Shahidi, Neal

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.

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.