BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Editorial
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Dec 16, 2025; 17(12): 115008
Published online Dec 16, 2025. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v17.i12.115008
Table 1 Comparison of endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and endoscopic full-thickness resection in the management of large colorectal lesions

EMR
ESD
EFTR
IndicationFirst-line for most non-malignant polyps; en-bloc best ≤ 20 mm; piecemeal EMR for ≥ 20 mm lesionsEn bloc resection is not feasible with EMR; LST-NG; Kudo VI-type pit pattern; shallow SM invasion; large depressed tumors; large protruded lesions; mucosal tumors with submucosal fibrosis; sporadic localized tumors in conditions of chronic inflammation, such as ulcerative colitis; residual or recurrent early carcinomas after endoscopic resectionBest for difficult non-lifting lesions; fibrotic lesions; residual or recurrent adenoma; small subepithelial lesions. Ideal for lesions up to 30 mm
En-bloc resection rateLow for large lesions; en bloc resection is rare in lesions ≥ 20 mm, most are piecemealHigh: 89%-97%High: 94%
R0 (complete) resectionLower; hard to assess after piecemealHigher in expert hands; pooled: 75%-85% Good (84%) if the lesion is fully captured within the cap
Local recurrenceHistorically, 10%-30%; decreased (5%) with margin thermal ablation techniques < 2%-5% when R0 is achievedVery low when complete EFTR is achieved
Perforation riskLow: 0.5%-3%Higher: Approximately 4% (up to 7%-10% in some series)Intrinsic to the technique, but closed OTSC simultaneously
Procedure time/resourcesShorter, outpatient; widely availableLonger, technically complex; limited to expert centersFaster than ESD; however, device-specific training is needed
LimitationsPiecemeal, higher recurrence, and poor margin assessmentSteep learning curve, higher perforation risk, limited availabilitySize limits ≤ 20-25 mm; not ideal for > 3 cm; evidence mostly observational