摘要
BACKGROUND The optimal method to remove sessile colorectal lesions sized 10-20 mm remains uncertain.Piecemeal and incomplete resection are major limitations in current practice,such as endoscopic mucosal resection(EMR)and cold or hot snare polypectomy.Recently,EMR with circumferential precutting(EMR-P)has emerged as an effective technique,but the quality of current evidence in comparative studies of conventional EMR(CEMR)and EMR-P is limited.AIM To investigate whether EMR-P is superior to CEMR in removing sessile colorectal polyps.METHODS This multicenter randomized controlled trial involved seven medical institutions in China.Patients with colorectal polyps sized 10-20 mm were enrolled and randomly assigned to undergo EMR-P or CEMR.EMR-P was performed following submucosal injection,and a circumferential mucosa incision(precutting)was conducted using a snare tip.Primary outcomes included a comparison of the rates of en bloc and R0 resection,defined as one-piece resection and one-piece resection with histologically assessed clear margins,respectively.RESULTS A total of 110 patients in the EMR-P group and 110 patients in the CEMR group were finally evaluated.In the per-protocol analysis,the proportion of en bloc resections was 94.3%[95%confidence interval(CI):88.2%-97.4%]in the EMR-P group and 86%(95%CI:78.2%-91.3%)in the CEMR group(P=0.041),while subgroup analysis showed that for lesions>15 mm,EMR-P also resulted in a higher en bloc resection rate(92.0%vs 58.8%P=0.029).The proportion of R0 resections was 81.1%(95%CI:72.6%-87.4%)in the EMR-P group and 76.6%(95%CI:68.8%-84.4%)in the CEMR group(P=0.521).The EMR-P group showed a longer median procedure time(6.4 vs 3.0 min;P<0.001).No significant difference was found in the proportion of patients with adverse events(EMR-P:9.1%;CEMR:6.4%;P=0.449).CONCLUSION In this study,EMR-P served as an alternative to CEMR for removing nonpedunculated colorectal polyps sized 10-20 mm,particularly polyps>15 mm in diameter,with higher R0 and en bloc resection rates and without increasing adverse events.However,EMR-P required a relatively longer procedure time than CEMR.Considering its potential benefits for en bloc and R0 resection,EMR-P may be a promising technique in colorectal polyp resection.
基金
the Institutional Review Board of First Affiliated Hospital,School of Medicine,Zhejiang University(No.20191477)
Ningbo First Hospital,Zhejiang(No.2020-R013)and other participating institutions.