High complete resection rate for pre-lift and cold biopsy of diminutive colorectal polyps

Abstract

Background and study aims The majority of polyps removed at colonoscopy are diminutive (≤ 5 mm) to small (< 10 mm) and there are few guidelines for the best way for these polyps to be removed. We aimed to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of cold biopsy forceps polypectomy with pre-lift (CBPP) for polyps ≤ 7 mm. Our aims were to assess completeness of histological resection of this technique, to identify factors contributing to this and assess secondary considerations such as timing, retrieval and complication rates.

Patients and methods We conducted a prospective cohort study on consecutive patients receiving a colonoscopy at Cheltenham General Hospital, as part of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (BCSP) in England. The study included only polyps that were judged as ≤ 7 mm by the colonoscopist. A small sub-mucosal pre-lift injection was administered prior to removal of the polyp using cold biopsy forceps. One or more biopsies were taken until the polyp was confidently assessed visually as being completely removed by the colonoscopist. The entire polypectomy site was then removed en bloc by endomucosal resection (EMR) with a margin of at least 1 to 2 mm around defect. This was sent for histopathological analysis to assess completeness of resection. Polypectomy timing, tissue retrieval, number of bites required for visual resection and complications were recorded at the time of the procedure.

Results Sixty-four patients were recruited and consented. Of them, 42 patients had a total of 60 polyps resected. Three patients had inflammatory polyps and were excluded from the study, leaving 57/60 polyps for final analysis. Seventeen were hyperplastic and 40 adenomatous polyps. Retrieval was complete for all 57 polyps and there were no complications both during or post- polypectomy. The complete resection rate (CRR) was 86 %. The technique was more effective in smaller polyps with 91.7 % of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm) completely excised.

Conclusions CBPP is a safe and highly effective technique for polyps < 5 mm with a high complete resection and retrieval rate. The time taken for the procedure is significantly greater than cold forceps alone, or cold snare as seen in other studies.

• References

• 1 Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN. et al. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 1993; 329: 1977-1981
• 2 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, OʼBrien MJ. et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687-696
• 3 Atkin WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I. et al. Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010; 375: 1624-1633
• 4 Farrar WD, Sawhney MS, Nelson DB. et al. Colorectal cancers found after a complete colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 4: 1259-1264
• 5 Martinez ME, Baron JA, Lieberman DA. et al. A pooled analysis of advanced colorectal neoplasia diagnoses after colonoscopic polypectomy. Gastroenterology 2009; 136: 832-841
• 6 Pabby A, Schoen RE, Weissfeld JL. et al. Analysis of colorectal cancer occurrence during surveillance colonoscopy in the dietary Polyp Prevention Trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 385-391
• 7 Leung K, Pinsky P, Laiyemo AO. et al. Ongoing colorectal cancer risk despite surveillance colonoscopy: the Polyp Prevention Trial Continued Follow-up Study. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 111-117
• 8 Chandran S, Parker F, Vaughan R. et al. The current practice standard for colonoscopy in Australia. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 473-479
• 9 Singh N, Harrison M, Rex DK. A survey of colonoscopic polypectomy practices among clinical gastroenterologists. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 414-418
• 10 Lee CK, Shim JJ, Jang JY. Cold snare polypectomy vs. Cold forceps polypectomy using double-biopsy technique for removal of diminutive colorectal polyps: a prospective randomized study. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 1593-1600
• 11 Jung YS, Park JH, Kim HJ. et al. Complete biopsy resection of diminutive polyps. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 1024-1029
• 12 Park SK, Ko BM, Han JP. et al. A prospective randomized comparative study of cold forceps polypectomy by using narrow-band imaging endoscopy versus cold snare polypectomy in patients with diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 527-532
• 13 Efthymiou M, Taylor AC, Desmond PV. et al. Biopsy forceps is inadequate for the resection of diminutive polyps. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 312-316
• 14 Raad D, Tripathi P, Cooper G. et al. Role of the cold biopsy technique in diminutive and small colonic polyp removal: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 508-515
• 15 Church JM. Clinical significance of small colorectal polyps. Dis Colon Rectum 2004; 47: 481-485
• 16 Gupta N, Bansal A, Rao D. et al. Prevalence of advanced histological features in diminutive and small colon polyps. Gastrointest Endoscop 2012; 75: 1022-1030
• 17 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
• 18 Tsai FC, Strum WB. Prevalence of advanced adenomas in small and diminutive colon polyps using direct measurement of size. Digest Dis Scie 2011; 56: 2384-2388
• 19 Repici A, Hassan C, Vitetta E. et al. Safety of cold polypectomy for <10mm polyps at colonoscopy: a prospective multicenter study. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 27-31
• 20 Steele RJ, Pox C, Kuipers EJ. et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First Edition--Management of lesions detected in colorectal cancer screening. Endoscopy 2012; 44 (Suppl. 03) SE140-150
• 21 on Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M. et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 2007; 335: 806-808
• 22 Ichise Y, Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y. et al. Prospective randomized comparison of cold snare polypectomy and conventional polypectomy for small colorectal polyps. Digestion 2011; 84: 78-81
• 23 Deenadayalu VP, Rex DK. Colon polyp retrieval after cold snaring. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 253-256
• 24 Komeda Y, Suzuki N, Sarah M. et al. Factors associated with failed polyp retrieval at screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 395-400
• 25 Buchner AM, Guarner-Argente C, Ginsberg GG. Outcomes of EMR of defiant colorectal lesions directed to an endoscopy referral center. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 255-263
• 26 Church JM. Experience in the endoscopic management of large colonic polyps. ANZ J Surg 2003; 73: 988-995
• 27 Ferrara F, Luigiano C, Ghersi S. et al. Efficacy, safety and outcomes of ‛inject and cut’ endoscopic mucosal resection for large sessile and flat colorectal polyps. Digestion 2010; 82: 213-220
• 28 Moss A, Bourke MJ, Williams SJ. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection outcomes and prediction of submucosal cancer from advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 1909-1918