Mosko, Jeffrey D.

Abstract Introduction Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (uEMR) technique has gained popularity for removal of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) due to high en-bloc resection rates and lower recurrence rates. However, there is no information regarding outcomes of uEMR for giant colorectal polyps. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the outcomes of uEMR for giant colorectal polyps across multiple centers in North America. Methods We conducted a multicenter retrospective study of adults with giant colorectal polyps undergoing uEMR between January 2019 and November 2025. Giant colorectal polyps were defined as LNPCPs ≥40 mm. Primary outcomes were technical success and rate of recurrent adenoma. Secondary outcomes were severe adverse events (SAEs) and predictors of technical success, recurrence, and SAEs. Results A total of 137 polyps, with mean polyp size 47.6 mm were included. Majority of the lesions were located in right colon (61%, n = 83) with the most common histopathology being high-grade dysplasia (HGD) (31.4%, n = 43). Technical success was achieved in 90.5% (n = 124) with en-bloc resection rate of 11.7% (n = 16). Polyp fibrosis (OR: 0.08) and HGD (OR: 0.15) were independent predictors of inability to achieve technical success. Of 92 (67.1%) patients with follow-up, recurrent polyp was present in 8.7% (n = 8). SAEs were noted in 9.5%, consisting of delayed bleeding (9.5%, n = 13), while no delayed perforation or post polypectomy syndrome was noted. Discussion Our study demonstrates that uEMR is technically feasible for the removal of giant colorectal polyps with an acceptable safety profile and recurrence rate.

Abstract Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) techniques for large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) have expanded with the introduction of ablation and cold EMR. This study assessed adverse events (AEs) for the newer EMR techniques, including cold EMR, compared with hot EMR. We conducted a secondary analysis of four prospective multicenter studies of consecutive patients with LNPCPs undergoing EMR from 2019 to 2024. The primary outcome was serious AEs (SAEs) with cold and hot EMR. Secondary outcomes included SAEs in the hot EMR subgroups (no ablation [hEMR], margin ablation [hEMR-m], margin and base ablation [hEMR-mb]). 1762 patients (mean age 65.8; 1890 LNPCPs) were included: 522 cold and 1368 hot EMRs (368 hEMR, 770 hEMR-m, 230 hEMR-mb). SAEs were higher with hot EMR (4.7%, 95%CI 3.6%–5.9%) vs. cold EMR (1.9%, 95%CI 0.9%–3.5%), also for the subgroups of hEMR (6.0%, 95%CI 3.8%–8.9%), hEMR-m (3.9%, 95%CI 2.6%–5.5%), and hEMR-mb (5.2%, 95%CI 2.7%–8.9%). Serious postendoscopic bleeding (PEB) was numerically higher with hot EMR (2.3%, 95%CI 1.6%–3.3%) vs. cold EMR (1.3%, 95%CI 0.5%–2.7%), also for the subgroups of hEMR (3.0%, 95%CI 1.5%–5.3%), hEMR-m (1.9%, 95%CI 1.1%–3.2%), and hEMR-mb (2.6%, 95%CI 1.0%–5.6%). Perforation, intraprocedural and post-procedural, was numerically higher with hot EMR (1.2%, 95%CI 0.7%–2.0%) vs. cold EMR (0.2%, 95%CI 0.0%–1.1%). hEMR-m and hEMR-mb with clipping had lower rates of serious and overall PEB than no clipping. Cold EMR demonstrated lower rates of SAEs, serious PEB, and perforation compared with hot EMR. Perforation and mortality occurred almost exclusively after hot EMR. Hot EMR with margin +/− base ablation did not increase SAEs compared with hot EMR without ablation.

Abstract Background and study aims Use of fluoroscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopy is an essential aid in advanced endoscopic interventions. However, it also raises concerns about radiation exposure. This study aimed to develop consensus-based statements for safe and effective use of fluoroscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopy, prioritizing the safety and well-being of healthcare workers and patients. Methods A modified Delphi approach was employed to achieve consensus over three rounds of surveys. Proposed statements were generated in Round 1. In the second round, panelists rated potential statements on a 5-point scale, with consensus defined as ≥80% agreement. Statements were subsequently prioritized in Round 3, using a 1 (lowest priority) to 10 (highest priority) scale. Results Forty-six experts participated, consisting of 34 therapeutic endoscopists and 12 endoscopy nurses from six continents, with an overall 45.6% female representation (n = 21). Forty-three item statements were generated in the first round. Of these, 31 statements achieved consensus after the second round. These statements were categorized into General Considerations (n = 6), Education (n = 10), Pregnancy (n = 4), Family Planning (n = 2), Patient Safety (n = 4), and Staff Safety (n = 5). In the third round, accepted statements received mean priority scores ranging from 7.28 to 9.36, with 87.2% of statements rated as very high priority (mean score ≥ 9). Conclusions This study presents consensus-based statements for safe and effective use of fluoroscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopy, addressing the well-being of healthcare workers and patients. These consensus-based statements aim to mitigate risks associated with radiation exposure while maintaining benefits of fluoroscopy, ultimately promoting a culture of safety in healthcare settings.

Background Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an acceptable technique for T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma, but en bloc R0 excision is advocated for T1b disease as it may offer a potential cure and mitigate recurrence. Thus, distinguishing between T1a and T1b disease is imperative under current treatment paradigms. We investigated whether expert Barrett’s endoscopists could make this distinction based on optical evaluation. Methods Endoscopic images of histologically confirmed high grade dysplasia (HGD), T1a, and T1b disease (20 sets for each) were compiled from consecutive patients at a single institution. Each set contained four images including an overview, a close-up in high definition white light, a near-focus magnification image, and a narrow-band image. Experts predicted the histology for each set. Results 19 experts from 8 countries (Australia, USA, Italy, Netherlands, Germany, Canada, Belgium, and Portugal) participated. The majority had been practicing for > 20 years, with a median (interquartile range) annual case volume of 50 (18–75) for Barrett’s EMR and 25 (10–45) for Barrett’s endoscopic submucosal dissection. Esophageal adenocarcinoma (T1a/b) could be distinguished from HGD with a pooled sensitivity of 89.1 % (95 %CI 84.7–93.4). T1b adenocarcinoma could be predicted with a pooled sensitivity of 43.8 % (95 %CI 29.9–57.7). Fleiss’ kappa was 0.421 (95 %CI 0.399–0.442; P < 0.001), indicating fair-to-moderate agreement. Conclusions Expert Barrett’s endoscopists could reliably differentiate T1a/T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma from HGD. Despite fair-to-moderate agreement for T staging, T1b disease could not be reliably distinguished from T1a disease. This may impact clinical decision making and selection of endoscopic techniques.