Complete polypectomy and early detection and management of residual disease to reduce the risk of interval colorectal cancers

O'Morain, Neil; McNamara, Deirdre

doi:10.1080/0284186x.2018.1535715

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 47 publications

(60 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[ 1 , 2 ] Early polypectomy of colorectal polyps has been reported to reduce CRC-related mortality. [ 3 ] Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a standard method commonly for removing 10 to 20 mm colorectal polyps. [ 4 ] EMR involves fluid injection into the submucosa for creation of a cushion that separates superficial lesions from the underlying muscularis propria to decrease the risk of full-thickness colonic perforation, facilitate entrapment within a snare and militate against transmural thermal injury.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for 10 to 20 mm colorectal polyps

Liu¹,

Shi²,

Ren³

et al. 2020

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a standard method commonly for removing 10 to 20 mm colorectal polyps. While the incidence of residual or recurrent after conventional EMR is remarkably high. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) as an alternative technique to conventional EMR for removing colorectal polyps has high adenoma detection and complete resection rates, improves patient comfort, decreases sedation needs, eliminates the risks associated with submucosal injection, and reduces snare and diathermy-induced mucosal injury. We will conduct a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of these two therapies in the management of 10 to 20 mm colorectal polyps. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Science and Technology Journal Database and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database will be searched from inception of databases to November 2020 without language limitation. Two reviewers will independently conduct article selection, data collection, and assessment of risk of bias. Any disagreement will be resolved by discussion with the third reviewer. Review Manager Software 5.3 will be used for meta-analysis. The Cochrane risk of bias tool will be used to assess the risk of bias. Results: This study will provide a systematic synthesis of current published data to compare the effectiveness of UEMR and conventional EMR for 10 to 20 mm colorectal polyps. Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis will provide clinical evidence as to whether UEMR is more effective and safer than conventional EMR for 10 to 20 mm colorectal polyps. Study registration number: INPLASY2020100006.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for 10 to 20 mm colorectal polyps

Liu¹,

Shi²,

Ren³

et al. 2020

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Medical needs related to the endoscopic technology and colonoscopy for colorectal cancer diagnosis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The high incidence and mortality rate of colorectal cancer require new technologies to improve its early diagnosis. This study aims at extracting the medical needs related to the endoscopic technology and the colonoscopy procedure currently used for colorectal cancer diagnosis, essential for designing these demanded technologies. Methods Semi-structured interviews and an online survey were used. Results Six endoscopists were interviewed and 103 were surveyed, obtaining the demanded needs that can be divided into: a) clinical needs, for better polyp detection and classification (especially flat polyps), location, size, margins and penetration depth; b) computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system needs, for additional visual information supporting polyp characterization and diagnosis; and c) operational/physical needs, related to limitations of image quality, colon lighting, flexibility of the endoscope tip, and even poor bowel preparation. Conclusions This study shows some undertaken initiatives to meet the detected medical needs and challenges to be solved. The great potential of advanced optical technologies suggests their use for a better polyp detection and classification since they provide additional functional and structural information than the currently used image enhancement technologies. The inspection of remaining tissue of diminutive polyps (< 5 mm) should be addressed to reduce recurrence rates. Few progresses have been made in estimating the infiltration depth. Detection and classification methods should be combined into one CAD system, providing visual aids over polyps for detection and displaying a Kudo-based diagnosis suggestion to assist the endoscopist on real-time decision making. Estimated size and location of polyps should also be provided. Endoscopes with 360° vision are still a challenge not met by the mechanical and optical systems developed to improve the colon inspection. Patients and healthcare providers should be trained to improve the patient’s bowel preparation.

show abstract

Complete polypectomy and early detection and management of residual disease to reduce the risk of interval colorectal cancers

Cited by 2 publications

References 47 publications

Effectiveness of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for 10 to 20 mm colorectal polyps

Effectiveness of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for 10 to 20 mm colorectal polyps

Medical needs related to the endoscopic technology and colonoscopy for colorectal cancer diagnosis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About