CRC is going to be an important issue in Middle East countries. Also, the main parts of this cancer develop from benign adenomas.

To understand the recurrence rate of colorectal polyps among average-risk subjects.

In a prospective study, the average-risk patients with colorectal adenoma were enrolled in this study based on inclusion criteria. The patients were consulted annually by an expert gastroenterologist. A control colonoscopy was programmed after three years of follow-up. It was not an obligation to follow our program, and each patient could exit the study at any time. The patient who developed one of the exclusion criteria was also withdrawn from the study by the gastroenterologist of this study.

237 patients were enrolled in this study. Of them, 102 patients completed their 3-year follow-up. Among these participants, 62 (60.8%) were male and 40 (39.2%) were female, with a mean age of 57.05 ± 12.87 years. Additionally, 20 (19.6%) subjects had adenomatous polyps at the end of the study. Patients with recurrent colorectal polyps tend to be raised in large ones with a tubulovillous morphology. The polyps were more commonly located in the sigmoid colon, rectum. Furthermore, high-grade dysplasia was recorded in 5 patients. Tubulovillous polyp had higher chance of recurrence than patients with tubular polyp.

We believe the colonoscopy screening needs to be set up in regions previously considered low-risk for CRC. Also, it may be valuable to control colonoscopy for less than three years in patients with dysplasia.

Despite advances in EMR techniques, a high polyp recurrence rate remains a challenge. Due to the scarcity of direct comparisons, we performed an indirect comparison of conventional EMR (EMR alone), underwater EMR (U-EMR), and EMR + adjuvant thermal ablation of polypectomy margins to assess polyp recurrence rates.

Electronic databases were searched from inception to January 12, 2023, for studies reporting polyp recurrence rates after EMR for large nonpedunculated polyps (>15 mm) with or without adjuvant techniques (snare tip soft coagulation [STSC]/argon plasma coagulation [APC]). An indirect comparison was performed by using the frequentist method. The p-score was calculated to identify preferred intervention. Publication bias was assessed by using a comparison-adjusted funnel plot.

A total of 9 full articles were identified. On direct comparisons, EMR + STSC had 82% reduced odds (odds ratio, .18; 95% confidence interval, .13-.26; P < .001), whereas U-EMR alone had 77% reduced odds (odds ratio, .23; 95% confidence interval, .08-.67; P = .007) of polyp recurrence compared with EMR alone. On indirect comparison, all interventions had significantly lower odds of polyp recurrence compared with EMR alone. The p-score ranking showed that EMR + STSC seems a potential first method in reducing the odds of polyp recurrence, followed by U-EMR, EMR + APC, and EMR alone.

EMR + STSC seems to provide favorable odds for reducing polyp recurrence postresection for large nonpedunculated polyps. Standardization of methods to detect residual polyp and prevent polyp recurrence at the time of EMR are required.

Cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-c) has emerged as a potential alternative to standard piecemeal wide-field EMR (WF-EMR) for the resection of laterally spreading tumors (LSTs). However, clear indications for this technique are still lacking. Our objective was to investigate the performance of salvage EMR-c after WF-EMR failure in the resection of large colorectal LSTs.

The data of consecutive patients undergoing WF-EMR for large colorectal LSTs (2015-2021) were analyzed in this single-center, retrospective, observational study. In the event of a WF-EMR failure, the procedure was switched to EMR-c in the same session. The efficacy of the two techniques was evaluated in terms of complete endoscopic resection, R0 resection, and recurrence rate. Safety was also assessed.

Overall, the data from 81 WF-EMRs were collected. Eighteen cases of WF-EMR failure were switched to EMR-c in the same session and complete endoscopic resection was achieved in 17/18 patients (94.4%). No statistically significant difference was observed between WF-EMR and salvage EMR-c in terms of macroscopic radicality (P = 0.40) and R0 resection (P = 0.12). However, recurrence was more common with EMR-c (44.4% vs. 23.5%; P = 0.05), as were adverse events, particularly intraprocedural bleeding (27.8% vs. 7.9%; P = 0.04).

EMR-c is an effective salvage technique for challenging colorectal LSTs following WF-EMR failure. Due to the elevated risk of adverse events associated with this procedure, careful patient selection, endoscopic expertise, and close follow-up are strongly recommended.

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an effective method for removing non-pedunculated polyps ≥ 20 mm. We aimed to examine changes in EMR techniques over a 9-year period and evaluate frequency of histologic-confirmed recurrence.

We identified patients who underwent EMR of non-pedunculated polyps ≥ 20 mm at a safety net and the Veteran's Affairs (VA) hospital in Houston, Texas between 2012 and 2020. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations with recurrence risk were estimated using multivariable logistic regression.

461 unique patients were included. The histologic-confirmed recurrence was 29.0% at 15.6 months median follow up (IQR 12.3 - 17.4). Polyps removed between 2018 and 2020 had a 0.43 decreased odds of recurrence vs. polyps removed between 2012 and 2014. The use of viscous lifting agents increased over time (from 0 to 54%), and the use of saline was associated with increased risk of recurrence (OR 2.28 [CI 1.33 - 3.31]).

Histologic-confirmed recurrence after EMR for non-pedunculated polyps ≥ 20 mm decreased over the seven year-period. Saline was associated with a higher risk of recurrence and the use of more viscous agents increased over time.

Increasing lesion size is a risk factor for recurrence after piecemeal EMR (pEMR). Snare-tip soft coagulation (STSC) treatment of the normal-appearing margin after pEMR of lesions ≥ 20 mm has been shown to reduce recurrence rates by 75% to 80%. We sought to evaluate the impact of STSC on giant (≥ 40 mm) lateral spreading lesions treated by pEMR. We describe the relative risk and absolute risks of recurrence with and without STSC margin treatment after EMR of ≥ 40-mm lesions.

We performed a retrospective evaluation of a prospectively collected database on large lesions describing lesion size, location, and methods of resection. We excluded lesions < 40 mm in maximum dimension, those that did not undergo follow-up care at our center, and those in which argon plasma coagulation was used for either ablative treatment of residual polyp or margin treatment. Propensity score analysis was used to account for potential differences between patients treated with and without STSC.

There were 68 lesions ≥ 40 mm removed by pEMR without STSC treatment and 133 removed and treated with STSC. There were no differences between groups in demographics, polyp size, location, histologic features, and mean follow-up time. The recurrence rate in the no-treatment group was 35% versus 9% with STSC (P < .00001 by direct comparison and P = .008 by using the propensity score analysis).

STSC treatment after pEMR of large lateral spreading lesions in the colorectum reduced recurrences by 75%. However, the absolute recurrence rate of 9% remained clinically significant in the STSC-treated group. Short-term follow-up care after STSC of lesions ≥ 40 mm is still warranted, and additional study of technical factors that eliminate recurrence after pEMR of giant lateral spreading lesions is warranted.

EMR is the mainstay of therapy for large colorectal polyps. Local recurrence after EMR is common and can be reduced using margin ablation. Our aim was to evaluate recurrence rates when using hybrid argon plasma coagulation (h-APC) ablation after EMR.

Adult patients (aged 18-89 years) undergoing EMR of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm were enrolled in a prospective multicenter study. h-APC was used to ablate all defect margins and also the resection surface in selected cases. The primary study outcome was recurrence rates found during the first follow-up colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were technical success and adverse event rates.

EMR with h-APC ablation was used in 101 polyps (84 patients, 46.4% women). EMR with h-APC ablation was technically successful in all cases (median EMR time, 15 minutes; median h-APC ablation time, 4 minutes). Median polyp size was 30 mm (range, 20-60). Resected polyps were either adenomas (68/101 [67.3%]), sessile serrated lesions (27/101 [27%]), or adenocarcinomas (6/101 [6%]). The post-EMR recurrence rate was 2.2% (2/91) (95% confidence interval, .27-7.71). All 6 patients with cancer (intramucosal cancer, 4; T1sm cancer, 2) were found to have complete eradication of the primary tumor after EMR with h-APC, and none had lymph node metastasis. Four serious adverse events occurred in 3 patients (2 delayed bleeding [2.4%], 1 abdominal pain [1.2%], and 1 microperforation [1.2%]. All serious adverse events resolved with either endoscopic or antibiotic treatment only.

EMR with h-APC showed a high technical success rate, low adverse event rate, and very low post-EMR recurrence rates. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04015765.).

Background and study aims  Adenoma recurrence is one of the key limitations of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), which occurs in 15 % to 30 % of cases during first surveillance colonoscopy. The main hypothesis behind adenoma recurrence is leftover micro-adenomas at the margins of post-EMR defects. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the efficacy of snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) at the margins of mucosal defects to reduce adenoma recurrence and bleeding complications. Methods  Electronic databases such as PubMed and the Cochrane library were used for systematic literature search. Studies with polyps only resected by piecemeal EMR and active treatment: with STSC, comparator: non-STSC were included. A random effects model was used to calculate the summary of risk ratio and 95 % confidence intervals. The main outcome of the study was to compare the effect of STSC versus non-STSC with respect to adenoma recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy after thermal ablation of post-EMR defects. Results  Five studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The total number patients who completed first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1) in the STSC group was 534 and in the non-STSC group was 514. The pooled adenoma recurrence rate was 6 % (37 of 534 cases) in the STSC arm and 22 % (115 of 514 cases) in the non-STSC arm, (odds ratio [OR] 0.26, 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.16-0.41, P  = 0.001). The pooled delayed post-EMR bleeding rate 19 % (67 of 343) in the STSC arm and 22 % (78 of 341) in the non-STSC arm (OR 0.82, 95 %CI, 0.57-1.18). Conclusions  Thermal ablation of post-EMR defects significantly reduces adenoma recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy.

Background and study aims  Endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps is characterized by a high risk of recurrence. Thermal ablation of the mucosal defect margins may reduce recurrence in these lesions, but a systematic overview of the current evidence is lacking. Methods  We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane until July 2021, for studies on thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps. Main goal of this meta-analysis was to identify pooled risk difference of recurrence between thermal ablation vs. no adjuvant treatment. Secondary goal was to identify pooled recurrence rate after snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) and argon plasma coagulation (APC). Results  Ten studies on thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins were included, with three studies on argon plasma coagulation, six studies on snare tip soft coagulation and one study comparing both treatment modalities, representing a total of 316 APC cases and 1598 STSC cases. Overall pooled risk difference of recurrence was -0.17 (95 % confidence interval [CI] -0.22 to -0.12) as compared to no adjuvant treatment. Pooled risk difference was -0.16 (95 % CI -0.19 to -0.14) for STSC and -0.26 (95 % CI -0.80 to 0.28) for APC. Pooled recurrence rate was 4 % (95 % CI 2 % to 8 %) for STSC and 9 % (95 % CI 4 % to 19 %) for APC. Conclusions  Thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins significantly reduces recurrence rate in large non-pedunculated colorectal lesions compared to no adjuvant treatment. While no evidence for superiority exists, STSC may be preferred over APC, because this method is the most evidence-based, and cost-effective modality.

Complete polyp resection is the main goal of endoscopic removal of large colonic polyps. Resection techniques have evolved in recent years and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with margin ablation, cold snare polypectomy (CSP), cold EMR, and underwater EMR have been introduced. Yet, efficacy of these techniques with regard to local recurrence rates (LRRs) vs traditional hot snare polypectomy and standard EMR remains unclear.

To analyze LRR of large colonic polyps in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL were searched for prospective studies reporting LRR or incomplete resection rate (IRR) after colonic polypectomy of polyps ≥ 10 mm, published between January 2011 and July 2021. Primary outcome was LRR for polyps ≥ 10 mm.

Six thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight publications were identified, of which 34 prospective studies were included. LRR for polyps ≥ 10 mm at up to 12 mo' follow-up was 11.0% (95%CI, 7.1%-14.8%; 15 studies; 4904 polyps). ESD (1.7%; 95%CI, 0%-3.4%; 3 studies, 221 polyps) and endoscopic mucosal resection with margin ablation (3.3%; 95%CI, 2.2%-4.5%; 2 studies, 947 polyps) significantly reduced LRR vs standard EMR without (15.2%; 95%CI, 12.5%-18.0%; 4 studies, 650 polyps) or with unsystematic margin ablation (16.5%; 95%CI, 15.2%-17.8%; 6 studies, 3031 polyps).

LRR is significantly lower after ESD or EMR with routine margin ablation; thus, these techniques should be considered standard for endoscopic removal of large colorectal polyps. Other techniques, such as CSP, cold EMR, and underwater EMR require further evaluation in prospective studies before their routine implementation in clinical practice can be recommended.

Endoscopic resection is first-line therapy in the management of superficial neoplasms throughout the gastrointestinal tract, as well as an increasingly viable therapeutic alternative in the resection of selected small deep lesions throughout the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract. The mainstay of therapy has traditionally been endoscopic snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection. However, recent innovative advancements in therapeutic endoscopy have provided for the ability to resect large superficial lesions and selected subepithelial lesions in en bloc and margin-negative fashion. In this review, we discuss the current state of the art in advanced endoscopic resection techniques including endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic full-thickness resection.

Colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is particularly challenging and limited to a few expert centers. We recently conducted a pilot study on improvement of colonic ESD with systematic use of a countertraction device (double-clip traction with rubber band [DCT-ESD]).

A French prospective multicenter study was conducted between March 2017 and September 2019, including all consecutive cases of naive colonic ESD. Since the first case of DCT-ESD in March 2017, all cases of colonic ESD have been performed using the DCT-ESD strategy in the 3 centers involved in the study.

Five hundred ninety-nine lesions with a mean size of 53 mm were included in this study, resected by 5 operators in 3 centers. The en bloc, R0, and curative resection rates were 95.7%, 83.5%, and 81.1%, respectively. The adverse event rates were 4.9% for perforation and 4.2% for postprocedure bleeding. Between 2017 and 2019, the rates of R0 and curative resections increased significantly from 74.7% in 2017 to 88.4% in 2019 (P = .003) and from 72.6% in 2017 to 86.3% in 2019 (P = .004), respectively. Procedure duration and speed of resection were 62.4 minutes and 39.4 mm²/minute, respectively. No differences were noted between operators.

DCT-ESD is a safe and reproducible technique, with results comparable with those of the large Japanese teams with speed of resection twice as high as previously reported studies. The DCT strategy is promising, cheap, and seems to be reproducible. Physicians performing colonic ESD should be aware of this promising tool to improve their results in ESD.

Endocuff has been suggested as a safe and useful device facilitating complex endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in the sigmoid colon; however, the existing data are sparse. In this case series, we report our experience with endocuff in facilitating EMR in defiant polyps throughout the colon.

In colonoscopies where sufficient stability and, thus, reliable visualization of the lesion was not possible (defiant polyp), the endoscope was removed, and subsequently, an ENDOCUFF VISIONTM was mounted on its tip. Thereafter, the colonic area of interest underwent endoscopic re-examination. The study prospectively included fifteen patients with 16 sessile/flat polyps. Fifteen of the 16 EMRs were considered successful.

This case series indicates the use of endocuff as an auxiliary device for facilitating EMR in defiant colonic polyps. HIPPOKRATIA 2021, 25 (3):134-137.

Data are limited on safety and outcomes of colorectal EMR in octogenarians (≥80 years old). We sought to review outcome data for patients aged ≥80 in a prospectively collected database of patients referred for large polyp removal.

We retrospectively evaluated a database of patients referred for large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated polyp removal. From 2000 to 2019, we compared the rates of follow-up, recurrence, adverse events, and synchronous neoplasia detection between younger patients and patients aged ≥80.

There were 167 patients aged ≥80 years and 1686 <80 years. Patients in the elderly group returned for surveillance less often (67.1% vs 75.1%, P = .024), had greater first follow-up recurrence rates (27.5% vs 13.8%, P < .001), but had similar adverse event rates (1.8% vs 2.8%, P = .619) compared with younger patients. Rates of synchronous neoplasia were similar and high in both groups.

EMR is safe and well tolerated for large polyp removal in patients over 80 years old. Patients aged ≥80 years are less likely to present for follow-up after EMR. They had a higher recurrence rate and a similarly high prevalence of synchronous precancerous lesions. Follow-up after EMR should be encouraged in the elderly, and an attempt to clear the colon of synchronous disease at the time of the initial EMR may be warranted.