Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Procedures Research Articles

562. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE OUTCOMES OF GASTRECTOMY VS. ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION FOR THE TREATMENT OF GASTRIC TUBE CANCER AFTER ESOPHAGECTOMY

Abstract Background Although multimodal treatment and minimally invasive surgery for esophageal cancer have improved therapeutic outcomes for esophagectomy, this improvement has led to many reports of metachronous cancers following esophagectomy. After esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, the locations where metachronous cancers occur most frequently are the oropharynx, hypopharynx, and larynx, followed by the gastric tube. Due to a paucity of reports, much remains unknown about gastric tube cancer, such as the site of common occurrence, pattern of metastasis, treatment method. This study investigated the clinical characteristics of patients with gastric tube cancer and to examine the outcomes of gastrectomy versus endoscopic submucosal dissection. Methods Of 49 patients who underwent treatment for gastric tube cancer that developed 1 year or more after esophagectomy, 30 patients underwent subsequent gastrectomy (Group A), and 19 patients underwent endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) (Group B). The characteristics and outcomes of these two groups were compared. Results The interval between esophagectomy and diagnosis of gastric tube cancer ranged from 1 to 30 years. The most common location was the lesser curvature of the lower gastric tube. When the cancer was detected early, EMR or ESD was performed, and the cancer did not recur. In advanced tumors, gastrectomy was performed but the gastric tube was difficult to approach and lymph node dissection was difficult; two patients died as a result of the gastrectomy. In Group A, recurrence occurred most often as axillary lymph node, bone, or liver metastases; in Group B, no recurrence or metastases were observed. Conclusion In addition to recurrence and metastasis, gastric tube cancer is often observed after esophagectomy. The present findings highlight the importance of early detection of gastric tube cancer after esophagectomy and that the EMR and ESD procedures are safe and have significantly fewer complications compared with gastrectomy. Follow-up examinations should be scheduled with consideration given to the most frequent sites of gastric tube cancer occurrence and the time elapsed since esophagectomy.

Preinjection With Ligation-Assisted Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Barrett's Dysplasia and Early Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: Characteristic Histological Features of the Depth of Resection.

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an established technique for the diagnosis and treatment of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in Barrett's esophagus. Submucosal preinjection is not universally used or generally recommended when performing routine ligation-assisted EMR. Prior studies, however, have demonstrated evidence of at least superficial muscle injury on ligation-assisted EMR without submucosal injection. There are limited published data supporting any potential benefit of submucosal preinjection. Our aim was to review this technique and determine the rate of any degree of muscle injury in patients with Barrett's HGD and EAC treated with submucosal preinjection before ligation-assisted EMR. Patients undergoing submucosal preinjection before ligation-assisted EMR for Barrett's esophagus at a single institution between 2012 and 2016 were identified. Data were collected regarding patient demographics and medical history, endoscopy and histopathology findings, adverse events, and subsequent outcomes. All EMR specimens were reviewed by an expert gastrointestinal pathologist. One hundred fifty consecutive EMR procedures were performed on 70 patients. Of 70 patients, 85.7% of patients were men, with a median age of 68 years. EAC was identified in 75 specimens (50%) and HGD in 44 specimens (29.3%). Deep resection margins were clear of adenocarcinoma in all specimens. Muscularis propria was not identified in any of the 150 specimens. There were no cases of post-EMR perforation. Preinjection before ligation-assisted EMR achieved complete excision with histologically clear margins, without histological evidence of any inadvertent muscularis propria.

Incomplete mucosal layer excision during EMR: a potential source of recurrent adenoma (with video)

Background and AimsResidual or recurrent adenoma detected during surveillance (RRA) is the major limitation of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). The pathogenesis of RRA is unknown although thermal ablation of the post-EMR defect (PED) margin reduces RRA. We aimed to identify a feature within the PED which could be associated with RRA. MethodsBetween 1/2017 and 7/2020 detailed prospective procedural data on all EMR procedures performed at a single centre were retrospectively analysed. At the completion of EMR the PED was systematically examined for features of incomplete mucosal layer excision (IME). This was defined as a demarcated area within the PED bordered by a white electrocautery ring, containing endoscopically identifiable features suggesting incomplete resection of the mucosa including lacy capillaries and/or visible fibres of the muscularis mucosae. Areas of IME were re-injected and re-excised by snare and submitted separately for blinded specialist gastrointestinal pathologist review. ResultsEMR was performed for 508 large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) (median size 35mm). In 10 PED (2.0%) an area of IME was identified and excised. Histopathological examination of areas of suspected IME demonstrated muscularis mucosae in 9/10 (90%), residual lamina propria in 9/10 (90.0%) and residual adenoma in 5/10 (50.0%). No RRA was detected during follow-up after re-excision of IME. ConclusionWe report the novel finding of IME within the PED after EMR of LNPCPs. IME may contain microscopic residual adenoma and therefore is a risk for RRA during follow-up. After completion of EMR the PED should be carefully evaluated and if IME is found it should be excised.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Non-pedunculated Colorectal Polyps ≥20mm: Outcome in a Self-taught Skills Environment.

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of non-pedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20mm is technically demanding and should preferentially be performed by specialist endoscopists in referral centres. Little is known about the outcome in institutions establishing this competency. Here, we report the learning curve on 100 consecutive large non-pedunculated polyps resected by a single endoscopist with self-taught acquisition of skills. We analysed data on 100 non-supervised EMR procedures performed at our academic endoscopy centre (2016-2021), representing a single endoscopist's learning curve beginning with the first polyp ≥20 mm. The median polyp size was 30 mm (20-70mm), and 61% of all polyps were ≥30 mm. Predominant polyp morphology was 0-Is (34%) or 0-IIa (47%), and most polyps developed in the ascending colon (36%). In total, 20% of polyps showed high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia, and 8% included pT1 carcinoma. Adenoma recurrence rate after piecemeal resection was 21%. All but one recurrent adenoma were treated endoscopically. Deep mural injury, intra-procedural bleeding and post-procedural bleeding were detected and managed endoscopically in 3%, 21%, and 4% of procedures, respectively. Overall, surgery could be avoided in 91% of all and 98% of non- malignant polyps. Results for the first 50 polyps did not differ from results for the following polyps. Structured training is advisable to acquire advanced EMR skills. Our data show that autonomous acquisition of skills after finishing a training course represents an acceptable alternative with good results in the setting of an open error culture. Continuous review of outcome parameters and complication rate is mandatory during the learning process.

Curriculum for training in endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the standard of care for the complete removal of large (≥ 10 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs). Increased detection of LNPCPs owing to screening colonoscopy, plus high observed rates of incomplete resection and need for surgery call for a standardized approach to training in EMR. 1 : Trainees in EMR should have achieved basic competence in diagnostic colonoscopy, < 10-mm polypectomy, pedunculated polypectomy, and common methods of gastrointestinal endoscopic hemostasis. The role of formal training courses is emphasized. Training may then commence in vivo under the direct supervision of a trainer. 2 : Endoscopy units training endoscopists in EMR should have specific processes in place to support and facilitate training. 3: A trained EMR practitioner should have mastered theoretical knowledge including how to assess an LNPCP for risk of submucosal invasion, how to interpret the potential difficulty of a particular EMR procedure, how to decide whether to remove a particular LNPCP en bloc or piecemeal, whether the risks of electrosurgical energy can be avoided for a particular LNPCP, the different devices required for EMR, management of adverse events, and interpretation of reports provided by histopathologists. 4: Trained EMR practitioners should be familiar with the patient consent process for EMR. 5: The development of endoscopic non-technical skills (ENTS) and team interaction are important for trainees in EMR. 6: Differences in recommended technique exist between EMR performed with and without electrosurgical energy. Common to both is a standardized technique based upon dynamic injection, controlled and precise snare placement, safety checks prior to the application of tissue transection (cold snare) or electrosurgical energy (hot snare), and interpretation of the post-EMR resection defect. 7: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to manage adverse events associated with EMR including intraprocedural bleeding and perforation, and post-procedural bleeding. Delayed perforation should be avoided by correct interpretation of the post-EMR defect and treatment of deep mural injury. 8: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to communicate EMR procedural findings to patients and provide them with a plan in case of adverse events after discharge and a follow-up plan. 9: A trained EMR practitioner must be able to detect and interrogate a post-endoscopic resection scar for residual or recurrent adenoma and apply treatment if necessary. 10: Prior to independent practice, a minimum of 30 EMR procedures should be performed, culminating in a trainer-guided assessment of competency using a validated assessment tool, taking account of procedural difficulty (e. g. using the SMSA polyp score). 11: Trained practitioners should log their key performance indicators (KPIs) of polypectomy during independent practice. A guide for target KPIs is provided in this document.

Extended delay in endoscopic mucosal resection is not associated with adverse outcomes: Findings from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abstract Background and study aims The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of delayed endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of colorectal polyps on health outcomes. Patients and methods A bidirectional cohort study was completed. A baseline group consisting of all EMRs performed within a 15-month period before a province-wide, government-mandated cessation of EMR procedures due to the global pandemic was compared to EMRs impacted by the shutdown, defined as the COVID-19-delayed group. The primary outcome was the incidence of malignant polyps. Secondary outcomes included technical success, polyp recurrence at follow-up colonoscopy, advanced polyp histology, probability of meeting endoscopic criteria for adequate resection for malignant polyps, metastatic colorectal cancer, and complications. Results A total of 268 EMR procedures were included in the study cohort, of which 208 formed the baseline group and 60 were in the COVID-19-delayed group. The median (IQR) patient age was 72 (13.0) and 113 (41.2 %) were females. The median (IQR) wait time was 92 days (87.8) in the baseline group and 191 days (127.8) in the COVID-19-delayed group (P &lt; 0.001). Overall, there were no significant differences in the incidence of malignant polyps, technical success, polyp recurrence on follow-up colonoscopy, advanced polyp histology, adequate endoscopic resection for malignant polyps, metastatic colorectal cancer, or complications between the two groups (P &gt; 0.05 for all outcomes). Conclusions A longer wait time for EMR of colorectal polyps, increasing from a median of 92 to 191 days, was not associated with worse outcomes.

Comparative analysis of the outcomes of gastrectomy vs. endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of gastric tube cancer after esophagectomy.

This study investigated the clinical characteristics of patients with gastric tube cancer following esophagectomy at our hospital, and to examine the outcomes of gastrectomy versus endoscopic submucosal dissection. Of 49 patients who underwent treatment for gastric tube cancer that developed 1 year or more after esophagectomy, 30 patients underwent subsequent gastrectomy (Group A), and 19 patients underwent endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) (Group B). The characteristics and outcomes of these two groups were compared. The interval between esophagectomy and diagnosis of gastric tube cancer ranged from 1 to 30 years. The most common location was the lesser curvature of the lower gastric tube. When the cancer was detected early, EMR or ESD was performed, and the cancer did not recur. In advanced tumors, gastrectomy was performed but the gastric tube was difficult to approach and lymph node dissection was difficult; two patients died as a result of the gastrectomy. In Group A, recurrence occurred most often as axillary lymph node, bone, or liver metastases; in Group B, no recurrence or metastases were observed. In addition to recurrence and metastasis, gastric tube cancer is often observed after esophagectomy. The present findings highlight the importance of early detection of gastric tube cancer after esophagectomy and that the EMR and ESD procedures are safe and have significantly fewer complications compared with gastrectomy. Follow-up examinations should be scheduled with consideration given to the most frequent sites of gastric tube cancer occurrence and the time elapsed since esophagectomy.

Antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection for 10- to 20-mm colorectal polyps: A randomized prospective study

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is frequently used for the removal of colorectal neoplasms. However, the use of prophylactic antibiotics in patients undergoing EMR is debatable. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to assess whether antimicrobial prophylaxis is crucial in the perioperative period of EMR, especially for 10- to 20-mm lesions in this setting. Two hundred and sixty-four patients were randomized equally into 2 groups, the antibiotic (cefixime) group and the control group. The occurrence of adverse events was examined at 1 to 3 days after EMR. Plasma levels of inflammatory markers were analyzed at pre-operation, 1 day post-operation and 3 days post-operation. Blood samples collected at 1 day post-operation were used for culture. A total of 264 and 268 polyps were removed by EMR in the antibiotic group and the control group, respectively. There were 5 cases of fever, with 2 in the antibiotic group and 3 in the control group. In the antibiotic group, 12 patients had abdominal pain and 10 suffered bleeding, whereas in the control group, abdominal pain and bleeding were observed in 10 and 11 patients, respectively. There were no significant differences in the proportion of patients with fever or the incidences of postoperative complications between the groups. No significant differences between the groups were reported in plasma levels of white blood cell count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein or procalcitonin at pre-operation or post-operation. No patients provided positive blood cultures. The use the prophylactic antibiotics for EMR procedures in the perioperative period is no longer required when the lesions are 10 to 20 mm in size.

Risk factors of post-polypectomy bleeding and recurrence in children with colorectal polyps after endoscopic mucosal resection: a retrospective cohort study.

The incidence rate of colorectal polyps in children has gradually increased in recent years. It is still unclear whether endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) can be performed in children with colorectal polyps as well as their incidences of post-polypectomy bleeding and recurrence. This retrospective study was performed to explore the feasible of EMR in children with colorectal polyps and analyze the risk factors of post-polypectomy bleeding and recurrence. Patients aged younger than 18 years diagnosed with colorectal polyps and received EMR for polypectomy between January 2017 and December 2021 were included in this study. The baseline data of included patients were retrospectively collected. All complications related to polypectomy were recorded during follow up via telephone, internet, or outpatient department, including post-polypectomy bleeding, perforation and polyp recurrence. Patients with and without post-polypectomy complications were divided into 2 groups. The risk factors of post-polypectomy bleeding and polyp recurrence were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression models after adjusting potential risk factors using univariable regression models. A total of 589 patients were included in this retrospective study. There were 333 male patients and 256 female patients, and their average age was 4.4±1.9 years old. The average diameter of their polyps was 8.4±2.8 mm, and 542 (92.0%) polyps presented as pedunculated lesions. A total of 540 (91.7%) polyps were diagnosed as juvenile polyps and 509 (86.4%) patients had only 1 polyp. There were a total of 75 cases of post-polypectomy complications (12.7%). The most common complication was early post-polypectomy bleeding (5.3%), followed by polyp recurrence (3.7%). Post-polypectomy bleeding occurred the most on the third and fourth day after EMR polypectomy. Larger polyps (OR =1.742, P<0.001), sessile lesions (OR =3.150, P=0.019), and multiple polyps (OR =4.372, P=0.003) were identified to be related to the incidence of post-polypectomy bleeding. Besides, sessile lesions (OR =3.887, P=0.026) were identified as the main risk factor and older patients (OR =0.606, P=0.004) had lower potential for post-polypectomy recurrence. More attention should be paid to large, sessile, and multiple polyps during the procedure of EMR in children. The small number of patients in this study limits further analysis of results and a large sample study should be performed.

Effect of pre-resection biopsy on detection of advanced dysplasia in large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection.

BACKGROUND : Pre-resection biopsy (PRB) of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs, ≥ 20 mm) is often performed before referral for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). How this affects the EMR procedure is unknown. METHODS : This was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected cohort of patients with LNPCPs referred for EMR between 2013 to 2016 at an Australian tertiary center. Outcomes were differences between PRB and EMR histology, and effects of PRB on the EMR procedure. RESULTS: Among 586 LNPCPs, lesions that underwent PRB were larger (median 35 vs. 30 mm; P < 0.007), and more commonly morphologically flat or slightly elevated (P = 0.01) compared with lesions without PRB. PRB histology was upstaged in 26.1 %, downstaged in 13.8 %, and unchanged in 60.1 % after EMR. Sensitivity of PRB was 77.2 % (95 %CI 71.1-82.4) for low grade dysplasia (LGD) and 21.2 % (95 %CI 11.5-35.1) for high grade dysplasia (HGD). Where EMR specimen showed HGD, PRB had detected LGD in 76.9 %. Where EMR specimen showed cancer, PRB had detected dysplasia only. PRB was associated with more submucosal fibrosis (P = 0.001) and intraprocedural bleeding (P = 0.03). EMR success or recurrence was not affected. CONCLUSIONS: Routine PRB of LNPCP did not reliably detect advanced histology and may have affected EMR complexity. PRB should be utilized with caution in guiding endoscopic management of LNPCPs.

Risk factors for local recurrence of large gastrointestinal lesions after endoscopic mucosal resection.

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the primary treatment modality for superficial gastrointestinal mucosal lesions > 2cm. However, the procedure carries some risk of complications including bleeding, perforation, and local recurrence. This study aimed to examine factors associated with EMR outcomes, especially in terms of local recurrence. This study retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent EMR and full closure with prophylactic clips for upper and lower gastrointestinal lesions > 2cm at Cleveland Clinic Florida, between January 2013 and December 2018 with follow-up endoscopic evaluation for recurrence. A total of 2031 endoscopic polypectomy cases were examined; 307 EMR procedures among 271 patients (52% were female, mean age 65.6 ± 11.1years) who satisfied the inclusion criteria were included in the study. There were no perforations reported. The rate of post-polypectomy delayed bleeding was 1.6%, and the local recurrence rate in this cohort was 7.1%. Recurrent cases were successfully endoscopically managed. In the multivariate regression analysis, age > 70years (OR = 3.20, 95% CI 1.17-8.76, p = .023), body mass index (OR = 1.12, 95% CI 1.03-1.23 p = .008), and lesion size ≥ 35mm (OR = 11.51, 95% CI 3.54-37.40, p = < .001) were independent predictors for recurrence. Age > 70years, increased lesion size, and obesity were found to be independent predictors of local recurrence among EMR procedures for gastrointestinal lesions > 2cm. However, there is a need for larger-scale studies on this topic.

Potential clinical complications of Orise™ gel use, a new submucosal lifting agent: experience from a tertiary care center and review of the literature.

BackgroundEndoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) involves forming a fluid cushion in the submucosal area with a lifting agent, followed by superficial resection. Orise™ gel is one of the commonly used lifting agents for EMR. We present a case series and literature review that analyzes the characteristic histopathological findings and clinical implications observed where Orise™ gel was used before EMR.MethodsColon resection specimens and prior EMR specimens where Orise™ gel was used were reviewed for patients undergoing EMR between January 2018 and December 2020. The literature review included relevant studies from the Medline and Cochrane databases from January 2018 to December 2020.ResultsA total of 12 colon polyp EMRs using Orise gel were performed during the study period. Seven patients (58.34%) underwent surgical resection. Histological examination revealed that, after the EMR procedure, the Orise™ gel material changed its morphological characteristics over time from a basophilic (bluish) non-inflamed pattern to an eosinophilic (pink) type pattern, eliciting a foreign body reaction. The endoscopic appearance and examination of the excised specimens weeks after injection gave the impression of a mass in some cases. The material was also present transmurally and in some cases in the peri-intestinal adipose tissue.Conclusions It was observed that Orise™ gel use elicits a foreign body-type granulomatous reaction. This potential side effect may lead to overdiagnosis of a mass/lesion and unnecessary surgical interventions. This case series and review of the literature aims to increase awareness of the changes caused by Orise™ gel in the gastrointestinal tract.

Endoscopic resection outcomes and predictors of failed en bloc endoscopic mucosal resection of colorectal polyps ≤ 20 mm among advanced endoscopy trainees.

Background and study aims En bloc endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is preferred over piecemeal resection for polyps ≤ 20 mm. Data on colorectal EMR training are limited. We aimed to evaluate the en bloc EMR rate of polyps ≤ 20 mm among advanced endoscopy trainees and to identify predictors of failed en bloc EMR. Methods This was a multicenter prospective study evaluating trainee performance in EMR during advanced endoscopy fellowship. A logistic regression model was used to identify the number of procedures and lesion cut-off size associated with an en bloc EMR rate of ≥ 80 %. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of failed en bloc EMR. Results Six trainees from six centers performed 189 colorectal EMRs, of which 104 (55 %) were for polyps ≤ 20 mm. Of these, 57.7 % (60/104) were resected en bloc. Trainees with ≥ 30 EMRs (OR 6.80; 95 % CI: 2.80–16.50; P = 0.00001) and lesions ≤ 17 mm (OR 4.56;95 CI:1.23–16.88; P = 0.02) were more likely to be associated with an en bloc EMR rate of ≥ 80 %. Independent predictors of failed en bloc EMR on multivariate analysis included: larger polyp size (OR:6.83;95 % CI:2.55–18.4; P = 0.0001), right colon location (OR:7.15; 95 % CI:1.31–38.9; P = 0.02), increased procedural difficulty (OR 2.99; 95 % CI:1.13–7.91; P = 0.03), and having performed < 30 EMRs (OR: 4.87; 95 %CI: 1.05–22.61; P = 0.04). Conclusions In this pilot study, we demonstrated that a relatively low proportion of trainees achieved en bloc EMR for polyps ≤ 20 mm and identified procedure volume and lesion size thresholds for successful en bloc EMR and independent predictors for failed en bloc resection. These preliminary results support the need for future efforts to define EMR procedure competence thresholds during training.

Indications and outcomes of endoscopic resection for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions: A narrative review.

In the last years, endoscopic techniques gained a crucial role in the treatment of colorectal flat lesions. At the same time, the importance of a reliable assessment of such lesions to predict the malignancy and the depth of invasion of the colonic wall emerged. The current unsolved dilemma about the endoscopic excision techniques concerns the necessity of a reliable submucosal invasive cancer assessment system that can stratify the risk of the post-procedural need for surgery. Accordingly, this narrative literature review aims to compare the available diagnostic strategies in predicting malignancy and to give a guide about the best techniques to employ. We performed a literature search using electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library). We collected all articles about endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) registering the outcomes. Moreover, we analyzed all meta-analyses comparing EMR vs ESD outcomes for colorectal sessile or non-polypoid lesions of any size, preoperatively estimated as non-invasive. Seven meta-analysis studies, mainly Eastern, were included in the analysis comparing 124 studies and overall 22954 patients who underwent EMR and ESD procedures. Of these, eighty-two were retrospective, twenty-four perspective, nine case-control, and six cohorts, while three were randomized clinical trials. A total of 18118 EMR and 10379 ESD were completed for a whole of 28497 colorectal sessile or non-polypoid lesions > 5-10 mm in size. In conclusion, it is crucial to enhance the preoperative diagnostic workup, especially in deciding the most suitable endoscopic method for radical resection of flat colorectal lesions at risk of underlying malignancy. Additionally, the ESD necessitates further improvement because of the excessively time-consuming as well as the intraprocedural technical hindrances and related complications. We found a higher rate of en bloc resections and R0 for ESD than EMR for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions. Nevertheless, despite the lower local recurrence rates, ESD had greater perforation rates and needed lengthier procedural times. The prevailing risk for additional surgery in ESD rather than EMR for complications or oncologic reasons is still uncertain.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection in Children.

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for removal of large polyps is well established in adults. EMR technique in the pediatric population is less utilized due to lower incidence of large intestinal polyps in pediatric patients and limited EMR training for pediatric gastroenterologists. The aim of this study is to retrospectively review safety and efficacy of pediatric EMR cases at two large, tertiary referral centers with adult and pediatric EMR expertise. A retrospective chart review was conducted at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center from January 2012 to May 2021. Demographic, clinical, technical and follow up data were collected for patients <18 years of age who underwent EMR during the study period. Fifteen pediatric EMR procedures were identified in 11 patients (five male, six female) during the study period. Indication was most frequently rectal bleeding. Polyp size removed ranged from 9 to 60 mm and pathology was consistent with juvenile inflammatory polyps in six patients. Technical success was achieved in 14 of 15 (93%) of EMRs with clinical success (desired clinical outcome) in all 13 procedures with clinical follow-up. There were no adverse events. This study identifies a case series of pediatric patients who underwent EMR at two tertiary care centers. This series demonstrates successful EMR in children and shows a high technical and clinical success rate with a low complication rate. More investigation into EMR in pediatric patients is necessary, and its use should be isolated to centers with endoscopists with specific experience in EMR techniques.

Anchoring the snare tip is a feasible endoscopic mucosal resection method for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors

Small rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) can be treated using cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-C), which requires additional effort to apply a dedicated cap and snare. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a simpler modified endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) technique, so-called anchored snare-tip EMR (ASEMR), for the treatment of small rectal NETs, comparing it with EMR-C. We retrospectively evaluated 45 ASEMR and 41 EMR-C procedures attempted on small suspected or established rectal NETs between July 2015 and May 2020. The mean (SD) lesion size was 5.4 (2.2) mm and 5.2 (1.7) mm in the ASEMR and EMR-C groups, respectively (p = 0.558). The en bloc resection rates of suspected or established rectal NETs were 95.6% (43/45) and 100%, respectively (p = 0.271). The rates of histologic complete resection of rectal NETs were 94.1% (32/34) and 88.2% (30/34), respectively (p = 0.673). The mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the ASEMR group than in the EMR-C group (3.12 [1.97] vs. 4.13 [1.59] min, p = 0.024). Delayed bleeding occurred in 6.7% (3/45) and 2.4% (1/41) of patients, respectively (p = 0.618). In conclusion, ASEMR was less time-consuming than EMR-C, and showed similar efficacy and safety profiles. ASEMR is a feasible treatment option for small rectal NETs.

Risk factors associated with adenoma recurrence following cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection of polyps ≥ 20 mm: a retrospective chart review.

Background and study aims Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is being increasingly utilized for non-pedunculated polyps ≥ 20 mm due to adverse events associated with use of cautery. Larger studies evaluating adenoma recurrence rate (ARR) and risk factors for recurrence following cold snare EMR of large polyps are lacking. The aim of this study was to define ARR for polyps ≥ 20 mm removed by cold snare EMR and to identify risk factors for recurrence. Patients and methods A retrospective chart review of colon cold snare EMR procedures performed between January 2015 and July 2019 at a tertiary care medical center was performed. During this period, 310 non-pedunculated polyps ≥ 20 mm were excised using cold snare EMR with follow-up surveillance colonoscopy. Patient demographic data as well as polyp characteristics at the time of index and surveillance colonoscopy were collected and analyzed. Results A total of 108 of 310 polyps (34.8 %) demonstrated adenoma recurrence at follow-up colonoscopy. Patients with a higher ARR were older ( P = 0.008), had endoscopic clips placed at index procedure ( P = 0.017), and were more likely to be Asian and African American ( P = 0.02). ARR was higher in larger polyps ( P < 0.001), tubulovillous adenomas ( P < 0.001), and polyps with high-grade dysplasia ( P = 0.003). Conclusions Although cold snare EMR remains a feasible alternative to hot snare polypectomy for resection of non-pedunculated polyps ≥ 20 mm, endoscopists must also carefully consider factors associated with increased ARR when utilizing this technique.

Endoscopic mucosal resection: still a reliable therapeutic option for gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors

BackgroundNeuroendocrine tumors (NETs), as a rare and heterogeneous category of solid tumors, feature various morphologies and behaviors. In recent years, the incidence of NETs has continued to increase. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is one of the therapeutic modalities for the treatment of gastric and rectal NETs.MethodsWe evaluated patients with well-differentiated NETs of the stomach, duodenum, or rectum between 2011 and 2018. In this study, all cases with tumors confined to the mucosal or submucosal layers and smaller than 20 mm were resected using the EMR technique. We used EUS, CT scan, or MRI to exclude patients with advanced disease. All patients were actively monitored for recurrence according to the recommended protocols.ResultsA total of 36 patients with NETs entered the study; 17 (47.2%) were female and the remaining 19 (52.8%) were male, with a total age range of 20–74 years (mean: 52.47 ± 13.47 years). Among the tumors, 31 cases (86.1%) were G1 and the remaining 5 (13.9%) were G2. Based on the pathology reports, 22 tumors (61.1%) were smaller than 1 cm, while the remaining 14 (38.9%) were between 1–2 cm. Twenty-two patients (61.1%) had a margin of specimen involved with the tumor. No recurrence was observed during the mean follow-up time of 63.5 ± 19.8 months (range: 39–103 months). All 36 cases survived during the study period.ConclusionConventional EMR procedure provides low chance of R0 (complete resection) achievement in gastrointestinal NETs smaller than 20 mm and limited to the mucosa or sub mucosa. However, it could be an option if patients are closely followed. Postoperative marginal involvement is not a reliable predictor of disease recurrence, which may be explained by the deleterious effect of heat coagulation and cauterization applied during tumor removal.

Efficacy and safety of a novel submucosal injection solution for endoscopic resection in porcine models.

A submucosal injection is usually required to improve the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). This study aimed to evaluate the performance of 3.3% sodium carboxymethyl starch (Na-CMS) solution, a novel submucosal injection solution, for ESD and EMR. Na-CMS, normal saline (NS) and two commercially available agents (sigMAVisc and Eleview) were injected into the esophageal submucosa of randomly grouped pigs. The level of submucosal elevation was examined. Subsequently, ESD or EMR procedures using 3.3% Na-CMS or NS as submucosal injections were performed in the gastrointestinal tract of the pigs. Submucosal elevation was significantly higher and more sustained in the 3.3% Na-CMS group than in the controls (P < 0.05). The volume required for ESD or EMR was significantly lower in the 3.3% Na-CMS group than in the NS group (ESD: 12.21 ± 4.09 mL vs 28.25 ± 8.02 mL, P < 0.001; EMR: 3.99 ± 1.98 mL vs 7.15 ± 3.67 mL, P = 0.001). The ESD resection time was significantly shorter in the 3.3% Na-CMS group than in the NS group (16.58 ± 7.30 min vs 25.29 ± 11.89 min, P = 0.004). Hemorrhage after ESD in the 3.3% Na-CMS group was less severe than that in the NS group (P = 0.006). 3.3% Na-CMS is an effective, safe and low-cost submucosal injection solution and holds promise as preferable agent for submucosal injection in ESD and EMR procedures.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial esophageal carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been developed to overcome the limitations of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Yet, the potential for EMR should not be ignored. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ESD and EMR in the treatment of superficial esophageal carcinoma (SEC). All relevant articles were retrieved from electronic databases. The primary outcomes included en bloc resection, curative resection, R0 resection, and local recurrence rates. Secondary outcomes included procedure time, rates of perforation, bleeding, and postoperative stricture. Subgroup analyses based on histologic types and lesion sizes were conducted. Twenty-two studies were enrolled. Overall results showed higher en bloc, curative, and R0 resection rate, and lower recurrence rate in ESD compared with EMR. ESD was significantly more time-consuming and induced more perforations than EMR procedure. In subgroup analyses of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated neoplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) subtypes, ESD also excelled in en bloc, curative, R0 resection and local recurrence rates. However, in subgroup analysis stratifying outcomes according to lesion sizes, the superior effect of ESD in en bloc resection, curative resection, and local recurrence rate only manifested when lesion size >20mm. Overall, ESD seemed to have superior efficacy and similar safety profiles compared to EMR in treating SCC, BE-associated neoplasia and EAC. Nevertheless, the selection of ESD or EMR should take lesion size into consideration. EMR is appropriate when lesion size ≤10mm, EMR and ESD are both applicable for lesion between 11 and 20mm, and ESD is preferable for lesions >20mm. More evidences are needed to confirm the current findings.