BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic mucosal resection is an effective and safe procedure to manage large non-pedunculated colonic polyps for which residual/recurrent adenoma is the main drawback. Size/Morphology/Site/Access score determines polypectomy difficulty. We aimed to describe residual/recurrent adenoma rate according to Size/Morphology/Site/Access and to select the ize/Morphology/Site/Access cut-off to predict low residual/recurrent adenoma. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of endoscopic mucosal resection for large non-pedunculated colonic polyps performed in a tertiary centre. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixteen procedures were included. The mean size of lesions was 34.5 ± 17.1 mm, 59.5% were sessile, 60.4% were in the right colon and in 17.7% (n = 56) the access was difficult. Of the lesions, 83.6% were Size/Morphology/Site/Access 3-4. Residual/recurrent adenoma at first and second follow-up was significantly lower in Size/Morphology/Site/Access 2 (1.9% and 0.0%, respectively) when compared to Size/Morphology/Site/Access 3 (18.2%, p = 0.004 and 6.7%, p = 0.049) and Size/Morphology/Site/Access 4 (30.8%, p < 0.001 and 22.7%, p = 0.030). The negative predictive value of Size/Morphology/Site/Access 2 for residual/recurrent adenoma at second follow-up was 86.1%. On multivariate analyses, Size/Morphology/Site/Access 3-4 predicted residual/recurrent adenoma at first (odds ratio 11.96, 95% confidence interval 1.57-91.13) and second follow-up (odds ratio 2.47, 95% confidence interval 1.51-4.22) and had higher cumulative incidence of residual/recurrent adenoma compared to Size/Morphology/Site/Access 2 (p ≤ 0.003). CONCLUSION: Use of the Size/Morphology/Site/Access score allows cases to be identified with a low risk of residual/recurrent adenoma.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic mucosal resection is an effective and safe procedure to manage large non-pedunculated colonic polyps for which residual/recurrent adenoma is the main drawback. Size/Morphology/Site/Access score determines polypectomy difficulty. We aimed to describe residual/recurrent adenoma rate according to Size/Morphology/Site/Access and to select the ize/Morphology/Site/Access cut-off to predict low residual/recurrent adenoma. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of endoscopic mucosal resection for large non-pedunculated colonic polyps performed in a tertiary centre. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixteen procedures were included. The mean size of lesions was 34.5 ± 17.1 mm, 59.5% were sessile, 60.4% were in the right colon and in 17.7% (n = 56) the access was difficult. Of the lesions, 83.6% were Size/Morphology/Site/Access 3-4. Residual/recurrent adenoma at first and second follow-up was significantly lower in Size/Morphology/Site/Access 2 (1.9% and 0.0%, respectively) when compared to Size/Morphology/Site/Access 3 (18.2%, p = 0.004 and 6.7%, p = 0.049) and Size/Morphology/Site/Access 4 (30.8%, p < 0.001 and 22.7%, p = 0.030). The negative predictive value of Size/Morphology/Site/Access 2 for residual/recurrent adenoma at second follow-up was 86.1%. On multivariate analyses, Size/Morphology/Site/Access 3-4 predicted residual/recurrent adenoma at first (odds ratio 11.96, 95% confidence interval 1.57-91.13) and second follow-up (odds ratio 2.47, 95% confidence interval 1.51-4.22) and had higher cumulative incidence of residual/recurrent adenoma compared to Size/Morphology/Site/Access 2 (p ≤ 0.003). CONCLUSION: Use of the Size/Morphology/Site/Access score allows cases to be identified with a low risk of residual/recurrent adenoma.
Authors: Alan Moss; Stephen J Williams; Luke F Hourigan; Gregor Brown; William Tam; Rajvinder Singh; Simon Zanati; Nicholas G Burgess; Rebecca Sonson; Karen Byth; Michael J Bourke Journal: Gut Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Monika Ferlitsch; Alan Moss; Cesare Hassan; Pradeep Bhandari; Jean-Marc Dumonceau; Gregorios Paspatis; Rodrigo Jover; Cord Langner; Maxime Bronzwaer; Kumanan Nalankilli; Paul Fockens; Rawi Hazzan; Ian M Gralnek; Michael Gschwantler; Elisabeth Waldmann; Philip Jeschek; Daniela Penz; Denis Heresbach; Leon Moons; Arnaud Lemmers; Konstantina Paraskeva; Juergen Pohl; Thierry Ponchon; Jaroslaw Regula; Alessandro Repici; Matthew D Rutter; Nicholas G Burgess; Michael J Bourke Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2017-02-17 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: S Gupta; D Miskovic; P Bhandari; S Dolwani; B McKaig; R Pullan; B Rembacken; S Riley; M D Rutter; N Suzuki; Z Tsiamoulos; R Valori; M E Vance; O D Faiz; B P Saunders; S Thomas-Gibson Journal: Frontline Gastroenterol Date: 2013-06-01
Authors: Bronte A Holt; Milan S Bassan; Alan Sexton; Stephen J Williams; Michael J Bourke Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: David J Tate; Lobke Desomer; Amir Klein; Gregor Brown; Luke F Hourigan; Eric Y T Lee; Alan Moss; Donald Ormonde; Spiro Raftopoulos; Rajvinder Singh; Stephen J Williams; Simon Zanati; Karen Byth; Michael J Bourke Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-11-28 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Alan Moss; Michael J Bourke; Stephen J Williams; Luke F Hourigan; Gregor Brown; William Tam; Rajvinder Singh; Simon Zanati; Robert Y Chen; Karen Byth Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2011-03-08 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Gottumukkala S Raju; Phillip Lum; Hamzah Abu-Sbeih; William A Ross; Selvi Thirumurthi; Ethan Miller; Patrick Lynch; Jeffrey Lee; Manoop S Bhutani; Mehnaz Shafi; Brian Weston; Asif Rashid; Yinghong Wang; George J Chang; Richard Carlson; Katherine Hagan; Marta Davila; John Stroehlein Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2020-01-22