Cold EMR Vs Standard EMR for the Treatment of Large Nonpedunculated Homogeneous Colorectal Lesions

Colorectal Neoplasms Clinical Trial

Official title:

Cold EMR Vs Standard EMR for the Treatment of Large Nonpedunculated Homogeneous Colorectal Lesions.Randomized and Multicentric Clinical Trial

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT04418843
• Other study ID #: RMEFRÍA.2019
• Status: Completed
• Phase: N/A
• Start date: June 8, 2020
• Est. completion date: March 31, 2023

Study information

• Verified date: September 2023
• Source: Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañon
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial Summary

This study compares the effectiveness in complete resection (absence of recurrence at 6 months) the two different techniques for performing endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of nonpedunculated homogeneous colorectal lesions >20mm

Description:

Colonoscopy is the reference diagnostic test for the study of colon diseases. This procedure also allows the realization of endoscopic therapeutics techniques; thus, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an effective and safe therapy for the treatment of premalignant and early malignant colorectal lesions of the colon and its use is universal. Usually, colon lesions larger than 10 mm (or pedunculated of any size) require for resection the use of electrocoagulation current (or hot snare polypectomy) and thus is reflected in the most recent clinical practice guidelines (ESGE guidelines, for example). However, the risk of side adverse effects from the use of electrocoagulation is not insignificant and includes post-polypectomy bleeding, post-polypectomy syndrome, post-polypectomy fever and/or immediate or delayed perforation. This risk of complications is higher depending on the characteristics and size of colorectal lesions resected. On the other hand, currently in small lesions not pedunculated (< 10 mm), it is recommended to use cold snare polypectomy according to ESGE clinical guidelines, as it has been seen in previous studies that this reduces complication rates without varying the effectiveness in resection. However, in lesions > 10 mm the previous experience with cold snare resection is less, probably motivated by the possible drawbacks in terms of the possible difficulty of resection of thick tissue with cold snare and a possible increased intra-procedure hemorrhagic risk that can make it difficult to see the scar, with the possibility of leaving residual tissue. However, in recent years the accumulated evidence gathered in various studies and grouped in a recent systematic review suggests that endoscopic mucosal resection with cold snare (Cold-EMR) may be safer than electrocoagulation resection for both 10-19mm lesions and for lesions >20 mm, associated with a lower rate of adverse effects with similar efficacy rates in terms of complete resection and adenomatous recurrence rate. Still, evidence for the treatment of nonpedunculated lesions >20 mm is relatively limited and is not based on randomized comparative studies with the standard EMR technique.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 229
• Est. completion date: March 31, 2023
• Est. primary completion date: December 31, 2022
• Accepts healthy volunteers: Accepts Healthy Volunteers
• Gender: All
• Age group: 18 Years and older

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• Patients of age > 18 years undergoing a colonoscopy for any reason of request and who do not meet exclusion criteria.
• Nonpedunculated homogeneous colorectal lesions type LST ( Paris 0-IIa morphology) and serrated lesions larger than 20 mm without endoscopic data of malignancy: NICE 1 pattern +/- NICE 2 component ( serrated lesions) or NICE2 pattern/JNET 2A (adenomas) and therefore subsidiaries of RME. Randomization will be performed per patient, not for colorectal lesions
• Signature of informed consent of endoscopic exploration

Exclusion Criteria:

• .No signature of informed consent prior to the study procedure.
• Absence of proper suspension of the anticoagulant/antiplatelet therapy prior to procedure according to usual pre-procedure recommendations (BSG and ESGE guidelines)
• Patients with severe thrombopenia/ coagulopathy (Platelets < 50,000/INR > 1.5) not corrected prior to procedure (plasma or platelet transfusion)
• Patients not candidates for endoscopic resection of colorectal lesions by comorbidities.
• Pregnant.
• Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)
• Urgent colonoscopy.
• Poor preparation (BBPS <2 in the colon segment where the lesion is located)
• Laterally spreading tumors (LST) lesions with non-homogeneous morphology including:

sessile polyps (0-Is), pedunculated (0-Ip) and LST lesions with depressed or excavated components (Paris 0-IIc or Paris 0-III), LST granular nodular mixed, LST-G with whole nodular type. In case of doubt depressed component (Paris 0-IIc) or histological borderline lesion (JNET2B), will be excluded from the study.

• Histological prediction of deep invasive or non-subsidiary to endoscopic mucosal resection lesion as a treatment of choice: NICE 3 pattern by inspection with NBI or Kudo V pattern in traditional/electronic chromoendoscopy or Sano IIIA/IIIB pattern
• Endoscopic resection of post-EMR scar level relapses

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Adenoma
• Adenoma Colon
• Colorectal Neoplasms
• Serrated Adenoma
• Serrated Polyp

Intervention

Procedure:
• Standard Endoscopic Mucosal Resection
Use of injected colloidal or saline solution to raise a lesion prior to polypectomy snare closed over a polyp with electrocautery
• Cold Snare Endoscopic Mucosal Resection
Use of injected colloidal or saline solution to raise a lesion prior to polypectomy snare closed over a polyp without electrocautery

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
Spain	Óscar Nogales Rincón	Madrid

Sponsors (2)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
Oscar Nogales	Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy

Country where clinical trial is conducted

Spain, 

References & Publications (15)

Aslan F, Camci M, Alper E, Akpinar Z, Arabul M, Celik M, Unsal B. Cold snare polypectomy versus hot snare polypectomy in endoscopic treatment of small polyps. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2014 Jun;25(3):279-83. doi: 10.5152/tjg.2014.5085. — View Citation

Burgess NG, Bassan MS, McLeod D, Williams SJ, Byth K, Bourke MJ. 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. Epub 2016 Jul 27. — View Citation

Hirose R, Yoshida N, Murakami T, Ogiso K, Inada Y, Dohi O, Okayama T, Kamada K, Uchiyama K, Handa O, Ishikawa T, Konishi H, Naito Y, Fujita Y, Kishimoto M, Yanagisawa A, Itoh Y. Histopathological analysis of cold snare polypectomy and its indication for colorectal polyps 10-14 mm in diameter. Dig Endosc. 2017 Jul;29(5):594-601. doi: 10.1111/den.12825. Epub 2017 May 17. — View Citation

Horiuchi A, Nakayama Y, Kajiyama M, Tanaka N, Sano K, Graham DY. Removal of small colorectal polyps in anticoagulated patients: a prospective randomized comparison of cold snare and conventional polypectomy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Mar;79(3):417-23. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.08.040. Epub 2013 Oct 11. — View Citation

Keklikkiran C, Ozdogan OC. Thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins reduces adenoma recurrence after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2019 Jun;30(6):580-581. doi: 10.5152/tjg.2019.210519. No abstract available. — View Citation

Moss A, Williams SJ, Hourigan LF, Brown G, Tam W, Singh R, Zanati S, Burgess NG, Sonson R, Byth K, Bourke MJ. 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 Jan;64(1):57-65. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-305516. Epub 2014 Jul 1. — View Citation

Qu J, Jian H, Li L, Zhang Y, Feng B, Li Z, Zuo X. Effectiveness and safety of cold versus hot snare polypectomy: A meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Jan;34(1):49-58. doi: 10.1111/jgh.14464. Epub 2018 Sep 26. — View Citation

Rameshshanker R, Tsiamoulos Z, Latchford A, Moorghen M, Saunders BP. Resection of large sessile serrated polyps by cold piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection: Serrated COld Piecemeal Endoscopic mucosal resection (SCOPE). Endoscopy. 2018 Jul;50(7):E165-E167. doi: 10.1055/a-0599-0346. Epub 2018 May 9. No abstract available. — View Citation

Rex KD, Vemulapalli KC, Rex DK. Recurrence rates after EMR of large sessile serrated polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Sep;82(3):538-41. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.01.025. Epub 2015 Apr 4. — View Citation

Rodriguez Sanchez J, Sanchez Alonso M, Pellise Urquiza M. The "bubble sign": a novel way to detect a perforation after cold snare polypectomy. Endoscopy. 2019 Aug;51(8):796-797. doi: 10.1055/a-0881-2856. Epub 2019 May 9. No abstract available. — View Citation

Takayanagi D, Nemoto D, Isohata N, Endo S, Aizawa M, Utano K, Kumamoto K, Hojo H, Lefor AK, Togashi K. Histological Comparison of Cold versus Hot Snare Resections of the Colorectal Mucosa. Dis Colon Rectum. 2018 Aug;61(8):964-970. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000001109. — View Citation

Takeuchi Y, Yamashina T, Matsuura N, Ito T, Fujii M, Nagai K, Matsui F, Akasaka T, Hanaoka N, Higashino K, Iishi H, Ishihara R, Thorlacius H, Uedo N. Feasibility of cold snare polypectomy in Japan: A pilot study. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Nov 25;7(17):1250-6. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i17.1250. — View Citation

Tate DJ, Awadie H, Bahin FF, Desomer L, Lee R, Heitman SJ, Goodrick K, Bourke MJ. Wide-field piecemeal cold snare polypectomy of large sessile serrated polyps without a submucosal injection is safe. Endoscopy. 2018 Mar;50(3):248-252. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-121219. Epub 2017 Nov 23. — View Citation

Thoguluva Chandrasekar V, Spadaccini M, Aziz M, Maselli R, Hassan S, Fuccio L, Duvvuri A, Frazzoni L, Desai M, Fugazza A, Jegadeesan R, Colombo M, Dasari CS, Hassan C, Sharma P, Repici A. Cold snare endoscopic resection of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps larger than 10 mm: a systematic review and pooled-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 May;89(5):929-936.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.12.022. Epub 2019 Jan 9. — View Citation

Veitch AM, Vanbiervliet G, Gershlick AH, Boustiere C, Baglin TP, Smith LA, Radaelli F, Knight E, Gralnek IM, Hassan C, Dumonceau JM. Endoscopy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy, including direct oral anticoagulants: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines. Endoscopy. 2016 Apr;48(4):c1. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-122686. Epub 2017 Jan 23. No abstract available. — View Citation

* Note: There are 15 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Complete resection of the lesion	Complete resection of the lesion is defined as the non-visualization by the endoscopist of a residual lesion in the mucosal defect and its edge at the end of the EMR and no visualization of recurrence in the post-EMR scar on the first surveillance colonoscopy and absence of recurrence data in scar biopsies	3-6 months
Secondary	Security profile	Security profile is defined as the observed percentage of complications (Intra-procedure bleeding, deferred bleeding, deferred bleeding in antiplatelet and/or anticoagulated patients,post-polypectomy fever, post-polypectomy syndrome, deep muscle damage and perforation) in each of the evaluated techniques.	30 days
Secondary	Late adenoma recurrence rate	Late adenoma recurrence rate as determined by endoscopic assessment (no visible recurrent adenoma) and histological assessment (scar biopsies) in surveillance colonoscopy at 18 months of the procedure	18 months
Secondary	Number of fragments needed to complete the resection	Number of fragments needed to resect with polypectomy snare to complete the resection of the colorectal lesion.	1 day
Secondary	Resection time	Time needed to perform endoscopic mucosal resection measured from first snare positioning until complete resection is achieved based on endoscopic assessment.	1 day
Secondary	Bloc resection rate	Number of lesions that have undergone resection in a single fragment with each of these evaluated techniques.	1
Secondary	R0 resection rate	Number of lesions with complete macroscopic resection with a negative microscopic margin in the mucosectomy specimen	1 day
Secondary	EMR technique conversion rate	Number of lesions to be finally resected with the other arm of study technique not initially assigned	1 day
Secondary	Need for additional treatments to complete the resection.	Number of lesions that cannot be completely resected with the assigned EMR technique, requiring different techniques to complete the resection, such as SOFT coagulation with snare tip, APC (argon plasma coagulation), hot avulsion with hot biopsy forceps, biopsy forceps, biopsy forceps +ablation	1 day
Secondary	Number of clips used	Number of clip used for hemostatic purposes or for the prophylactic closure of the injury	1 day
Secondary	Degree of artifact/interference in the histological interpretation	Subjective impression of the artifact in the histological interpretation of the resected sample (null, moderate, severe)	1 day
Secondary	Depth of the resected submucosa	Measure the depth of the resected submucosa layer (in microns) with each of the resection techniques used	1 day
Secondary	Percentage of mucosal muscle present in the mucosal protrusions in the resection defect of cold-EMR.	Assess the percentage of presence of mucosal muscle in biopsies performed on the protrusions present in the resection defect of cold-EMR	1 day
Secondary	Need for surgery for technical failure	Number of lesions that have to be finally resected by surgery due to technical impossibility for their endoscopic resection.	6 months
Secondary	Cost-effectiveness study.	evaluate the cost-effectiveness of each of the endoscopic mucosal resection techniques	18 months
Secondary	Sub-analysis by center participating in the study	A subanalysis of the study results by center will be carried out to rule out significant differences between them	18 months