ObjectiveLarge (≥20 mm) sessile serrated lesions (L-SSL) are premalignant lesions that require endoscopic removal. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the existing standard of care but carries some risk of adverse events including clinically significant post-EMR bleeding and deep mural injury (DMI). The respective risk-effectiveness ratio of piecemeal cold snare polypectomy (p-CSP) in L-SSL management is not fully known.DesignConsecutive patients referred for L-SSL management were treated by p-CSP from April 2016 to January 2020 or by conventional EMR in the preceding period between July 2008 and March 2016 at four Australian tertiary centres. Surveillance colonoscopies were conducted at 6 months (SC1) and 18 months (SC2). Outcomes on technical success, adverse events and recurrence were documented prospectively and then compared retrospectively between the subsequent time periods.ResultsA total of 562 L-SSL in 474 patients were evaluated of which 156 L-SSL in 121 patients were treated by p-CSP and 406 L-SSL in 353 patients by EMR. Technical success was equal in both periods (100.0% (n=156) vs 99.0% (n=402)). No adverse events occurred in p-CSP, whereas delayed bleeding and DMI were encountered in 5.1% (n=18) and 3.4% (n=12) of L-SSL treated by EMR, respectively. Recurrence rates following p-CSP were similar to EMR at 4.3% (n=4) versus 4.6% (n=14) and 2.0% (n=1) versus 1.2% (n=3) for surveillance colonoscopy (SC)1 and SC2, respectively.ConclusionsIn a historical comparison on the endoscopic management of L-SSL, p-CSP is technically equally efficacious to EMR but virtually eliminates the risk of delayed bleeding and perforation. p-CSP should therefore be considered as the new standard of care for L-SSL treatment.

No abstract

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an effective therapy for naive large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (N-LNPCPs). The best approach for the treatment of previously attempted LNPCPs (PA-LNPCPs) is undetermined. METHODS: EMR performance for PA-LNPCPs was evaluated in a prospective observational cohort of LNPCPs ≥20 mm. Efficacy was measured by technical success (removal of all visible polypoid tissue during index EMR) and recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy (SC1). Safety was assessed by clinically significant intraprocedural bleeding, deep mural injury types III–V, clinically significant post-EMR bleeding, and delayed perforation. RESULTS: From January 2012 to October 2019, 158 PA-LNPCPs and 1,134 N-LNPCPs underwent EMR. Median PA-LNPCP size was 30 mm (interquartile range 25–46 mm). Technical success was 93.0% and increased to 95.6% after adjusting for 2-stage EMR. Cold-forceps avulsion with adjuvant snare-tip soft coagulation (CAST) was required for nonlifting polypoid tissue in 73 (46.2%). Median time to SC1 was 6 months (interquartile range 5–7 months). Recurrence occurred in 9 (7.8%). No recurrence was identified among 65 PA-LNPCPs which underwent margin thermal ablation at SC1 vs 9 (18.0%; P < 0.001) which did not. There were significant differences in resection duration (35 vs 25 minutes; P < 0.001), technical success (93.0% vs 96.6%; P = 0.026), and use of CAST (46.2% vs 7.6%; P < 0.001), between PA-LNPCPs and N-LNPCPs. When adjusting for 2-stage EMR, no difference in technical success was identified (95.6% vs 97.8%; P = 0.100). No differences in adverse events or recurrence were identified. DISCUSSION: EMR, using auxillary techniques where necessary, can achieve high technical success and low recurrence frequencies for PA-LNPCPs.

No abstract

No abstract