Search

Introduction Colonoscopy prevents colorectal cancer via the detection and resection of premalignant polyps. This effect may be attenuated by variations in polypectomy, with multiple techniques available and a wide range of experience amongst endoscopists. We assessed current practice against the best available contemporary evidence. Methods An online survey was distributed to members of the gastroenterological and surgical societies of seven countries during July 2017. Images of colorectal polyps were presented and respondents requested to provide the polypectomy technique they would employ in their daily practice. Responses were compared to the evidence-based techniques in the 2017 ESGE Colorectal Polypectomy Guideline. Results In total, 707 endoscopists (627 physicians, 71 surgeons, 9 nurse endoscopists, median practice duration 18 years) completed the survey. Of these, 3.1 % selected hot biopsy forceps and 5.2 % hot snare polypectomy (without submucosal lifting) to remove a 3 mm ascending colon polyp. Only 43.3 % selected cold snare polypectomy (CSP) to remove an 8 mm ascending colon polyp. Surgical referral was selected by 16.7 % of respondents for a 45 mm transverse colon polyp without endoscopic evidence of submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC). Endoscopic resection was selected by 12.0 % for an 80 mm sigmoid polyp with imaging consistent with deep SMIC, and a further 26.4 % selected tertiary endoscopist referral, suggesting they had not appreciated that it was endoscopically unresectable. Conclusion CSP is underutilized for small polyp resection despite its favorable safety and efficacy. Benign polyps are commonly referred for surgery and overt SMIC is underappreciated using endoscopic imaging. Addressing these issues may reduce diathermy-related adverse events, surgery, and unnecessary colonoscopic procedures for patients and reduce rates of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer.

Objective and study aims To evaluate the efficacy and safety of different endoscopic resection techniques for laterally spreading colorectal tumors (LST). Methods Relevant studies were identified in three electronic databases (PubMed, ISI and Cochrane Central Register). We considered all clinical studies in which colorectal LST were treated with endoscopic resection (endoscopic mucosal resection [EMR] and/or endoscopic submucosal dissection [ESD]) and/or transanal minimally invasive surgery (TEMS). Rates of en-bloc/piecemeal resection, complete endoscopic resection, R0 resection, curative resection, adverse events (AEs) or recurrence, were extracted. Study quality was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and a meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Results Forty-nine studies were included. Complete resection was similar between techniques (EMR 99.5 % [95 % CI 98.6 %-100 %] vs. ESD 97.9 % [95 % CI 96.1 – 99.2 %]), being curative in 1685/1895 (13 studies, pooled curative resection 90 %, 95 % CI 86.6 – 92.9 %, I2 = 79 %) with non-significantly higher curative resection rates with ESD (93.6 %, 95 % CI 91.3 – 95.5 %, vs. 84 % 95 % CI 78.1 – 89.3 % with EMR). ESD was also associated with a significantly higher perforation risk (pooled incidence 5.9 %, 95 % CI 4.3 – 7.9 %, vs. EMR 1.2 %, 95 % CI 0.5 – 2.3 %) while bleeding was significantly more frequent with EMR (9.6 %, 95 % CI 6.5 – 13.2 %; vs. ESD 2.8 %, 95 % CI 1.9 – 4.0 %). Procedure-related mortality was 0.1 %. Recurrence occurred in 5.5 %, more often with EMR (12.6 %, 95 % CI 9.1 – 16.6 % vs. ESD 1.1 %, 95 % CI 0.3 – 2.5 %), with most amenable to successful endoscopic treatment (87.7 %, 95 % CI 81.1 – 93.1 %). Surgery was limited to 2.7 % of the lesions, 0.5 % due to AEs. No data of TEMS were available for LST. Conclusions EMR and ESD are both effective and safe and are associated with a very low risk of procedure related mortality.