Endoscopic mucosal resection with a circumferential incision in the removal of colon neoplasms. Results of a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: to compare the immediate and long-term results of endoscopic mucosal resection with a circular incision (C-EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the treatment of patients with large benign epithelial neoplasms of the colon.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: a prospective randomized comparative study was conducted from November 2020 to July 2022, included 103 patients with benign epithelial neoplasms of the colon ranging in size from 20 to 30 mm. The C-EMR method was used in 52, ESD - 51 patients.

RESULTS: the removal of the tumor by the C-EMR method required statistically significantly less time, compared with the ESD method – 30 and 60 minutes, respectively (p<0.001). Intra- and postoperative complications occurred in 13(23.7%) patients in the C-EMR group and in 12(23.5%) patients in the ESD group. The most frequently reported complication was postcoagulation syndrome in the main and control groups – in 9(17.3%) and 11(21.6%) cases, respectively. It was found that the difficult location of the tumor (OR=18.3; p=0.01) and intraoperative complications (OR =37.5; p=0.04) are independent conversion factors of endoscopic intervention. The frequency of tumor removal in a en bloc and achievement of negative resection margins (R0) in the main and control groups did not significantly differ – 47(90.4%) and 49(96.1%) (p=0.4) and 40(76.9%) and 45(88.2%) (p=0.2), respectively.

CONCLUSION: endoscopic mucosal resection with a circumferential incision is an effective and safe operation comparable to endoscopic submucosal dissection, and can be the method of choice for benign epithelial neoplasms of the colon with sizes from 20 to 30 mm. In addition, the duration of the operation using the C-EMR method is two times less than using ESD.

1. Vaganov Yu.E., Khomyakov E.A., Serebriy A.B., et al. Mucosectomy and traditional polypectomy in the treatment of colon adenomas. Koloproktologia. 2021;20(2):29–34. (in Russ.). doi: 10.33878/2073-7556-2021-20-2-29-34

2. Vaganov Yu.E., Veselov V.V., Likutov A.A., et al. Risk factors for recurrence of colon adenomas after their removal by mucosectomy. Koloproktologia. 2021;20(1):10–16. (in Russ.). doi: 10.33878/2073-7556-2021-20-1-10-16

3. Moss A, Williams SJ, Hourigan LF, Brown G, et al.. Long-term adenoma recurrence following wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (WF-EMR) for advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia is infrequent: results and risk factors in 1000 cases from the Australian Colonic EMR (ACE) study. Gut. 2015;64(1):57–65. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-305516

4. Likutov A.A., Mtvralashvili D.A., Nagudov M.A., et al. Factors limiting the performance of submucosal dissection in the colon. Koloproktologia. 2021;20(2):50–56. (in Russ.). doi: 10.33878/2073-7556-2021-20-2-50-56

5. Abdulzhalieva E.U., Likutov A.A., Mtvralashvili D.A., et al. The use of endoscopic resection of the mucous membrane with a circular incision in the removal of neoplasms of the colon (intermediate results). Koloproktologia. 2022;21(4):21–29. (in Russ.). doi: 10.33878/2073-7556-2022-21-4-21-29

6. Takuji Gotoda, Hironori Yamamoto, Roy M. Soetikno Endoscopic submucosal dissection of early gastric cancer. J Gastroenterol. 2006; 41(10), 929–942. doi: 10.1007/s00535-006-1954-3

7. Winter K, Włodarczyk M, Włodarczyk J, et al. Risk Stratification of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Colon Tumors. J Clin Med. 2022 Mar 12;11(6):1560. doi: 10.3390/jcm11061560 PMID: 35329886; PMCID: PMC8949025.

8. Yun Jung Kim, Eun Soo Kim, Kwang Bum Cho, et al. Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Among Different Endoscopic Resection Methods for Treating Colorectal Neoplasia. Clin Endosc. 2018;51(3):266–273. doi: 10.1007/s10620-013-2560-x

9. Yoshida N, Inoue K, Dohi O, et al. Efficacy of precutting endoscopic mucosal resection with full or partial circumferential incision using a snare tip for difficult colorectal lesions. Endoscopy. 2019 Sep;51(9):871–876. doi: 10.1055/a-0956-6879 Epub 2019 Jul 15. PMID: 31307100.

10. Dong-Hoon Yang, Min-Seob Kwak, Sang Hyoung Park, et al. Endoscopic Mucosal Resection with Circumferential Mucosal Incision for Colorectal Neoplasms: Comparison with Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and between Two Endoscopists with Different Experiences. Clin Endosc. 2017 Jul;50(4):379–387. doi: 10.5946/ce.2016.058

11. Shahini E, Passera R, Lo Secco G, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection vs endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal sessile/non-polypoid lesions. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2022 Aug;31(6):835–847. doi: 10.1080/ 13645706.2022.2032759 Epub 2022 Feb 3. PMID: 35112654.

12. Lee Eun-Jung, Lee Jae Bum, Lee Suk Hee, et al. Endoscopic treatment of large colorectal tumors: comparison of endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic mucosal resection–precutting, and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Surgical Endoscopy. 2012;26(8):2220–2230. doi: 10.1007/s00464-012-2164-0

13. René Lambert, Shin ei Kudo, Michael Vieth, et al. Pragmatic classification of superficial neoplastic colorectal lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Dec;70(6):1182–99. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.09.015

14. Lambert R, et al. Update on the Paris Classification of Superficial Neoplastic Lesions in the Digestive Tract. Endoscopy. 2005;37(6):570–578. doi: 10.1055/s-2005-861352

15. Kudo S, Rubio CA, Teixeira CR, et al. Pit pattern in colorectal neoplasia: endoscopic magnifying view. Endoscopy. 2001;33(4):367– 373. doi: 10.1055/s-2004-826104

16. Sano Y, Ikematsu H, Fu KI, et al. Meshed capillary vessels by use of narrow-band imaging for differential diagnosis of small colorectal polyps. Gastrointestinal Endosc. 2009;69:278–283. doi: 10.1016/j. gie.2008.04.066

17. Kimura T, Yamamoto E, Yamano HO. A novel pit pattern identifies the precursor of colorectal cancer derived from sessile serrated adenoma. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(3):460–469. doi: 10.1038/ ajg.2011.457

18. Kato H, Haga S, Endo S, et al. Lifting of Lesions During Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) of Early Colorectal Cancer: Implications for the Assessment of Resectability. Endoscopy. 2001 Jul;33(7):568–73. doi: 10.1055/s-2001-15308

19. Burgess NG, Bassan Milan S, McLeod, et al. Deep mural injury and perforation after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection: a new classification and analysis of risk factors. Gut. 2017 Oct;66(10):1779– 1789. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309848

20. Hassan C, Antonelli G, Dumonceau JM, et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline — Update 2020. Endoscopy. 2020 Aug;52(8):687–700. doi: 10.1055/a-1185-3109 Epub 2020 Jun 22. PMID: 32572858.

21. Pimentel-Nunes P, Libânio D, Bastiaansen BAJ, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal lesions: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline — Update 2022. Endoscopy. 2022 Jun;54(6):591–622. doi: 10.1055/a1811-7025 Epub 2022 May 6. PMID: 35523224.

22. Bae JH, Yang DH, Lee S, et al. Optimized hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Mar;83(3):584–92. doi: 10.1016/j. gie.2015.06.057 Epub 2015 Aug 28. PMID: 26320696.

23. Fuccio L, Hassan C, Ponchon T, et al. Clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Jul;86(1):74–86.e17. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.02.024 Epub 2017 Feb 28. PMID: 28254526.

24. Kim YJ, Kim ES, Cho KB, et al. Comparison of clinical outcomes among different endoscopic resection methods for treating colorectal neoplasia. Dig Dis Sci. 2013 Jun;58(6):1727–36. doi: 10.1007/ s10620-013-2560-x Epub 2013 Feb 6. PMID: 23385636.

25. Belderbos TD, Leenders M, Moons LM, et al. Local recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2014 May;46(5):388–402. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1364970 Epub 2014 Mar 26. PMID: 24671869.