| Literature DB >> 34079869 |
Suraj Suresh1, Jinyu Zhang1, Abdelwahab Ahmed2, Mouhanna Abu Ghanimeh1, Ahmed Elbanna1, Randeep Kaur3, Mahmoud Isseh4, Andrew Watson1, Duyen T Dang1, Krishnavel V Chathadi1, Robert Pompa1, Sumit Singla1, Cyrus Piraka1, Tobias Zuchelli1.
Abstract
Background and study aims Cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is being increasingly utilized for non-pedunculated polyps ≥ 20 mm due to adverse events associated with use of cautery. Larger studies evaluating adenoma recurrence rate (ARR) and risk factors for recurrence following cold snare EMR of large polyps are lacking. The aim of this study was to define ARR for polyps ≥ 20 mm removed by cold snare EMR and to identify risk factors for recurrence. Patients and methods A retrospective chart review of colon cold snare EMR procedures performed between January 2015 and July 2019 at a tertiary care medical center was performed. During this period, 310 non-pedunculated polyps ≥ 20 mm were excised using cold snare EMR with follow-up surveillance colonoscopy. Patient demographic data as well as polyp characteristics at the time of index and surveillance colonoscopy were collected and analyzed. Results A total of 108 of 310 polyps (34.8 %) demonstrated adenoma recurrence at follow-up colonoscopy. Patients with a higher ARR were older ( P = 0.008), had endoscopic clips placed at index procedure ( P = 0.017), and were more likely to be Asian and African American ( P = 0.02). ARR was higher in larger polyps ( P < 0.001), tubulovillous adenomas ( P < 0.001), and polyps with high-grade dysplasia ( P = 0.003). Conclusions Although cold snare EMR remains a feasible alternative to hot snare polypectomy for resection of non-pedunculated polyps ≥ 20 mm, endoscopists must also carefully consider factors associated with increased ARR when utilizing this technique. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34079869 PMCID: PMC8159587 DOI: 10.1055/a-1399-8398
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Recent studies evaluating adenoma recurrence rate after hot and cold snare EMR.
| Study reference | Study design | Hot/cold EMR | Polyps (#) | Polyp size | Polyp recurrence rate | Comments |
|
Buckner et al (2012)
| Retrospective | Hot | 286 | 8–100 mm (mean 23 mm) | 36/133 (27.1 %) | |
|
Choksi et al (2015)
| Retrospective | Cold | 15 | 10–60 mm (mean 24 mm) | N/A | Duodenal and colonic polyps |
|
Fujiya et al (2015)
| Meta-analysis | Hot/Cold | 866 | N/A | 106/866 (12.2 %) | |
|
Piraka et al (2017)
| Retrospective | Cold | 73 | 12–60 mm (median 20 mm) | 7/72 (9.7 %) | ARR was 18.4 % in polyps > 20 mm |
|
Thoguluva Chandrasekar et al (2019)
| Meta-analysis | Cold | 522 | 10–60 mm (mean 17.5 mm) | All – 4.1 % Adenoma – 11.1 % SSPs – 1.0 % | ARR was 22.6 % in polyps > 20 mm |
|
Mangira et al (2020)
| Retrospective | Cold | 204 | 21–91 mm (mean 25.5 mm) | 9/164 (5.5 %) | Majority of polyps were SSA/Ps |
N/A, not available; EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection; ARR, adenoma recurrence rate; SSA/P, sessile serrated adenoma/polyp.
Fig. 1 Cold snare EMR endoscopic technique. a Large colon polyp prior to resection. b Polyp base injected with solution of dilute epinephrine in saline solution with methylene blue to ensure adequate submucosal lift). c Polyp base and margins carefully examined following piecemeal resection to ensure that no residual polyp is present.
Fig. 2Post-polypectomy scar and residual polyp. a Post-polypectomy scar with no residual or recurrent adenoma. b Adenoma recurrence (residual polyp tissue) at polypectomy scar site.
Demographic factors and adenoma recurrence rate after cold snare EMR.
| All cases (N = 310) | Recurrence (N = 108) | No recurrence (N = 202) |
| |
| Sex (%) | 0.877 | |||
Male | 156 (50.3) | 55 (50.9) | 101 (50) | |
Female | 154 (49.7) | 53 (49.1) | 101 (50) | |
| Race (%) | 0.020 | |||
White | 201 (64.8) | 58 (53.7) | 143 (70.8) | |
African American | 48 (15.5) | 24 (22.2) | 24 (11.9) | |
Asian | 4 (1.3) | 3 (2.8) | 1 (0.50) | |
Hispanic | 2 (0.64) | 1 (0.9) | 1 (0.50) | |
Other/declined | 55 (17.7) | 22 (20.3) | 33 (16.3) | |
Mean age at EMR, years (range) | 66.5 (41–90) | 68.5 (49–87) | 65.5 (41–90) | 0.008 |
Personal history of polyposis syndromes (%) | 3 (0.97) | 1 (0.93) | 2 (0.99) | 0.963 |
Family history of colon cancer (%) | 48 (15.5) | 15 (13.9) | 33 (16.3) | 0.570 |
| Smoking History (%) | 0.992 | |||
Current smoker | 62 (20.0) | 22 (20.4) | 40 (19.8) | |
Former smoker | 135 (43.5) | 47 (43.5) | 88 (43.6) | |
Never smoker | 113 (36.5) | 39 (36.1) | 74 (36.6) | |
| Significant alcohol consumption (%) | 25 (8.1) | 11 (10.2) | 14 (6.9) | 0.316 |
EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection.
Polyp characteristics and adenoma recurrence rate after cold snare EMR.
| All cases (N = 310) | Recurrence (N = 108) | No Recurrence (N = 202) |
| |
| Mean size of polyp removed by cold snare EMR, mm (range) | 29.4 (20–80) | 33.5 (20–80) | 27.2 (20–65) | < 0.001 |
| Mean number of polyps of any size removed at index colonoscopy (range) | 3.8 (1–24) | 3.2 (1–21) | 4.1 (1–24) | 0.036 |
| Polyp location (%) | 0.072 | |||
Terminal ileum | 2 (0.65) | 2 (1.9) | 0 | |
Cecum | 85 (27.4) | 37 (34.3) | 48 (23.8) | |
Ascending colon | 105 (33.9) | 32 (29.6) | 73 (36.1) | |
Transverse colon | 37 (11.9) | 10 (9.3) | 27 (13.4) | |
Descending colon | 11 (3.5) | 2 (1.9) | 9 (4.5) | |
Sigmoid | 18 (5.8) | 5 (4.6) | 13 (6.4) | |
Rectum | 20 (6.4) | 11 (10.2) | 9 (4.5) | |
Hepatic flexure | 27 (8.7) | 7 (6.5) | 20 (9.9) | |
Splenic flexure | 5 (1.6) | 2 (1.9) | 3 (1.5) | |
| Polyp histology (%) | < 0.001 | |||
Hyperplastic | 15 (4.8) | 1 (0.9) | 14 (6.9) | |
Tubular adenoma | 135 (43.5) | 40 (37.0) | 95 (47.0) | |
Tubulovillous adenoma | 114 (36.8) | 60 (55.5) | 54 (26.7) | |
Sessile serrated | 45 (14.5) | 6 (5.6) | 39 (19.3) | |
Adenocarcinoma | 1 (0.3) | 1 (0.9) | 0 | |
| Polyps with high grade dysplasia (%) | 28 (9.0) | 17 (15.7) | 11 (5.4) | 0.003 |
| Mean time to follow-up, months (range) | 6.5 (1–39) | 5.6 (1–29) | 7.2 (1–39) | 0.007 |
| Residual polyp seen on follow-up | 113 (36.5) | 96 (88.9) | 17 (8.4) | < 0.001 |
| Residual polyp pathology (%) | < 0.001 | |||
Hyperplastic | 5 (4.4) | 2 (2.1) | 3 (17.6) | |
Tubular adenoma | 61 (54.0) | 57 (58.8) | 4 (23.5) | |
Tubulovillous adenoma | 29 (25.4) | 29 (29.9) | 0 | |
Sessile serrated | 8 (7.0) | 7 (7.2) | 1 (0.59) | |
Adenocarcinoma | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Normal tissue | 11 (9.6) | 1 (1.0) | 10 (58.8) | |
| EMR scar biopsied on follow-up (%) | 188 (60.6) | 52 (48.1) | 136 (67.3) | 0.001 |
| Scar biopsy pathology (%) | < 0.001 | |||
Hyperplastic | 10 (5.3) | 2 (3.8) | 8 (5.9) | |
Tubular adenoma | 24 (12.8) | 24 (46.2) | 0 | |
Tubulovillous adenoma | 6 (3.2) | 6 (11.3) | 0 | |
Sessile serrated | 2 (1.1) | 1 (1.9) | 1 (0.74) | |
Adenocarcinoma | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Normal tissue | 146 (77.2) | 19 (35.8) | 127 (93.4) | |
EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection.
Adenoma recurrence rate based on polyp size.
| Polyp size (mm) | Total polyps | Recurrence rate (%) |
| 20–30 | 221 | 59/221 (26.7) |
| 31–40 | 65 | 31/65 (47.7) |
| 41–50 | 11 | 7/11 (63.6) |
| > 50 | 13 | 10/13 (76.9) |
Multivariable logistic regression of variables affecting adenoma recurrence rate.
| Variable |
|
| Age | 0.002 |
| Race | 0.101 |
| Sex | 0.911 |
| Smoking history | 0.791 |
| Significant alcohol consumption | 0.927 |
| Polyp size | < 0.001 |
| Polyp location | 0.102 |
| Polyp histology | 0.023 |
| Time to follow-up colonoscopy | 0.253 |