Endoscopic mucosal resection with anchoring of the snare tip: multicenter retrospective evaluation of effectiveness and safety

Abstract

Background Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with snare is the recommended technique to resect non-invasive colorectal neoplastic lesions between 10 and 30 mm in diameter. The objective of EMR is to resect completely the neoplastic tissue en bloc and preferably with free margins (R0), avoiding recurrences. Anchoring the tip of the snare in the submucosa is a technical trick that allows snare sliding to be reduced and larger pieces to be caught. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of anchoring-EMR (A-EMR).

Methods This was a retrospective analysis of A-EMR procedures for lesions of diameter between 10 and 30 mm (endoscopic evaluation) performed consecutively in four French centers between May 2017 and January 2018. A-EMR was routinely performed for all EMR using Olympus conventional snares (10 or 25 mm). The primary outcome was evaluation of the proportion of R0 resections.

Results A total of 141 A-EMR procedures were performed by 10 operators. Mean lesion size was 19.8 mm. Anchoring was feasible in 96.5 % of cases. There were 81.6 % en bloc resections and 70.2 % R0 resections, with the percentage of procedures decreasing with increasing lesion size (82.8 % < 20 mm, 55.3 % 21 – 30 mm, and 50.0 % > 30 mm, P = 0.002). Complete perforations closed endoscopically occurred in 3/141 cases (2.1 %); none occurred in lesions < 20 mm in size (0 /87).

Conclusion The A-EMR technique appears to be promising with a high proportion of R0 for lesions of 10 – 20 mm in size without any perforations. It could also offer an alternative to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), or to hybrid techniques to reach R0 for lesions between 20 and 30 mm in size.

• References

• 1 Ferlitsch M, Moss A, Hassan C. et al. Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 270-297
• 2 Tanaka S, Kashida H, Saito Y. et al. JGES guidelines for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection. Dig Endosc 2015; 27: 417-434
• 3 Yoshida N, Naito Y, Inada Y. et al. Multicenter study of endoscopic mucosal resection using 0.13% hyaluronic acid solution of colorectal polyps less than 20 mm in size. Int J Colorectal Dis 2013; 28: 985-991
• 4 Woodward T, Crook JE, Raimondo M. et al. Improving complete EMR of colorectal neoplasia: a randomized trial comparing snares and injectate in the resection of large sessile colon polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 673-681
• 5 Jacques J, Legros R, Charissoux A. et al. Anchoring the snare tip by means of a small incision facilitates en bloc endoscopic mucosal resection and increases the specimen size. Endoscopy 2017; 49: E39-E41
• 6 Burgess NG, Bassan MS, McLeod D. et al. Deep mural injury and perforation after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection: a new classification and analysis of risk factors. Gut 2017; 66: 1779-1789
• 7 Yoshida N, Naito Y, Inada Y. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection with 0.13% hyaluronic acid solution for colorectal polyps less than 20 mm: a randomized controlled trial. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 27: 1377-1383
• 8 Saito Y, Fukuzawa M, Matsuda T. et al. Clinical outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal tumors as determined by curative resection. Surg Endosc 2010; 24: 343-352
• 9 Fujiya M, Tanaka K, Dokoshi T. et al. Efficacy and adverse events of EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of colon neoplasms: a meta-analysis of studies comparing EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 583-595
• 10 Wang J, Zhang X-H, Ge J. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal tumors: A meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 8282-8287
• 11 Kobayashi N, Yoshitake N, Hirahara Y. et al. Matched case-control study comparing endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal tumors. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 27: 728-733
• 12 Toyonaga T, Man-i M, Chinzei R. et al. Endoscopic treatment for early stage colorectal tumors: the comparison between EMR with small incision, simplified ESD, and ESD using the standard flush knife and the ball tipped flush knife. Acta Chir Iugosl 2010; 57: 41-46
• 13 Saito Y, Uraoka T, Yamaguchi Y. et al. A prospective, multicenter study of 1111 colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissections (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 1217-1225
• 14 Watanabe T, Itabashi M, Shimada Y. et al. Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum. Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum (JSCCR) Guidelines 2014 for treatment of colorectal cancer. Int J Clin Oncol 2015; 20: 207-239
• 15 Pioche M, Walter T. Endoscopic removal of colorectal T1 cancers: Why is a 1-year follow-up recommended by ESGE when resection is R0 and curative?. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7: E816-E817
• 16 Hassan C, Wysocki PT, Fuccio L. et al. Endoscopic surveillance after surgical or endoscopic resection for colorectal cancer: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Digestive Oncology (ESDO) Guideline. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 266-277
• 17 Bronsgeest K, Huisman JF, Langers A. et al. Safety of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas in the elderly. Int J Colorectal Dis 2017; 32: 1711-1717
• 18 Pohl H, Srivastava A, Bensen SP. et al. Incomplete polyp resection during colonoscopy – results of the complete adenoma resection (CARE) study. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 74-80.e1