Safety and efficacy of hot avulsion as an adjunct to EMR (with videos).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Excision of all visible neoplastic tissue is the goal of EMR of colorectal laterally spreading tumors. Flat and fibrotic tissue can resist snaring. Ablation of visible polyps is associated with high recurrence rates. Avulsion is a technique to continue resection when snaring fails. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed colonic EMRs of 564 consecutive referred polyps between 2015 and 2017. Hot avulsion was used when snaring was unsuccessful. Polyps treated with and without avulsion were compared. RESULTS: Hot avulsion was used in 20.9% (n = 112) of all resected lesions. The recurrence rates on follow-up colonoscopy were 17.52% in the avulsion group versus 16.02% in the non-avulsion group (P = .76). Hot avulsion was associated with a trend toward higher rates of delayed hemorrhage (5.35% vs 2.58%; P = .15) and post-coagulation syndrome (1.8% vs 0.47%; P = .15), but polyps treated with any avulsion were larger than those in which no avulsion was used (P < .001). There were an insufficient number of adverse events to perform a multivariable analysis to test the effects of avulsion, size, and location on the risk of overall adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike previous reports of using argon plasma coagulation to treat visible polyps during EMR, hot avulsion of visible/fibrotic neoplasia was associated with similar EMR efficacy compared with cases that did not require hot avulsion. The safety profile of hot avulsion appears acceptable.

Endoscopic control of polyp burden and expansion of surveillance intervals in serrated polyposis syndrome.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) increases colorectal cancer risk. We describe the numbers of colonoscopies and polypectomies performed to achieve and maintain low polyp burdens, and the feasibility of expanding surveillance intervals in patients who achieve endoscopic control. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated a prospectively collected database on 115 patients with SPS undergoing surveillance at Indiana University Hospital between June 2005 and May 2018. The endoscopist provided surveillance interval recommendations based on polyp burden. Endoscopic control was considered successful if surveillance examinations exhibited fewer polyps and if no or only an occasional polyp ≥1 cm in size was present at follow-up. Initial control was designated as the clearing phase and the maintenance phase was surveillance after control was established. RESULTS: In total, 87 patients (75.7%) achieved endoscopic control, with some others currently in the clearing phase. Achieving control required a mean of 2.84 colonoscopies (including the baseline) over 20.4 months and a mean total of 27.9 polyp resections. After establishing control, 71 patients were recommended to receive ≥24-month follow-up. Of those, 60 patients (69.0% of patients with initial control) continued surveillance at our center. The mean interval between colonoscopies during maintenance was 19.3 months with 6.74 mean polypectomies per procedure on polyps primarily <1 cm. There were no incident cancers or colon surgeries during maintenance. CONCLUSION: Most patients achieved control of polyp burden with 2 to 3 colonoscopies over 1 to 2 years. After reaching control, 60 patients returned at intervals up to 24 months with no incident cancers and no surgeries required. Expansion of surveillance intervals to 24 months is effective and safe for many patients with SPS who reach control of polyp burden.

A comparison of 2 distal attachment mucosal exposure devices: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endocuff (Arc Medical Design, Leeds, UK) and Endocuff Vision (Arc Medical Design, Leeds, UK) are effective mucosal exposure devices for improving polyp detection during colonoscopy. AmplifEYE (Medivators Inc, Minneapolis, Minn, USA) is a device that appears similar to the Endocuff devices but has received minimal clinical testing. METHODS: We performed a randomized controlled clinical trial using a noninferiority design to compare Endocuff Vision with AmplifEYE. RESULTS: The primary endpoint of adenomas per colonoscopy was similar in AmplifEYE at 1.63 (standard deviation 2.83) versus 1.51 (2.29) with Endocuff Vision (P = .535). The 95% lower confidence limit was 0.88 for ratio of means, establishing noninferiority of AmplifEYE (P = .008). There was no difference between the arms for mean insertion time, and mean inspection time (withdrawal time minus polypectomy time and time for washing and suctioning) was shorter with AmplifEYE (6.8 minutes vs 6.9 minutes, P = .042). CONCLUSIONS: AmplifEYE is noninferior to Endocuff Vision for adenoma detection. The decision on which device to use can be based on cost. Additional comparisons of AmplifEYE with Endocuff by other investigators are warranted. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03560128.).

SIC-8000 versus hetastarch as a submucosal injection fluid for EMR: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Viscous solutions provide a superior submucosal cushion for EMR. SIC-8000 (Eleview; Aries Pharmaceuticals, La Jolla, Calif) is a commercially available U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved solution, but hetastarch is also advocated. We performed a randomized trial comparing SIC-8000 with hetastarch as submucosal injection agents for colorectal EMR. METHODS: This was a single-center, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial performed at a tertiary referral center. Patients were referred to our center with flat or sessile lesions measuring ≥15 mm in size. The primary outcome measures were the Sydney resection quotient (SRQ) and the rate of en bloc resections. Secondary outcomes were total volume needed for a sufficient lift, number of resected pieces, and adverse events. RESULTS: There were 158 patients with 159 adenomas (SIC-8000, 84; hetastarch, 75) and 57 serrated lesions (SIC-8000, 30; hetastarch, 27). SRQ was significantly better in the SIC-8000 group compared with hetastarch group (9.3 vs 8.1, P = .001). There was no difference in the proportion of lesions with en bloc resections. The total volume of injectate was significantly lower with SIC-8000 (14.8 mL vs 20.6 mL, P = .038). CONCLUSIONS: SIC-8000 is superior to hetastarch for use during EMR in terms of SRQ and total volume needed, although the absolute differences were small. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03350217.).

Risk of cancer in 10 - 19 mm endoscopically detected colorectal lesions.

BACKGROUND: Recent data indicate that the risk of cancer in colorectal lesions < 10 mm is lower than previously reported, possibly reflecting improved detection of flat, low-volume lesions with a low risk of cancer. Few studies have examined the prevalence of cancer in colorectal lesions 10 - 19 mm in size. METHODS: We reviewed a prospectively collected database of all colorectal lesions removed at a single endoscopy center in order to identify lesions of 10 - 19 mm in size and review their histology. Lesions ≥ 20 mm were evaluated as a control group. We reviewed photographs of cancerous lesions to determine the frequency of endoscopic features of cancer. RESULTS: A total of 5093 lesions ≥ 10 mm were removed from 4020 patients (mean age 63.2 years, 34.4 % female). Among 3068 lesions 10 - 19 mm in size, 28 (0.9 %) had adenocarcinoma, including 1.2 % of conventional adenomas and 0.3 % of serrated class lesions. These rates were lower than the 6.9 % and 2.0 % rates of cancer found in conventional adenomatous lesions and serrated lesions ≥ 20 mm, respectively. Cancer was suggested by endoscopic features in 52.0 % of malignancies 10 - 19 mm in size compared with 79.2 % of lesions ≥ 20 mm. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of cancer in 10 - 19 mm colorectal lesions was much lower than previously reported. The cancer risk was higher in conventional adenomas than in serrated lesions. Cancer was endoscopically evident prior to resection in slightly more than half of colorectal lesions 10 - 19 mm in size.

Disagreement between high confidence endoscopic adenoma prediction and histopathological diagnosis in colonic lesions ≤ 3 mm in size.

BACKGROUND: Diminutive colorectal polyps resected during colonoscopy are sometimes histologically interpreted as normal tissue. The aim of this observational study was to explore whether errors in specimen handling or processing account in part for polyps ≤ 3 mm in size being interpreted as normal tissue by pathology when they were considered high confidence adenomas by an experienced endoscopist at colonoscopy. METHODS: One endoscopist photographed 900 consecutive colorectal lesions that were ≤ 3 mm in size and considered endoscopically to be high confidence conventional adenomas. The photographs were reviewed blindly to eliminate poor quality images. The remaining 644 endoscopy images were reviewed by two external experts who predicted the histology while blinded to the pathology results. RESULTS: Of 644 consecutive lesions ≤ 3 mm in size considered high confidence conventional adenomas by a single experienced colonoscopist, 15.4 % were reported as normal mucosa by pathology. The prevalence of reports of normal mucosa in polyps removed by cold snare and cold forceps were 15.2 % and 16.0 %, respectively. When endoscopy photographs were reviewed by two blinded outside experts, the lesions found pathologically to be adenomas and normal mucosa were interpreted as high confidence adenomas by endoscopic appearance in 96.9 % and 93.9 %, respectively, by Expert 1 (P = 0.15), and in 99.6 % and 100 %, respectively, by Expert 2 (P = 0.51). CONCLUSION: Retrieval and/or processing of tissue specimens of tiny colorectal polyps resulted in some lesions being diagnosed as normal tissue by pathology despite being considered endoscopically to be high confidence adenomas. These findings suggest that pathology interpretation is not a gold standard for lesion management when this phenomenon is observed.

High-definition colonoscopy versus Endocuff versus EndoRings versus full-spectrum endoscopy for adenoma detection at colonoscopy: a multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Devices used to improve polyp detection during colonoscopy have seldom been compared with each other. METHODS: We performed a 3-center prospective randomized trial comparing high-definition (HD) forward-viewing colonoscopy alone to HD with Endocuff to HD with EndoRings to the full spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) system. Patients were age ≥50 years and had routine indications and intact colons. The study colonoscopists were all proven high-level detectors. The primary endpoint was adenomas per colonoscopy (APC). RESULTS: Among 1188 patients who completed the study, APC with Endocuff (APC mean ± standard deviation: 1.82 ± 2.58), EndoRings (1.55 ± 2.42), and standard HD colonoscopy (1.53 ± 2.33) were all higher than FUSE (1.30 ± 1.96; P < .001 for APC). The APC for Endocuff was higher than standard HD colonoscopy (P = .014). Mean cecal insertion times with FUSE (468 ± 311 seconds) and EndoRings (403 ± 263 seconds) were both longer than with Endocuff (354 ± 216 seconds; P = .006 and .018, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: For high-level detectors at colonoscopy, forward-viewing HD instruments dominate the FUSE system, indicating that for these examiners image resolution trumps angle of view. Further, Endocuff is a dominant strategy over EndoRings and no mucosal exposure device on a forward-viewing HD colonoscope. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02345889.).

Endoscopic management of large ileocecal valve lesions over an 18-year interval.

Background and study aims Ileocecal valve (ICV) lesions are challenging to remove endoscopically. Patients and methods This was a retrospective cohort study, performed at an academic tertiary US hospital. Sessile polyps or flat ICV lesions ≥ 20 mm in size referred for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) were included. Successful resection rates, complication rates and recurrence were compared to lesions ≥ 20 mm in size not located on the ICV. Results During an 18-year interval, there were 118 ICV lesions ≥ 20 mm with mean size 28.6 mm (44.9 % females; mean age 71.6 years), comprising 9.03 % of all referred polyps. Ninety ICV lesions (76.3 %) were resected endoscopically, compared to 91.3 % of non-ICV lesions ( P  < 0.001). However, in the most recent 8 years, successful EMR of ICV lesions increased to 93 %. Conventional adenomas comprised 92.2 % of ICV lesions and 7.8 % were serrated. Delayed hemorrhage and perforation occurred in 3.3 % and 0 % of ICV lesions, respectively, compared to 4.8 % and 0.5 % in the non-ICV group. At first follow-up, rates of residual polyp in the ICV and non-ICV groups were 16.5 % and 13.6 %, respectively ( P  = 0.485). At second follow-up residual rates in the ICV and non-ICV lesion groups were 18.6 % and 6.7 %, respectively ( P  = .005). Conclusions Large ICV polyps are a common source of tertiary referrals. Over an 18-year experience, risk of EMR for ICV polyps was numerically lower, and risk of recurrence was numerically higher at first follow and significantly higher at second follow-up compared to non-ICV polyps.

Faster colonoscope withdrawal time without impaired detection using EndoRings.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Mucosal exposure devices on the colonoscope tip have improved detection. We evaluated detection and procedure times in colonoscopies performed with EndoRings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We had 14 endoscopists in a university practice trial EndoRings. We compared detection and procedure times to age- and indication-matched procedures by the same endoscopists. RESULTS: There were 137 procedures with EndoRings. The adenoma detection rate was 44 % with EndoRings vs. 39 % without ( P  = 0.39). Mean adenomas per colonoscopy (standard deviation) was 1.2 (2.3) with EndoRings vs. 0.9 (1.6) without ( P  = 0.055). Mean insertion time with EndoRings was 6.2 (3.2) minutes vs. 6.6 (6.7) minutes without ( P  = 0.81). Mean withdrawal time with EndoRings in all patients with or without polypectomy was 12.2 (5.3) minutes and 16.1 (10.3) minutes without ( P  = 0.0005). CONCLUSION: EndoRings may allow faster withdrawal during colonoscopy without any reduction in detection. Prospective trials with mucosal exposure devices targeting procedure times as primary endpoints are warranted.