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

Xue-Qun Zhang,Jian-Zhong Sang,Lei Xu,Xin-Li Mao,Bo Li,Wan-Lin Zhu,Xiao-Yun Yang,Chao-Hui Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v28.i45.6397

IF: 5.374

2022-12-07

World Journal of Gastroenterology

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 <i>en bloc</i> 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 <i>en bloc</i> 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 (<i>P</i> = 0.041), while subgroup analysis showed that for lesions &gt; 15 mm, EMR-P also resulted in a higher <i>en bloc</i> resection rate (92.0% <i>vs</i> 58.8% <i>P</i> = 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 (<i>P</i> = 0.521). The EMR-P group showed a longer median procedure time (6.4 <i>vs</i> 3.0 min; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). No significant difference was found in the proportion of patients with adverse events (EMR-P: 9.1%; CEMR: 6.4%; <i>P</i> = 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 &gt; 15 mm in diameter, with higher R0 and <i>en bloc</i> resection rates and without increasing adverse events. However, EMR-P required a relatively longer procedure time than CEMR. Considering its potential benefits for <i>en bloc</i> and R0 resection, EMR-P may be a promising technique in colorectal polyp resection.

gastroenterology & hepatology