Abstract:BACKGROUND: The optimal method to remove sessile colorectal lesions sized 10-20 mm remains uncertain. Piecemeal and incomplete resection are major limitations in current practice, such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and cold or hot snare polypectomy. Recently, EMR with circumferential precutting (EMR-P) has emerged as an effective technique, but the quality of current evidence in comparative studies of conventional EMR (CEMR) and EMR-P is limited.AIM: To investigate whether EMR-P is superior to CEMR in removing sessile colorectal polyps.METHODS: This multicenter randomized controlled trial involved seven medical institutions in China. Patients with colorectal polyps sized 10-20 mm were enrolled and randomly assigned to undergo EMR-P or CEMR. EMR-P was performed following submucosal injection, and a circumferential mucosa incision (precutting) was conducted using a snare tip. Primary outcomes included a comparison of the rates of en bloc and R0 resection, defined as one-piece resection and one-piece resection with histologically assessed clear margins, respectively.RESULTS: A total of 110 patients in the EMR-P group and 110 patients in the CEMR group were finally evaluated. In the per-protocol analysis, the proportion of en bloc resections was 94.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 88.2%-97.4%] in the EMR-P group and 86% (95%CI: 78.2%-91.3%) in the CEMR group (P = 0.041), while subgroup analysis showed that for lesions > 15 mm, EMR-P also resulted in a higher en bloc resection rate (92.0% vs 58.8% P = 0.029). The proportion of R0 resections was 81.1% (95%CI: 72.6%-87.4%) in the EMR-P group and 76.6% (95%CI: 68.8%-84.4%) in the CEMR group (P = 0.521). The EMR-P group showed a longer median procedure time (6.4 vs 3.0 min; P < 0.001). No significant difference was found in the proportion of patients with adverse events (EMR-P: 9.1%; CEMR: 6.4%; P = 0.449).CONCLUSION: In this study, EMR-P served as an alternative to CEMR for removing nonpedunculated colorectal polyps sized 10-20 mm, particularly polyps > 15 mm in diameter, with higher R0 and en bloc resection rates and without increasing adverse events. However, EMR-P required a relatively longer procedure time than CEMR. Considering its potential benefits for en bloc and R0 resection, EMR-P may be a promising technique in colorectal polyp resection.

S3006 Minimally Invasive Solutions: Endoscopic Resection of Appendiceal Orifice Polyps Versus Traditional Surgery

Bypassing Large Submucosal Vessels During Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy Reduces Operative Time and Intraoperative Blood Loss in Patients with Achalasia

Safety and efficacy of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: Systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs

Comparing endoscopic mucosal resection with endoscopic submucosal dissection: the different endoscopic techniques for colorectal tumors

Comparison of Underwater vs Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Intermediate-Size Colorectal Polyps

Efficacy of Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

S1545 The Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Peri-Appendiceal Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors ≤20mm: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Reply to Bowen et al.

Therapeutic endoscopy and appendiceal lesions – train and evaluate before intervening

Different endoscopic treatments for small colorectal polyps: A systematic review, pair-wise, and network meta-analysis

Endoscopic mucosal resection-precutting vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for sessile colorectal polyps sized 10-20 mm

Technical Advances in Endoscopic Resection Techniques for Lower GI Malignancies

The role of advanced endoscopy in appendiceal polyp management and outcomes

Endoscopic mucosal resection for challenging colonic mucosal lesions

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of large distal non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas

Combined endoscopic mucosal resection and full-thickness resection for large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis

A30 RECURRENCE RATES AFTER ENDOSCOPIC RESECTION OF LARGE COLORECTAL POLYPS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: Can it be an “Underwater” revolution?

Transcecal endoscopic appendectomy for management of complex appendiceal polyps extending into the appendiceal orifice

Recurrence rates after endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis