclusion in our meta-analysis from inception to February 2022.

We compared the effects of closure versus non-closure of mucosal defects with respect to adverse events including delayed bleeding, delayed perforation and postpolypectomy coagulation syndrome (PPCS). We used a random-effects model for all analyses. Subgroup analyses were performed based on gastrointestinal sites, surgical procedures and study designs.

In total, this study includes 11 383 patients from 28 studies. For delayed bleeding, closure group was associated with a lower incidence (Risk Ratio [RR]: 0.40, 95% Confidence interval [CI]: 0.30 to 0.53, p<0.001; I2=25%) and consistent results were observed in the subgroups. Also, for delayed perforation, a combined analysis of all sites and surgical methods showed a protective effect of prophylactic closure of mucosal defects (RR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.82, p=0.01; I2=0%). Similar results were observed in the subgroup analyses, despite the wide CIs. Regarding the PPCS, neither the pooled RRs nor the subgroup analyses showed significant differences.

Prophylactic closure of mucosal defects is beneficial in reducing the incidence of delayed bleeding and delayed perforation after endoscopic resection, but there is no significant difference in reducing the incidence of PPCS.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains the second most common cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, necessitating advancements in early detection and innovative treatment strategies. MicroRNAs (miRNAs), small non-coding RNAs involved in gene regulation, have emerged as crucial players in the pathogenesis of CRC. This review synthesizes the latest findings on miRNA deregulated in precancerous lesions and in CRC. By examining the deregulation patterns of miRNAs across different stages of CRC development, this review highlights their potential as diagnostic tools. We specifically analyse the roles and diagnostic relevance of four miRNAs-miR-15b, miR-21, miR-31, and miR-146a-that consistently exhibit altered expression in CRC. The current knowledge of their role in key oncogenic pathways, drug resistance, and clinical relevance is discussed. Despite challenges posed by the heterogeneity of the research findings on miRNA deregulation and their role in CRC, integrating miRNA diagnostics into current screening methods holds promise for enhancing personalized medicine approaches. This review emphasizes the transformative potential of miRNAs in CRC diagnosis, paving the way for improved patient outcomes and novel therapeutic paradigms.

Resection of colorectal polyps has been shown to decrease the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. Large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps are often referred to expert centers for endoscopic resection, which requires relevant information to be conveyed to the therapeutic endoscopist to allow for triage and planning of resection technique. The primary objective of this study was to establish minimum expected standards for the referral of large nonpedunculated colonic polyps for potential endoscopic resection.

A Delphi method was used to establish consensus on minimum expected standards for the referral of large colorectal polyps among a panel of international endoscopy experts. The expert panel was recruited through purposive sampling, and 3 rounds of surveys were conducted to achieve consensus. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed for each round.

A total of 24 international experts from diverse continents participated in the Delphi study, resulting in consensus on 19 statements related to the referral of large colorectal polyps. The identified factors, including patient demographic characteristics, relevant medications, lesion factors, photodocumentation, and the presence of a tattoo, were deemed important for conveying the necessary information to therapeutic endoscopists. The mean scores for the statements, which were scored on a scale of 1 to 10, ranged from 7.04 to 9.29, with high percentages of experts considering most statements as a very high priority. Subgroup analysis according to continent revealed some variations in consensus rates among experts from different regions.

The identified consensus statements can aid in improving the triage and planning of resection techniques for large colorectal polyps, ultimately contributing to the reduction of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

There is increasing evidence that cold endoscopic mucosal resection (c-EMR) can effectively treat large colorectal polyps. We aim to appraise the current literature and evaluate outcomes following c-EMR for nonpedunculated colonic polyps ≥20 mm.

Major databases were searched. Primary outcomes included recurrence rate and adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.

Nine articles were included in the final analysis, which included 817 patients and 1077 colorectal polyps. Average polyp size was 28.8 (±5.1) mm. The pooled recurrence rate of polyps of any histology at 4 to 6 months was 21.0% (95% CI: 9.0%-32.0%, P <0.001, I2 =97.3, P <0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that recurrence was 10% for proximal lesions (95% CI: 0.0%-20.0%, P =0.054, I2 =93.7%, P =0.054) and 9% for distal lesions (95% CI: 2.0%-21.0%, P =0.114, I2 =95.8%, P =0.114). Furthermore, subgroup analysis showed that recurrence was 12% for adenoma (95% CI: 4.0%-19.0%, P =0.003, I2 =98.0%, P =0.003), and 3% for sessile serrated polyps (95% CI: 1.0%-5.0%, P =0.002, I2 =34.4%, P =0.002). Post-polypectomy bleeding occurred in 1% (n=8/817) of patients, whereas abdominal pain occurred in 0.2% (n=2/817) of patients.

C-EMR for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm shows an excellent safety profile with a very low rate of delayed bleeding as well as significantly less recurrence for sessile serrated polyps than adenomas.

Colorectal cancer is a highly prevalent malignancy and a significant driver of cancer mortality and health-related expenditure worldwide. Polyp removal reduces the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. In 2024, endoscopists have an array of resection modalities at their disposal. Each technique requires a unique skillset and has individual advantages and limitations. Consequently, resection in the colorectum requires an evidence-based algorithm approach that considers these factors.

A literature review of endoscopic resection for colonic neoplasia was conducted. Best supporting scientific evidence was summarized for the endoscopic resection of diminutive polyps, large ≥20 mm lesions and polyps containing invasive cancer. Factors including resection modality, complications and lesion selection were explored to inform an algorithm approach to colorectal resection.

Endoscopic resection in the colorectum is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Detailed understanding of polyp size, location, morphology and predicted histology are critical factors that inform appropriate endoscopic resection practice.

The incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC) have decreased through regular screening colonoscopy, surveillance, and endoscopic treatment. However, CRC can still be diagnosed after negative colonoscopy. Such CRC is called interval CRC and accounts for 1.8-9.0% of all CRC cases. Most cases of interval CRC originate from missed lesions and incompletely resected lesions. Interval CRC can be minimized by improving the quality of colonoscopy. This has led to a growing interest in and demand for high-quality colonoscopy. It is important to reduce the risk of CRC and its associated mortality by improving the quality of colonoscopy. In this review article, we provide an overview of colonoscopy quality indicators, including bowel preparation adequacy, the cecal intubation rate, the adenoma detection rate, the colonoscopy withdrawal time, appropriate polypectomy, and complication of the procedure. Because colonoscopy is a highly endoscopist-dependent procedure, colonoscopists should be well-acquainted with quality indicators and strive to apply them in daily clinical practice for the prevention of CRC.

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.

T1 colorectal cancer (CRC), defined by tumor invasion confined to the submucosa, has historically been managed by surgery. Improved understanding of recurrence and lymph node metastases risk, coupled with advances in endoscopic resection techniques, have led to an increasing capacity for organ-sparing local excision. Minimally invasive management of T1 CRC begins with optical evaluation of the lesion to diagnose invasive disease and quantify depth of invasion, which informs therapeutic decision making. Modality selection between various available endoscopic resection techniques depends upon lesion characteristics, technique risk-benefit profiles, and location-specific implications. Following endoscopic resection, established histopathology features determine the risk of recurrence and subsequent management including surveillance or adjuvant surgical excision. The management of non-operative candidates deviates from conventional recommendations with emerging treatment strategies in select populations.

The detection rate of dysplastic colorectal polyps has significantly increased with improved screening programs. Treatment of dysplastic polyps attempt to limit morbidity of a procedure while also considering the risk of occult lymph node metastasis. Therefore, a variety of methods have been developed to predict the rate of lymph node metastasis to help identify the optimal treatment of patients. These include both the endoscopic and pathologic assessment of the lesion. In order to reduce the morbidity of surgery for patients with low-risk lesions, multiple endoscopic therapies have been developed, including endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, and transanal endoscopic surgery.

Endoscopic resection is standard treatment for adenomatous colorectal lesions. Depending on lesion morphology and resection technique, recurrence can occur. Scarred adenomas are challenging to resect and may require surgical management. This study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of an endoscopic powered resection (EPR) system for scarred adenomatous colorectal lesions.

This single-arm, prospective, multicenter study was conducted from January 2018 to January 2021 at 12 sites. Patients with persistent flat or sessile colorectal lesions were enrolled. Primary end points were technical success (the ability of the device to resect the lesion[s] without use of other resection devices without device-related serious adverse events [AEs]) and safety (the occurrence of AEs through 90 days). Secondary end points included endoscopic confirmation of resection completeness, occurrence of colon stenosis, disease persistence, and diagnostic value of resected specimens.

Sixty-five patients were in the intention-to-treat/safety analysis population. Primary analysis was performed on 45 per-protocol (PP) patients with 48 lesions. All PP patients were solely treated by using the EPR device. Technical success was achieved in 44 (98%) patients. Three (5%) serious AEs occurred: 2 delayed self-limited bleeds and 1 perforation. Nonserious AEs included 4 (6%) cases of mild intraprocedural bleeding. Completeness of resection and histopathologic diagnosis of tissue specimens were achieved in all patients. Twenty-one (46.7%) patients had disease persistence after the first treatment, and there was no colon stenosis.

EPR is safe and effective for benign, persistent, large (>20 mm), scarred colorectal adenomas and should be considered as an alternative treatment in lieu of surgery. A persistence rate of 46.7% indicates that >1 treatment is necessary for effective endoscopic treatment. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04203667.).

Snare resection of nonlifting colonic lesions often requires supplemental techniques. We compared the success rates of neoplasia eradication using hot avulsion and argon plasma coagulation in colonic polyps when complete snare polypectomy had failed.

Polyps that were not completely resectable by snare polypectomy were randomized to argon plasma coagulation or hot avulsion for completion of resection. Argon plasma coagulation was delivered using a forward shooting catheter, using a nontouch technique (flow 1.2 L, 35 watts). Hot avulsion was performed by grasping the neoplastic tissue with hot biopsy forceps and applying traction away from the bowel wall while using EndoCut I or soft coagulation for avulsion. Surveillance colonoscopies were performed at 6, 12, and 18 months.

From November 2013 to July 2017, 59 patients were randomized to argon plasma coagulation (28) or hot avulsion (31). The median age was 69 (60-75), with 46% being female. The median residual tissue size was 10 mm (6-12). The residual adenoma rate at 6 months (hot avulsion 6% vs argon plasma coagulation 21% P = 0.09) and 18 months was not different between the groups (6.6% vs 3.6% P = 0.25). One patient in the argon plasma coagulation arm was diagnosed with metastatic cancer of likely colorectal origin despite benign histology in the original polypectomy specimen, supporting the importance of tissue acquisition.

Both hot avulsion and argon plasma coagulation are effective and safe modalities to complete resection of non-ensnarable colonic polyps.

Background and study aims Because of concerns about peri-procedural adverse events (AEs), guidelines recommend anesthetist-managed sedation (AMS) for long and complex endoscopic procedures. The safety and efficacy of physician-administered balanced sedation (PA-BS) for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) ≥20 mm is unknown. Patients and methods We compared PA-BS with AMS in a retrospective study of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients referred for management of LNPCPs (NCT01368289; NCT02000141). A per-patient propensity analysis was performed following a 1:2 nearest-neighbor (Greedy-type) match, based on age, gender, Charlson comorbidity index, and lesion size. The primary outcome was any peri-procedural AE, which included hypotension, hypertension, tachycardia, bradycardia, hypoxia, and new arrhythmia. Secondary outcomes were unplanned admissions, 28-day re-presentation, technical success, and recurrence. Results Between January 2016 and June 2020, 700 patients underwent EMR for LNPCPs, of whom 638 received PA-BS. Among them, the median age was 70 years (interquartile range [IQR] 62-76 years), size 35 mm (IQR 25-45 mm), and duration 35 minutes (IQR 25-60 minutes). Peri-procedural AEs occurred in 149 (23.4%), most commonly bradycardia (116; 18.2%). Only five (0.8%) required an unplanned sedation-related admission due to AEs (2 hypotension, 1 arrhythmia, 1 bradycardia, 1 hypoxia), with a median inpatient stay of 1 day (IQR 1-3 days). After propensity-score matching, there were no differences between PA-BS and AMS in peri-procedural AEs, unplanned admissions, 28-day re-presentation rates, technical success or recurrence. Conclusions Physician-administered balanced sedation for the EMR of LNPCPs is safe. Peri-procedural AEs are infrequent, transient, rarely require admission (<1%), and are experienced in similar frequencies to those receiving anesthetist-managed sedation.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

Background and study aims The advantages of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) over endoscopic mucosal resection for large colorectal neoplasms are well established; however, the technical challenges and lack of adequate training in ESD limit its widespread adoption in Western countries. Methods A literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for studies conducted in non-Asian countries evaluating the effectiveness of colorectal ESD. A random effects model was used to obtain pooled en bloc, R0 resection rates, and adverse events (AEs). Results Thirty-three studies comprising 3,958 ESD procedures met the inclusion criteria. Of the polyps, 96.7% (2,817 of 2913) were ≥ 2 cm. Pooled en bloc resection (31 studies), R0 resection (29 studies), and curative resection rates were 84.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] [83.3%-85.9%]), 75.6% (95% CI [74.1%-77.0%]), and 81.9% (95% CI [78.6%-84.9%]), respectively. Surgery for invasive cancer was performed in 4.8% (23 studies). ESD-related perforation (25 studies) was observed in 5.5% and bleeding in 4.1% (delayed bleeding 3.4%). 1.8% of patients underwent surgery for procedure-related complications. A high degree of heterogeneity was observed for en bloc resection, R0 resection, and curative resection. Heterogeneity for AEs (perforation [I 2 13%], delayed bleeding [I 2 30%], and overall bleeding [I 2 49%]) was low to moderate. Conclusions The effectiveness of colorectal ESD for large colorectal polyps and early colorectal cancers is improving in Western countries, and recent resection rates are comparable to that seen in Asia. Colorectal perforation is still observed in about 5% of ESD; however, < 2% of patients need emergency surgery for AEs.

We aimed to evaluate the safety and technical success of an easy-to-use technique that applies underwater cap suction pseudopolyp formation to facilitate the resection of flat lesions or those at the appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve.

We retrospectively analyzed a register of consecutive cap suction underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (CAP-UEMR) procedures performed at two centers between September 2020 and December 2021. Procedures were performed using a cone-shaped cap, extending 7 mm from the endoscope tip, to suction the lesion while submerged underwater, followed by underwater snare resection. Our primary end point was technical success, defined as macroscopic complete resection.

We treated 83 lesions (median size 20 mm; interquartile range [IQR] 15-30 mm) with CAP-UEMR: 64 depressed or flat lesions (18 previously manipulated, 9 with difficult access), 11 from the appendix, and 8 from the ileocecal valve. Technical success was 100 %. There were seven intraprocedural bleedings and two delayed bleedings, all managed endoscopically. No perforations or other complications occurred. Among the 64 lesions with follow-up colonoscopy, only one recurrence was detected, which was treated endoscopically.

CAP-UEMR was a safe and effective technique for removing nonpolypoid colorectal lesions, including those arising from the appendiceal orifice or ileocecal valve.

Colorectal strictures related to endoscopic resection (ER) of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) may be problematic. Data on prevalence, risk factors, and management are limited. We report a prospective study of colorectal strictures following ER and describe our approach to management.

We analyzed prospectively collected data over 150 months, until June 2021, for patients who underwent ER for LNPCPs ≥ 40 mm. The ER defect size was graded as < 60 %, 60 %-89 %, or ≥ 90 % of the luminal circumference. Strictures were considered "severe" if patients experienced obstructive symptoms, "moderate" if an adult colonoscope could not pass the stenosis, or "mild" if there was resistance on successful passage. Primary outcomes included stricture prevalence, risk factors, and management.

916 LNPCPs ≥ 40 mm in 916 patients were included (median age 69 years, interquartile range 61-76 years, male sex 484 [52.8 %]). The primary resection modality was endoscopic mucosal resection in 859 (93.8 %). Risk of stricture formation with an ER defect ≥ 90 %, 60 %-89 %, and < 60 % was 74.2 % (23/31), 25.0 % (22/88), and 0.8 % (6 /797), respectively. Severe strictures only occurred with ER defects ≥ 90 % (22.6 %, 7/31). Defects < 60 % conferred low risk of only mild strictures (0.8 %, 6/797). Severe strictures required earlier (median 0.9 vs. 4.9 months; P = 0.01) and more frequent (median 3 vs. 2; P = 0.02) balloon dilations than moderate strictures.

Most patients with ER defects ≥ 90 % of luminal circumference developed strictures, many of which were severe and required early balloon dilation. There was minimal risk with ER defects < 60 %.

Despite advances in endoscopic techniques for management of benign colonic neoplasms, a rise in rates of surgical treatment has been reported. We used a nationally representative cohort to characterize temporal trends, patient characteristics, and outcomes associated with colectomy for colonic neoplasms.

All patients undergoing elective partial colectomy for benign or malignant colonic neoplasms were identified using the 2012-2019 National Inpatient Sample. Those presenting with inflammatory bowel disease, or experiencing intestinal perforation were excluded. Patients with benign neoplasms were classified as the Benign cohort (others: Malignant). Trends, characteristics, and outcomes were assessed between groups.

Of 569,280 colectomy procedures included for analysis, 153,435 (27.0%) were performed for benign lesions. The proportion of Benign operations decreased from 28.6% in 2012 to 23.7% in 2019 (P for trend<0.001). While overall national incidence of colectomy for benign neoplasms decreased from 2012 to 2019 (IRD -1.19, 95%CI -1.20- -1.19), Black patients demonstrated an incremental increase (IRD +0.04, 95%CI +0.02-0.06). On average, Benign was younger (66 [57-72] vs 68 years [58-77], P<0.001), and demonstrated a lower Elixhauser comorbidity index (2 [1-3] vs 3 [2-4], P<0.001), relative to Malignancy. Following adjustment, Benign demonstrated lower odds of in-hospital mortality (AOR 0.61, 95%CI 0.50-0.74; P<0.001), stoma creation (AOR 0.46, 95%CI 0.43-0.50; P<0.001), and infectious complications (AOR 0.68, 95%CI 0.63-0.73; P<0.001).

The present national study identifies a decrease in colectomy for benign polyps from 2012-2019. Future investigations should identify patients who would most benefit from surgical resection and address persistent inequities in access to screening and treatment for colonic neoplasms.

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.

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.

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.

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.

NCT01368289 and NCT02000141.

Essential innovations in interventional endoscopy have significantly broadened the treatment armamentarium in gastroenterology. The treatment and complication management of intraepithelial neoplasms and early forms of cancer are increasingly being primarily addressed endoscopically. In cases of endoluminal lesions with no risk of lymph node or distant metastases, endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection have become established as standards. For broad-based adenomas, coagulation of the resection margins should be performed in the case of a piecemeal resection. Submucosal lesions can be reached and resected by tunneling techniques. Peroral endoscopic myotomy in cases of achalasia is a new treatment option for hypertensive and hypercontractile motility disorders. In addition, endoscopic myotomy for gastroparesis has shown very promising results. In this article, new resection techniques and so-called third space endoscopy are presented and critically discussed.

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.

Colorectal polyps are premalignant lesions in the lower gastrointestinal tract. Endoscopic polypectomy is an effective strategy to prevent colorectal cancer morbidity and more invasive procedures. Techniques for the endoscopic resection of polyps keep evolving, and endoscopists are required to perform the most appropriate technique for each polyp. In this review, we outline the evaluation and classification of polyps, update the recommendations for optimal treatment, describe the polypectomy procedures and their strengths/weaknesses, and discuss the promising innovative methods or concepts.

Introduction Colonoscopic polypectomy is a well-established screening and surveillance modality for malignant colorectal polyps. Following the detection of a malignant polyp, patients are either put on endoscopic surveillance or planned for a surgical procedure. We studied the outcome of colonoscopic excision of malignant polyps and their recurrence rates. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis over a period of five years (2015-2019) of patients who underwent colonoscopy and resection of malignant polyps. Size of polyp, follow-up with tumour markers, CT scan, and biopsy were considered individually for pedunculate and sessile polyps. We analysed the percentage of patients who underwent surgical resection, the percentage of patients who were managed conservatively, and the percentage of recurrence post-excision of malignant polyps. Results A total of 44 patients were included in the study. Of the 44 malignant polyps, most were present in the sigmoid colon at 43% (n=19), with the rectum containing 41% (n=18). The ascending colon accounted for 4.5% (n=2), transverse colonic polyps were 7% (n=3), and the descending colon polyps were 4.5% (n=2). Pedunculated polyps made up 55% (n=24). These were Level 1-3 based on Haggits classification; 14 were Haggits Level 1, eight were Haggits Level 2, and two were Haggits Level 3. The rest were sessile polyps making up 45% (n=20). Based on the Kikuchi classification, these were predominantly SM1 (n=12) and SM2 (n=8). Out of 44 cases, 11% (n=5) underwent surgical resection on follow-up in the form of bowel resection. This included three right hemicolectomies, one sigmoid colectomy, and one low anterior resection. Seven per cent (n=3) underwent endoscopic resection as trans-anal endoscopic mucosal resection (TEMS) and 82% (n=36) of the remaining cases were managed with regular follow-up and surveillance. Conclusions Colonoscopic polypectomy offers excellent benefits in detecting colorectal cancer and treating pre-malignant polyps. Colonoscopic polypectomy provides excellent benefits in colorectal cancer (CRC) detection and treatment of malignant polyps. However, it remains to be seen if post-polypectomy surveillance for low-risk polyp cancers would require a change in surveillance.

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.

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.

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.

TA-EMR leads to a significant reduction in post-EMR recurrence in routine clinical practice.

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.

BACKGROUND : Current guidelines suggest that routine biopsy of post-endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) scars can be abandoned, provided that a standardized imaging protocol with virtual chromoendoscopy is used. However, few studies have examined the accuracy of advanced endoscopic imaging, such as narrow-band imaging (NBI) vs. white-light endoscopy (WLE) for prediction of histological recurrence. We aimed to assess whether NBI accuracy is superior to that of WLE and whether one or both techniques can replace biopsies. METHODS : The study was a multicenter, randomized, pathologist-blind, crossover trial, with consecutive patients undergoing first colonoscopy after EMR of lesions ≥ 20 mm. Computer-generated randomization and opaque envelope concealed allocation. Patients were randomly assigned to scar examination with NBI followed by WLE (NBI + WLE), or WLE followed by NBI (WLE + NBI). Histology was the reference method, with biopsies being performed for all tissues. RESULTS : The study included 203 scars (103 in the NBI + WLE group, 100 in the WLE + NBI group). Recurrence was confirmed histologically in 29.6 % of the scars. The diagnostic accuracy of NBI was not statistically different from that of WLE (95 % [95 %CI 92 %-98 %] vs. 94 % [95 %CI 90 %-97 %]; P = 0.48). The negative predictive values (NPVs) were 96 % (95 %CI 93 %-99 %) for NBI and 93 % (95 %CI 89 %-97 %) for WLE (P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS : The accuracy of NBI for the diagnosis of recurrence was not superior to that of WLE. Endoscopic assessment of EMR scars with WLE and NBI achieved an NPV that would allow routine biopsy to be avoided in cases of negative optical diagnosis.