Cold versus hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection for large (≥15 mm) flat non-pedunculated colorectal polyps: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Conventional hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection (H-EMR) is effective for the management of large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colon polyps (LNPCPs) however, electrocautery-related complications may incur significant morbidity. With a superior safety profile, cold snare EMR (C-EMR) of LNPCPs is an attractive alternative however evidence is lacking. We conducted a randomised trial to compare the efficacy and safety of C-EMR to H-EMR. METHODS: Flat, 15-50 mm adenomatous LNPCPs were prospectively enrolled and randomly assigned to C-EMR or H-EMR with margin thermal ablation at a single tertiary centre. The primary outcome was endoscopically visible and/or histologically confirmed recurrence at 6 months surveillance colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes were clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB), delayed perforation and technical success. RESULTS: 177 LNPCPs in 177 patients were randomised to C-EMR arm (n=87) or H-EMR (n=90). Treatment groups were equivalent for technical success 86/87 (98.9%) C-EMR versus H-EMR 90/90 (100%); p=0.31. Recurrence was significantly greater in C-EMR (16/87, 18.4% vs 1/90, 1.1%; relative risk (RR) 16.6, 95% CI 2.24 to 122; p<0.001).Delayed perforation (1/90 (1.1%) vs 0; p=0.32) only occurred in the H-EMR group. CSPEB was significantly greater in the H-EMR arm (7/90 (7.8%) vs 1/87 (1.1%); RR 6.77, 95% CI 0.85 to 53.9; p=0.034). CONCLUSION: Compared with H-EMR, C-EMR for flat, adenomatous LNPCPs, demonstrates superior safety with equivalent technical success. However, endoscopic recurrence is significantly greater for cold snare resection and is currently a limitation of the technique. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04138030.

Standardised training for endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps to reduce recurrence (*STAR-LNPCP study): a multicentre cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the preferred treatment for non-invasive large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) but is associated with an early recurrence rate of up to 30%. We evaluated whether standardised EMR training could reduce recurrence rates in Dutch community hospitals. DESIGN: In this multicentre cluster randomised trial, 59 endoscopists from 30 hospitals were randomly assigned to the intervention group (e-learning and 2-day training including hands-on session) or control group. From April 2019 to August 2021, all consecutive EMR-treated LNPCPs were included. Primary endpoint was recurrence rate after 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 1412 LNPCPs were included; 699 in the intervention group and 713 in the control group (median size 30 mm vs 30 mm, 45% vs 52% size, morphology, site and access (SMSA) score IV, 64% vs 64% proximal location). Recurrence rates were lower in the intervention group compared with controls (13% vs 25%, OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.78; p=0.005) with similar complication rates (8% vs 9%, OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.36; p=0.720). Recurrences were more often unifocal in the intervention group (92% vs 76%; p=0.006). In sensitivity analysis, the benefit of the intervention on recurrence rate was only observed in the 20-40 mm LNPCPs (5% vs 20% in 20-29 mm, p=0.001; 10% vs 21% in 30-39 mm, p=0.013) but less evident in ≥40 mm LNPCPs (24% vs 31%; p=0.151). In a post hoc analysis, the training effect was maintained in the study group, while in the control group the recurrence rate remained high. CONCLUSION: A compact standardised EMR training for LNPCPs significantly reduced recurrences in community hospitals. This strongly argues for a national dedicated training programme for endoscopists performing EMR of ≥20 mm LNPCPs. Interestingly, in sensitivity analysis, this benefit was limited for LNPCPs ≥40 mm. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR7477.

Endoscopic Removal of Premalignant Lesions Reduces Long-Term Colorectal Cancer Risk: Results From the Japan Polyp Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: To date, no regional evidence of long-term colorectal cancer (CRC) risk reduction after endoscopic premalignant lesion removal has been established. We aimed to analyze this over a long-term follow-up evaluation. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of participants from the Japan Polyp Study conducted at 11 Japanese institutions. Participants underwent scheduled follow-up colonoscopies after a 2-round baseline colonoscopy process. The primary outcome was CRC incidence after randomization. The observed/expected ratio of CRC was calculated using data from the population-based Osaka Cancer Registry. Secondary outcomes were the incidence and characteristics of advanced neoplasia (AN). RESULTS: A total of 1895 participants were analyzed. The mean number of follow-up colonoscopies and the median follow-up period were 2.8 years (range, 1-15 y) and 6.1 years (range, 0.8-11.9 y; 11,559.5 person-years), respectively. Overall, 4 patients (all males) developed CRCs during the study period. The observed/expected ratios for CRC in all participants, males, and females, were as follows: 0.14 (86% reduction), 0.18, and 0, respectively, and 77 ANs were detected in 71 patients (6.1 per 1000 person-years). Of the 77 ANs detected, 31 lesions (40.3%) were laterally spreading tumors, nongranular type. Nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasms (NP-CRNs), including flat (<10 mm), depressed, and laterally spreading, accounted for 59.7% of all detected ANs. Furthermore, 2 of the 4 CRCs corresponded to T1 NP-CRNs. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic removal of premalignant lesions, including NP-CRNs, effectively reduced CRC risk. More than half of metachronous ANs removed by surveillance colonoscopy were NP-CRNs. The Japan Polyp Study: University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry: University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry, C000000058; cohort study: UMIN000040731.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Appropriate and Tailored Polypectomy: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: In this Clinical Practice Update (CPU), we provide guidance on the appropriate use of different polypectomy techniques. We focus on polyps <2 cm in size that are most commonly encountered by the practicing endoscopist, including use of classification systems to characterize polyps and various polypectomy methods. We review characteristics of polyps that require complex polypectomy techniques and provide guidance on which types of polyps require more advanced management by a therapeutic endoscopist or surgeon. This CPU does not provide a detailed review of complex polypectomy techniques, such as endoscopic submucosal dissection, which should only be performed by endoscopists with advanced training. METHODS: This expert review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute CPU Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. These Best Practice Advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and from expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these Best Practice Advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: A structured visual assessment using high-definition white light and/or electronic chromoendoscopy and with photodocumentation should be conducted for all polyps found during routine colonoscopy. Closely inspect colorectal polyps for features of submucosally invasive cancer. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Use cold snare polypectomy for polyps <10 mm in size. Cold forceps polypectomy can alternatively be used for 1- to 3-mm polyps where cold snare polypectomy is technically difficult. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Do not use hot forceps polypectomy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Clinicians should be familiar with various techniques, such as cold and hot snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection, to ensure effective, safe, and optimal resection of intermediate-size polyps (10-19 mm). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Consider using lifting agents or underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for removal of sessile polyps 10-19 mm in size. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Serrated polyps should be resected using cold resection techniques. Submucosal injection may be helpful for polyps >10 mm if margins cannot be well delineated. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Use hot snare polypectomy to remove pedunculated lesions >10 mm in size. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Do not routinely use clips to close resection sites for polyps <20 mm. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Refer patients with polyps to endoscopic referral centers in the context of size ≥20 mm, challenging polypectomy location, or recurrent polyp at a prior polypectomy site. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Tattoo lesions that may need future localization at endoscopy or surgery. Tattoos should be placed in a location that will not interfere with subsequent attempts at endoscopic resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Refer patients with nonpedunculated polyps with clear evidence of submucosally invasive cancer for surgical evaluation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Understand the endoscopy suite's electrosurgical generator settings appropriate for polypectomy or postpolypectomy thermal techniques.

The Role of Tumor Location on Endoscopic and Surgical Management of Malignant Colon Polyps.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic polypectomy could be an appropriate, definitive treatment for pathologic T1 (pT1) colon polyps without high-risk features. Prior studies suggested worse prognosis for proximal versus distal advanced-stage colon cancers following curative treatment. However, there is limited evidence on the prognostic impact of tumor location for pT1s. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database to identify adults with T1NxMx or T1N0-3M0/x colon adenocarcinoma from 2000 to 2019. RESULTS: A total of 3398 patients underwent endoscopic polypectomy (17% proximal) and 28,334 had a partial colectomy (49% proximal) for pT1 adenocarcinoma. Following endoscopic polypectomy, 5-year overall and cancer-specific survival rates were 64% and 91% for proximal versus 83% and 96% for distal polyps, compared with 82% and 95% for proximal versus 88% and 97% for distal tumors after colectomy. In multivariable models, there was a greater difference in overall survival between proximal and distal polyps for those who underwent endoscopic versus surgical resection [hazard ratio (HR) 1.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49-2.02 vs. HR 1.13, 95% CI 1.08-1.18]. Patients with proximal versus distal polyps who underwent polypectomy also exhibited increased cancer-specific mortality (HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.37-2.75). However, cancer-specific survival variations based on tumor location were no longer observed in patients undergoing partial colectomy (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98-1.21). CONCLUSIONS: Proximal tumor location was independently associated with worse overall and cancer-specific survival following endoscopic polypectomy. However, after colectomy, the cancer-specific disparity based on tumor laterality was mitigated. These findings suggest that proximal location may be considered a high-risk feature in endoscopic polypectomy.

Advances in the management of gallbladder polyps: establishment of predictive models and the rise of gallbladder-preserving polypectomy procedures.

Gallbladder polyps are a common biliary tract disease whose treatment options have yet to be fully established. The indication of "polyps ≥ 10 mm in diameter" for cholecystectomy increases the possibility of gallbladder excision due to benign polyps. Compared to enumeration of risk factors in clinical guidelines, predictive models based on statistical methods and artificial intelligence provide a more intuitive representation of the malignancy degree of gallbladder polyps. Minimally invasive gallbladder-preserving polypectomy procedures, as a combination of checking and therapeutic approaches that allow for eradication of lesions and preservation of a functional gallbladder at the same time, have been shown to maximize the benefits to patients with benign polyps. Despite the reported good outcomes of predictive models and gallbladder-preserving polypectomy procedures, the studies were associated with various limitations, including small sample sizes, insufficient data types, and unknown long-term efficacy, thereby enhancing the need for multicenter and large-scale clinical studies. In conclusion, the emergence of predictive models and minimally invasive gallbladder-preserving polypectomy procedures has signaled an ever increasing attention to the role of the gallbladder and clinical management of gallbladder polyps.

Adverse Events after Different Endoscopic Resection Procedures for Small and Intermediate-Sized Colorectal Polyps.

INTRODUCTION: Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) have been developed recently, in addition to conventional methods, but adverse events of each method have not been fully clarified. We compared the outcomes of each method for the appropriate choice. METHODS: Patients who underwent CSP, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR)/hot snare polypectomy (HSP), or UEMR for small and intermediate-sized colorectal polyps between April 2017 and June 2020 were retrospectively examined. The rate of adverse events and recurrences due to each method were determined as the main outcomes. Clinical factors related to adverse events were examined. RESULTS: A total of 1,025 patients with 3,163 polyps underwent polypectomy using any of the methods. CSP, EMR/HSP, and UEMR were performed for 704 (22.2%), 2,145 (67.8%), and 314 polyps (9.9%), and the median size for each method was 4, 6, and 7 mm, respectively. Delayed bleeding for CSP, EMR/HSP, and UEMR was 0%, 0.2%, and 0.6% (p = 0.15), and perforation was 0%, 0.1%, and 0%, respectively (p = 0.62). Recurrence after CSP, EMR/HSP, and UEMR was 0.3%, 0.09%, and 1.3%, respectively (p < 0.01). Recurrence for UEMR was significantly higher in the early stage of procedure introduction (p = 0.015). Oral anticoagulants were the risk factor for delayed bleeding (p < 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference regarding adverse events among each method for small and intermediate-sized polyps, although the recurrence rate after UEMR was higher than other methods.

Risk factors and prediction model for delayed bleeding after cold snare polypectomy: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Delayed bleeding (DB) is a serious complication after cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for polyps in the colon. The present study aimed to investigate the incidence and risk factors of DB after CSP and to develop a risk-scoring model for predicting DB. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted in four Chinese medical institutions. 10650 patients underwent CSP from June 2019 to May 2023. The study analyzed the rate of DB and extracted the general clinical information and polyp-related information of patients with postoperative DB. As a control, non-DB patients who received CSP at the same 4 hospitals were analyzed. A multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to develop the prediction model. The model was further validated using a Kaplan-Meier log-rank analysis, receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) plot and risk plot. RESULTS: In our study, we found a 0.24% rate of DB and the risk factors were history of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, antithrombotics use, antiplatelet use, anticoagulant use, abdominal operation, sigmoid colon lesion, hematoma, cold snare defect protrusion, polyp size, wound size, the grade of wound bleeding, and morphology of Ip. These factors were incorporated into the prediction model for DB after CSP. For 1, 3, and 5 days of bleeding, the AUC of the ROC curve was 0.912, 0.939, and 0.923, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that the high-risk group had a significantly higher risk of DB than the low-risk group. CONCLUSIONS: This study screened the risk factors and established a prediction model of DB after CSP. The results may help preventing and reducing the DB rate after CSP of colorectal polyps.

Low-power pure-cut hot snare polypectomy for colorectal polyps 10-14 mm in size: a multicenter retrospective study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Hot snare excision using electrocautery is widely used for large colorectal polyps (>10 mm); however, adverse events occur due to deep thermal injury. Colorectal polyps measuring 10-14 mm rarely include invasive cancer. Therefore, less invasive therapeutic options for this size category are demanding. We have developed hot snare polypectomy with low-power pure-cut current (LPPC HSP), which is expected to contribute to less deep thermal damage and lower risk of adverse events. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LPPC HSP for 10-14 mm colorectal polyps, compared with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). METHODS: In this multicenter, retrospective, observational study, clinical outcomes of EMR and LPPC HSP for 10-14 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps between January 2021 and March 2022 were compared using propensity score matching. RESULTS: We identified 203 EMR and 208 LPPC HSP cases. After propensity score matching, the baseline characteristics between the groups were comparable, with 120 pairs. The en bloc and R0 resection rates were not significantly different between EMR and LPPC HSP groups (95.8% vs 97.5%, P = 0.72; 90.0% vs 91.7%, P = 0.82). The rates of delayed bleeding and perforation did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with conventional EMR, LPPC HSP showed a similar resection ability without an increase in adverse events. These results suggest that LPPC HSP is a safe and effective treatment for 10-14 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps.

Efficacy and Safety of Cold Snare Polypectomy versus Cold Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Resecting 3-10 mm Colorectal Polyps: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: The safety and efficacy of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) compared to those of cold endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) have been reported. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of CEMR and CSP. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of CEMR and CSP in removing 3-10 mm polyps. The outcomes assessed included complete resection rate, intraoperative bleeding rate, delayed bleeding rate, perforation, and polyp removal time. The results are reported as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) derived from a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model. RESULTS: Seven studies comprising 1,911 polyps were included in the analysis. The complete resection rate of CEMR was comparable to that of CSP (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.99-1.04, p = 0.32). Comparable results were also demonstrated for intraoperative bleeding rate (polyp-based analysis: RR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.33-4.43, p = 0.77), delayed bleeding rate (polyp-based analysis: RR: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.44-4.15, p = 0.61), and polyp removal time (mean difference: 28.31 s, 95% CI: -21.40-78.02, p = 0.26). No studies reported cases of perforation. CONCLUSION: CEMR has comparable efficacy and safety to CSP in removing 3-10 mm polyps. Further randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up are warranted to compare and validate efficacy.

Risk factors for post-polypectomy bleeding in patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing colonoscopic polypectomy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Little is known about the risk factors of bleeding after colonoscopic polypectomy in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). This study investigated the incidence and risk factors of post-polypectomy bleeding (PPB), including immediate and delayed bleeding, in patients with ESRD. METHODS: Ninety-two patients with ESRD who underwent colonoscopic polypectomy between September 2005 and June 2020 at a single tertiary referral center were included. The patients' medical records were retrospectively reviewed. Patient- and polyp-related factors associated with immediate PPB (IPPB) were analyzed using logistic regression analysis. Additionally, the optimal cutoff polyp size related to a significant increase in the risk of IPPB was determined by performing receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and calculating the area under the ROC curve (AUC). RESULTS: In total, 286 polyps were removed. IPPB occurred in 24 (26.1%) patients and 46 (16.1%) polyps and delayed PPB occurred in 2 (2.2%) patients. According to multivariate analysis, the polyp size (> 7 mm), old age (> 70), and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) as the polypectomy method (EMR versus non-EMR) were found to be independent risk factors for IPPB. According to the Youden index method, the optimal cutoff polyp size to identify high-risk polyps for IPPB was 7 mm (AUC = 0.755; sensitivity, 76.1%; specificity, 69.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopic polypectomy should be performed with caution in patients with ESRD, especially in those with the following risk factors: advanced age (> 70 years), polyp size > 7 mm, and EMR as the polypectomy method.

Cold Snare Polypectomy With or Without Submucosal Injection for Endoscopic Resection of Colorectal Polyps: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The impact of submucosal injection during cold snare polypectomy (CSP) remains uncertain. We conducted an evidence-based comparison of conventional CSP (C-CSP) and CSP with submucosal injection (SI-CSP) for colorectal polyp resection. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing C-CSP with SI-CSP. Major outcomes included the rates of complete resection, en bloc resection, polyp retrieval, and adverse events, as well as the duration of polypectomy. Data were analyzed by using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of seven RCTs were included. Complete resection rates for all polyps (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.93-1.03), polyps ≤ 10 mm (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.96-1.02) and polyps > 10 mm (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.69-1.12) were not substantially different between C-CSP and SI-CSP groups. En bloc resection rate (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.79-1.09) and polyp retrieval rate (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.99-1.01) were also not significantly different between the two groups. The SI-CSP group required a prolonged polypectomy time than the C-CSP group (SMD - 0.89; 95% CI -1.29 to -0.49). Adverse events were rare in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: SI-CSP is not an optimal substitute for CSP in the resection of colorectal polyps, particularly diminutive and small polyps.

Improving the management and outcomes of complex non-pedunculated colorectal polyps at a regional hospital in British Columbia.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer arises from precancerous lesions, primarily adenomatous and serrated polyps. Some polyps pose significant technical endoscopic challenges due to their size, location, and/or morphology. A standardized protocol for documentation and management of these polyps can optimize clinical outcomes. METHODS: A Quality Improvement project compared patients with a complex polyp (non-pedunculated, > 2 cm), for 12 months prior and 12 months after protocol introduction. Documentation and polyp management details were compared pre- and post-implementation using the Chi-square test. RESULTS: 69 patients were diagnosed with complex polyps prior to the protocol introduction and 72 after. 79% (112/141) of patients underwent endoscopic mucosal resections (EMR) locally, and 14.9% (21/141) underwent surgery locally. After protocol introduction, there was significant improvement in documentation of suspicious appearing polyps (21.7% to 47.2%, P = 0.001), luminal circumference (14.5% to 34.7%, P = 0.005), and management plans (87.0% to 97.2%, P = 0.023); other elements of documentation were similar. The number of patients reviewed at multidisciplinary conference (MDC) increased from 1 to 61% (P < 0.005). Patients rebooked in a 1 h endoscopy time slot increased from 19 to 58% (P < 0.005), as did specific consent for EMR from 22 to 57% (P < 0.005). Among patients with polyps 3 cm or greater (23 pre, 36 post), MDC review increased from 4 to 67% (P < 0.005), primary polypectomy decreased from 72 to 23% (P = 0.001), patients rebooked in a double endoscopy slot increased from 33 to 75% (P = 0.005), and specific consent increased from 39 to 75% (P = 0.014). There were less polyp recurrences (12/42 pre and 1/50 post) among the post-protocol cohort (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of a formalized protocol for complex polyp adjudication and management has led to improved documentation, multidisciplinary discussion, and optimal complex polyp management with dedicated time for EMR, particularly for polyps over 3 cm. There is room for improvement, and this can be approached in a collaborative manner.

Effect of Cold Versus Hot Snare Polypectomy on Colon Postpolypectomy Bleeding in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who undergo polypectomy may experience postpolypectomy bleeding. To reduce the risk of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding among the general population, cold snare polypectomy (CSP) is recommended for removing colon polyps smaller than 1 cm. Nevertheless, only few studies have examined the effect of CSP on patients with ESRD. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with ESRD who underwent colonoscopic polypectomy for polyps larger than 5 mm at a Taiwanese university hospital from January 2014 to January 2023. The main outcome was delayed postpolypectomy bleeding within 30 days. Multivariate analysis was conducted to adjust for major confounders. RESULTS: A total of 557 patients with ESRD underwent colonoscopic polypectomy during the study period: 201 underwent CSP and 356 underwent hot snare polypectomy (HSP). Delayed postpolypectomy bleeding occurred in 27 patients (4.8%). The rate of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding was lower in patients with ESRD who underwent CSP than in those who underwent HSP (1.9% vs. 6.4%, P = 0.022). The percentage of patients who did not experience postpolypectomy bleeding within 30 days after CSP remained lower than that observed after HSP (P = 0.019, log-rank test). Multivariate analysis demonstrated immediate postpolypectomy bleeding and HSP to be independent risk factors for delayed postpolypectomy bleeding. A nomogram prognostic model was used to predict the potential of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding within 30 days in patients with ESRD. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with HSP, CSP is more effective in mitigating the risk of delayed postpolypectomy bleeding in patients with ESRD.

The efficacy and safety of cervical polypectomy with vaginoscopy in pregnant women.

PURPOSES: This study aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of cervical polypectomy performed via vaginoscopy in pregnant women. METHODS: Pregnant patients diagnosed with cervical polyps were retrospectively included in Beijing Tiantan Hospital between April 2017 and April 2023. Group A underwent cervical polypectomy using a vaginoscopy technique without speculum, cervical forceps and anesthesia, while Group B received conservative management. The incidence of spontaneous abortion, preterm birth, preterm rupture of membranes (PROM), visual analog scale (VAS) scores, timing and method of delivery, and neonatal outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 90 pregnant patients included in the study, 48 patients receiving polypectomy under vaginoscopy were included into group A while 42 patients receiving conservative treatment were assigned into group B. At baseline, group A exhibited higher rates of vaginal bleeding pre-operation, as well as larger cervical polyp dimensions compared to group B. The median interval between vaginal bleeding and polypectomy was 3.5 weeks, with the median procedure typically performed at gestational week 19 in group A. There was no significant difference in the incidence of spontaneous abortion between the two groups (4.2% vs. 4.8%, p = 1.000). However, group A showed a significantly lower frequency of preterm birth (4.2% vs. 21.4%, p = 0.030) and premature rupture of membranes (PROM) (18.8% vs. 45.2%, p = 0.025) compared to group B. No disparities were observed in the timing, mode of delivery, and neonatal outcomes between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of vaginoscopy for cervical polypectomy has been shown to decrease the likelihood of preterm delivery and premature rupture of membranes in pregnant women with symptomatic cervical polyps. Therefore, performing cervical polypectomy via vaginoscopy without anesthesia provide a feasible and optimal ways in the management of this population.

Peutz-Jeghers syndrome: management for recurrent intussusceptions.

BACKGROUND: Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (PJS) is an autosomal dominant disorder characterized by hamartomatous gastrointestinal polyps along with the characteristic mucocutaneous freckling. Multiple surgeries for recurrent intussusception in these children may lead to short bowel syndrome. Here we present our experience of management in such patients. METHODS: From January 2015 to December 2023, we reviewed children of PJS, presented with recurrent intussusceptions. Data were collected regarding presentation, management, and follow-up with attention on management dilemma. Diagnosis of PJS was based on criteria laid by World Health Organization (WHO). RESULTS: A total of nine patients were presented with age ranging from 4 to 17 years (median 9 years). A total of eighteen laparotomies were performed (7 outside, 11 at our centre). Among 11 laparotomies done at our centre, resection and anastomosis of bowel was done 3 times while 8 times enterotomy and polypectomy was done after reduction of intussusception. Upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGIE & LGIE) was done in all cases while intraoperative enteroscopy (IOE) performed when required. Follow-up ranged from 2 months to 7 years. CONCLUSION: Children with PJS have a high risk of multiple laparotomies due to polyps' complications. Considering the diffuse involvement of the gut, early decision of surgery and extensive bowel resection should not be done. Conservative treatment must be tried under close observation whenever there is surgical dilemma. The treatment should be directed in the form of limited resection or polypectomy after reduction of intussusception.

Rates of repeated colonoscopies to clean the colon from low-risk and high-risk adenomas: results from the EPoS trials.

OBJECTIVE: High-quality colonoscopy (adequate bowel preparation, whole-colon visualisation and removal of all neoplastic polyps) is a prerequisite to start polyp surveillance, and is ideally achieved in one colonoscopy. In a large multinational polyp surveillance trial, we aimed to investigate clinical practice variation in number of colonoscopies needed to enrol patients with low-risk and high-risk adenomas in polyp surveillance. DESIGN: We retrieved data of all patients with low-risk adenomas (one or two tubular adenomas <10 mm with low-grade dysplasia) and high-risk adenomas (3-10 adenomas, ≥1 adenoma ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia or villous components) in the European Polyp Surveillance trials fulfilling certain logistic and methodologic criteria. We analysed variations in number of colonoscopies needed to achieve high-quality colonoscopy and enter polyp surveillance by endoscopy centre, and by endoscopists who enrolled ≥30 patients. RESULTS: The study comprised 15 581 patients from 38 endoscopy centres in five European countries; 6794 patients had low-risk and 8787 had high-risk adenomas. 961 patients (6.2%, 95% CI 5.8% to 6.6%) underwent two or more colonoscopies before surveillance began; 101 (1.5%, 95% CI 1.2% to 1.8%) in the low-risk group and 860 (9.8%, 95% CI 9.2% to 10.4%) in the high-risk group. Main reasons were poor bowel preparation (21.3%) or incomplete colonoscopy/polypectomy (14.4%) or planned second procedure (27.8%). Need of repeat colonoscopy varied between study centres ranging from 0% to 11.8% in low-risk adenoma patients and from 0% to 63.9% in high-risk adenoma patients. On the second colonoscopy, the two most common reasons for a repeat (third) colonoscopy were piecemeal resection (26.5%) and unspecified reason (23.9%). CONCLUSION: There is considerable practice variation in the number of colonoscopies performed to achieve complete polyp removal, indicating need for targeted quality improvement to reduce patient burden. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02319928.

Use of surveillance colonoscopy among individuals with removal of high-risk polyps according to the US Multi-Society Task Force recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with colorectal polypectomy are recommended to undergo surveillance colonoscopies at certain intervals to prevent subsequent colorectal cancer. Use of postpolypectomy surveillance according to the 2006 US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) recommendations in an integrated health care system was investigated. METHODS: Use of surveillance colonoscopies was prospectively assessed among 3691 patients with removal of high-risk polyps at a screening colonoscopy during 2007-2012 in the Mass General Brigham Colonoscopy Cohort. With the follow-up up to 2017, the compliance with, overuse, and underuse of postpolypectomy surveillance according to the 2006 USMSTF recommendations was assessed. Surveillance use according to demographic factors was also investigated. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 4.4 years (5th percentile, 95th percentile, 1.0, 9.9) 2360 (64%) patients had undergone a surveillance colonoscopy, among whom 758 (21%) were considered compliant with the USMSTF recommendations. A substantial underuse of surveillance colonoscopies of 62% was observed. Older age and lower income were associated with a higher incidence of underuse, whereas having a family history of colorectal cancer were associated with lower incidence of underuse. Overuse of surveillance colonoscopies was present in 17% of patients but showed no significant associations with demographic factors. CONCLUSION: Substantial underuse of surveillance in patients with high-risk polyps was observed, particularly those with low income and older age. Efforts are needed to improve delivery and use of surveillance colonoscopy. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The US Multi-Society Task Force recommends follow-up surveillance colonoscopy after polyp removal in the bowel, with intervals depending on the most severe findings. Adherence to surveillance recommendations in a large study with up to 10 years of follow-up among patients with high-risk polyps was investigated. Only 21% of patients adhered to the surveillance recommendations, whereas 62% showed delayed or no use of surveillance. Findings highlight the need for improved use of surveillance colonoscopy among patients at high risk of colorectal cancer.

The Surface Morphology of Large Nonpedunculated Colonic Polyps Predicts Synchronous Large Lesions.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) may have synchronous LNPCPs in up to 18% of cases. The nature of this relationship has not been investigated. We aimed to examine the relationship between individual LNPCP characteristics and synchronous colonic LNPCPs. METHODS: Consecutive patients referred for resection of LNPCPs over 130 months until March 2022 were enrolled. Serrated lesions and mixed granularity LNPCPs were excluded from analysis. Patients with multiple LNPCPs resected were identified, and the largest was labelled as dominant. The primary outcome was the identification of individual lesion characteristics associated with the presence of synchronous LNPCPs. RESULTS: There were 3149 of 3381 patients (93.1%) who had a single LNPCP. In 232 (6.9%) a synchronous lesion was detected. Solitary lesions had a median size of 35 mm with a predominant Paris 0-IIa morphology (42.9%) and right colon location (59.5%). In patients with ≥2 LNPCPs, the dominant lesion had a median size of 40 mm, Paris 0-IIa (47.6%) morphology, and right colon location (65.9%). In this group, 35.8% of dominant LNPCPs were non-granular compared with 18.7% in the solitary LNPCP cohort. Non-granular (NG)-LNPCPs were more likely to demonstrate synchronous disease, with left colon NG-LNPCPs demonstrating greater risk (odds ratio, 4.78; 95% confidence interval, 2.95-7.73) than right colon NG-LNPCPs (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-2.86). CONCLUSIONS: We found that 6.9% of LNPCPs have synchronous disease, with NG-LNPCPs demonstrating a greater than 4-fold increased risk. With post-colonoscopy interval cancers exceeding 5%, endoscopists must be cognizant of an individual's LNPCP phenotype when examining the colon at both index procedure and surveillance. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, NCT01368289; NCT02000141; NCT02198729.

Impact of Clinical and Endoscopic Features on the Development of Metachronous Colorectal Advanced Serrated Lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: High-risk adenomas predict metachronous advanced adenomatous neoplasia. Limited data exist on predictors of metachronous advanced serrated lesions (mASLs). We analyzed clinical and endoscopic predictors of mASLs. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, adults with >1 outpatient colonoscopy between 2008 and 2019 at a tertiary center were included. Serrated lesions (SLs) included sessile SLs (SSLs), traditional serrated adenomas (TSAs), and hyperplastic polyps (HPs). Patient and endoscopic characteristics were obtained using electronic medical records. Five-year cumulative incidence of mASL (HP ≥10 mm, SSL ≥10 mm or with dysplasia, any TSA) and factors associated with mASL were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: A total of 4990 patients were included and 45.4% were women. Mean age was 60.9 ± 9.2 years and median follow-up time was 3.7 years. Female sex and active smoking were associated with mASL. Endoscopically, any SSL and TSA were associated with mASL. The 5-year cumulative incidence for mASL was 26% (95% confidence interval [CI], 18%-32%) for SSL ≥10 mm, 17% (95% CI, 3.5%-29%) for HP ≥10 mm, 21% (95% CI, 0%-42%) for 3-4 SSLs <10 mm, 18% (95% CI, 0%-38%) for TSA, and 27% (95% CI, 3.6%-45%) for SSL with low-grade dysplasia. Baseline synchronous nonadvanced SL and nonadvanced adenoma were not associated with mASL. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support current recommendations for a 3-year surveillance interval in patients with baseline SSL ≥10 mm, SSL with dysplasia, and TSA. A 3-year interval may be more appropriate than 3-5 years for patients with baseline HP ≥10 mm or 3-4 SSLs <10 mm. Patients with synchronous nonadvanced SLs and adenomas do not appear to be at increased risk of mASL.