Optical assessment of scars after endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal polyps in a multicenter, community hospital setting: is routine biopsy still necessary?

Abstract

Background Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) is succeeded by a 6-month surveillance endoscopy to evaluate the post-EMR scar for recurrence. Data from expert centers suggest that routine tattoo placement and scar biopsies can be omitted, but data from community hospitals are lacking.

Methods The agreement between optical assessment and histological confirmation by routine biopsies was evaluated in a post-hoc analysis of the STAR-LNPCP study (NTR7477), containing prospective data on 6-month post-EMR scar assessments in 30 Dutch community hospitals (October 2019 to May 2022). A standardized protocol was followed for documentation of optical characteristics, imaging, and biopsy of the post-EMR scar.

Results In 1277 post-EMR scar assessments, identification of the scar was achieved in 1215/1277 (95 %). Tattoo placement did not influence scar identification. Scar biopsy was performed in 1050/1215 cases (86 %). Recurrences were seen in 200/1050 cases (19 %). There was good agreement between optical assessment of recurrence and histological confirmation (Cohen’s kappa 0.78 [95 %CI 0.73–0.83]). The negative and positive predictive values were 98 % (95 %CI 97 %–99 %) and 74 % (95 %CI 68 %–80 %), respectively. A higher false-positive rate was seen after prior use of clips (11 % vs. 5 %; P = 0.02). Dedicated endoscopists identified the scar more often (96 % vs. 88 %; P < 0.001), and showed a lower optical recurrence miss rate (1 % vs. 3 %; P = 0.11) compared with nondedicated endoscopists.

Conclusion Based on this multicenter community hospital study, routine tattoo placement and scar biopsies of the post-EMR scar can be omitted. Assessment of post-EMR scars by dedicated endoscopists is advised.

Publication History

Received: 07 December 2024

Accepted after revision: 09 December 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
09 December 2024

Article published online:
28 January 2025

• References

• 1 Hassan C, Antonelli G, Dumonceau JM. et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2020. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 687-700
• 2 Kaltenbach T, Anderson JC, Burke CA. et al. Endoscopic removal of colorectal lesions-recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 1095-129
• 3 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; 46: 388-402
• 4 Ferlitsch M, Moss A, Hassan C. et al. Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 270-297
• 5 Desomer L, Tutticci N, Tate DJ. et al. A standardized imaging protocol is accurate in detecting recurrence after EMR. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 518-526
• 6 Kandel P, Brand EC, Pelt J. et al. Endoscopic scar assessment after colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection scars: when is biopsy necessary (EMR Scar Assessment Project for Endoscope (ESCAPE) trial). Gut 2019; 68: 1633-1641
• 7 Shahidi N, Gupta S, Whitfield A. et al. Simple optical evaluation criteria reliably identify the post-endoscopic mucosal resection scar for benign large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps without tattoo placement. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 173-177
• 8 Meulen LWT, van der Zander QEW, Bogie RMM. et al. Evaluation of polypectomy quality indicators of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps in a nonexpert, bowel cancer screening cohort. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 94: 1085-1095.e2
• 9 Meulen LWT, Bogie RMM, Siersema PD. et al. Standardised training for endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps to reduce recurrence (*STAR-LNPCP study): a multicentre cluster randomised trial. Gut 2024; 73: 741-750
• 10 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33: 159-174
• 11 Medina-Prado L, Hassan C, Dekker E. et al. When and how to use endoscopic tattooing in the colon: an international Delphi agreement. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 19: 1038-1050
• 12 Knabe M, Pohl J, Gerges C. et al. Standardized long-term follow-up after endoscopic resection of large, nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a prospective two-center study. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 183-189
• 13 Pellise M, Desomer L, Burgess NG. et al. The influence of clips on scars after EMR: clip artifact. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 608-616
• 14 Sreepati G, Vemulapalli KC, Rex DK. Clip artifact after closure of large colorectal EMR sites: incidence and recognition. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 344-349
• 15 Federatie Medisch Specialisten. Dutch Guideline: Polypectomy of the Rectum and Colon [in Dutch]. 2022 Available from (Accessed 23 December 2024): https://richtlijnendatabase.nl/richtlijn/poliepectomie_van_het_rectum_en_colon/startpagina_-_poliepectomie_van_het_rectum_en_colon.html
• 16 Joao M, Areia M, Pinto-Pais T. et al. Can white-light endoscopy or narrow-band imaging avoid biopsy of colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection scars? A multicenter randomized single-blind crossover trial. Endoscopy 2023; 55: 601-607
• 17 Burgess NG, Bourke MJ. Can we stop routine biopsy of post-endoscopic mucosal resection scars?. Endoscopy 2023; 55: 608-610
• 18 Moss A, Williams SJ, Hourigan LF. 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: 57-65