Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
Colorectal cancer
Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection
Systematic review and meta-analysis
Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection
Journal
International journal of colorectal disease
ISSN: 1432-1262
Titre abrégé: Int J Colorectal Dis
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8607899
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Aug 2023
08 Aug 2023
Historique:
accepted:
29
07
2023
medline:
9
8
2023
pubmed:
8
8
2023
entrez:
8
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) is the established method for the resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRL) ≥ 10 mm. In the last decade, underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has been introduced as a potential alternative. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to compare the recurrence and safety of UEMR and CEMR by analyzing only randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE until April 2023. Studies met the following inclusion criteria: (1) RCTs, (2) comparing UEMR with CEMR, (3) NPCRL ≥ 10 mm, and (4) reporting the outcomes of interest. Primary outcomes were recurrence and safety. Secondary outcomes were en bloc, R0, complete resection, clipping and adverse events per type. Five RCTs were included. UEMR was associated with a lower recurrence rate (OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.32-0.97). Thus, the RR of recurrence was 1.7 times higher in the CEMR group (95% CI, 1.04-2.77). There was no significant difference in the pooled safety analysis. UEMR showed better en bloc resection rates (OR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.15-2.07), but subgroup analysis showed comparable rates in lesions ≥ 20 mm. R0 resection was higher in UEMR (OR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.23-2.41). Other outcomes were not different between the 2 groups. UEMR is as safe as CEMR, with a higher overall R0 rate and a higher en bloc resection rate for lesions < 20 mm, leading to a lower overall recurrence rate. The results of this meta-analysis support the widespread use of UEMR.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND & AIMS
OBJECTIVE
Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) is the established method for the resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRL) ≥ 10 mm. In the last decade, underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has been introduced as a potential alternative. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to compare the recurrence and safety of UEMR and CEMR by analyzing only randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE until April 2023. Studies met the following inclusion criteria: (1) RCTs, (2) comparing UEMR with CEMR, (3) NPCRL ≥ 10 mm, and (4) reporting the outcomes of interest. Primary outcomes were recurrence and safety. Secondary outcomes were en bloc, R0, complete resection, clipping and adverse events per type.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Five RCTs were included. UEMR was associated with a lower recurrence rate (OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.32-0.97). Thus, the RR of recurrence was 1.7 times higher in the CEMR group (95% CI, 1.04-2.77). There was no significant difference in the pooled safety analysis. UEMR showed better en bloc resection rates (OR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.15-2.07), but subgroup analysis showed comparable rates in lesions ≥ 20 mm. R0 resection was higher in UEMR (OR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.23-2.41). Other outcomes were not different between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
UEMR is as safe as CEMR, with a higher overall R0 rate and a higher en bloc resection rate for lesions < 20 mm, leading to a lower overall recurrence rate. The results of this meta-analysis support the widespread use of UEMR.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37552342
doi: 10.1007/s00384-023-04505-7
pii: 10.1007/s00384-023-04505-7
doi:
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
208Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Choi AY, Moosvi ZM, Shah S, Roccato MK, Wang AY, Hamerski CM et al (2021) Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 93(2):378–389
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.10.009
pubmed: 33068608
Nett A, Binmoeller K (2019) Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am [Internet] 29(4):659–73. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giec.2019.05.004
Nagl S, Ebigbo A, Goelder SK, Roemmele C, Neuhaus L, Weber T et al (2021) Underwater vs Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Sessile or Flat Colorectal Polyps: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial. Gastroenterology [Internet] 161(5):1460–1474.e1. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2021.07.044
Lenz L, Maluf-Filho F (2023) Response To Khan et al.: Nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: underwater or conventional EMR? Gastrointest Endosc 97(4):813
Yamashina T, Uedo N, Akasaka T, Iwatsubo T, Nakatani Y, Akamatsu T et al (2019) Comparison of Underwater vs Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Intermediate-Size Colorectal Polyps. Gastroenterology [Internet] 157(2):451–461.e2. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2019.04.005
Binmoeller KF, Weilert F, Shah J, Bhat Y, Kane S (2012) Underwater EMR without submucosal injection for large sessile colorectal polyps ( with video ). YMGE [Internet] 75(5):1086–91. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2011.12.022
Lenz L, Martins B, Andrade de Paulo G, Kawaguti FS, Baba ER, Uemura RS et al (2023) Underwater versus conventional EMR for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a randomized clinical trial. Gastrointest Endosc [Internet] 97(3):549–58. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2022.10.033
Rodríguez Sánchez J, Alvarez-Gonzalez MA, Pellisé M, Coto-Ugarte D, Uchima H, Aranda-Hernández J et al (2023) Underwater versus conventional EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc [Internet] 97(5):941–51. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2022.12.013
Yen AW, Leung JW, Wilson MD, Leung FW (2019) Underwater versus conventional endoscopic resection of nondiminutive nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a prospective randomized controlled trial (with video). Gastrointest Endosc [Internet]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2019.09.039
Lenz L, Martins B, Kawaguti FS, Tellian A, Pennachi CMPS, Sorbello M et al (2020) Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions. A prospective single-arm study Arq Gastroenterol 57(2):193–197
Coutinho LMA, Lenz L, Kawaguti FS, Martins BC, Baba E, Gusmon C et al (2021) Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors. Arq Gastroenterol 58(2):210–213
doi: 10.1590/s0004-2803.202100000-37
pubmed: 34133614
Chaves D, Brito HP, Chaves LT, Rodrigues RA, Sugai BM (2018) Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of serrated adenomas. Clinics 73:e339
doi: 10.6061/clinics/2018/e339
pubmed: 30304298
pmcid: 6152183
Kamal F, Khan MA, Lee-Smith W, Khan Z, Sharma S, Tombazzi C et al (2020) Underwater vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection in the management of colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open 08(10):E1264–E1272
doi: 10.1055/a-1214-5692
Garg R, Singh A, Aggarwal M, Bhalla J, Mohan BP, Burke C et al (2021) Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for 10 mm or larger nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Endosc 54(3):379–389
doi: 10.5946/ce.2020.276
pubmed: 33910271
pmcid: 8182235
Ni DQ, Lu YP, Liu XQ, Gao LY, Huang X (2020) Underwater vs conventional endoscopic mucosal resection in treatment of colorectal polyps: A meta-analysis. World J Clin Cases 8(20):4688–5069
doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i20.4826
Chandan S, Khan SR, Kumar A, Mohan BP (2021) Efficacy and histologic accuracy of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large ( > 20 mm ) colorectal polyps : a comparative review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc [Internet] 94(3):471–482.e9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2020.12.034
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg 88(March)
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I et al (2019) RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 366:1–8
Belderbos TDG, Leenders M, Moons LMG, Siersema PD (2014) Local recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 46(5):388–400
doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1364970
pubmed: 24671869
Lenz L, Maluf-Filho F (2023) Response To Xiu-He et al. Nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: underwater or conventional EMR? Gastrointest Endosc 97(4):812
Kawamura T, Sakai H, Ogawa T, Sakiyama N, Ueda Y, Shirakawa A et al (2018) Feasibility of Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Colorectal Lesions: A Single Center Study in Japan. Orig Artic Gastroenterol Res [Internet] 11(4):274–9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.14740/gr1021w
Siau K, Ishaq S, Cadoni S, Kuwai T, Yusuf A, Suzuki N (2018) Feasibility and outcomes of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for ≥ 10 mm colorectal polyps. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech [Internet] 32(6):2656–63. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5960-8
Binmoeller KF (2019) Underwater EMR without submucosal injection: Is less more? Gastrointest Endosc 89(6):1117–1119
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.02.011
pubmed: 31104744
Nomura H, Tsuji S, Utsunomiya M, Kawasaki A, Tsuji K, Yoshida N et al (2022) Resection depth and layer of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection of intermediate-sized colorectal polyps: A pilot study. Endosc Int Open 10(08):E1037–E1044
doi: 10.1055/a-1864-6452
pubmed: 35979030
pmcid: 9377830
Chien H-C, Uedo N, Hsieh P-H (2019) Comparison of underwater and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for removing sessile colorectal polyps: a propensity-score matched cohort study. Endosc Int Open 07(11):E1528–E1536
doi: 10.1055/a-1007-1578
Ponugoti PL, Rex DK (2016) Perforation during underwater EMR. Gastrointest Endosc [Internet] 84(3):543–4. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2016.01.021
Paccos JL, De Oliveira DS, De Oliveira FJS, Pereira Junior EMA, Mota FL, Da Silva MMC et al (2020) Perforation and bleeding during an underwater endoscopic mucosal resection of a large colonic lesion. Endoscopy 53(9):E326-327
pubmed: 33096573
Takada K, Hotta K, Imai K, Ito S, Kishida Y, Minamide T et al (2022) Tip-in EMR as an alternative to endoscopic submucosal dissection for 20- to 30-mm nonpedunculated colorectal neoplasms. Gastrointest Endosc [Internet] 96(5):849–856.e3. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2022.06.030
Yang D, Draganov P V., King W, Liu N, Sarheed A, Bhat A et al (2022) Margin marking before colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection and its impact on neoplasia recurrence (with video). Gastrointest Endosc [Internet] 95(5):956–65. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2021.11.023
Sidhu M, Shahidi N, Gupta S, Desomer L, Vosko S, Arnout van Hattem W et al (2021) Outcomes of Thermal Ablation of the Mucosal Defect Margin After Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: A Prospective, International, Multicenter Trial of 1000 Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps. Gastroenterology [Internet] 161(1):163–170.e3. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2021.03.044
Conio M, Manta R, Filiberti RA, Baron TH, Pasquale L, Marini M et al (2022) Cap-assisted EMR versus standard inject and cut EMR for treatment of large colonic laterally spreading tumors: a randomized multicenter study (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc [Internet] 96(5):829–839.e1. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2022.06.002
Pohl H, Srivastava A, Bensen SP, Anderson P, Rothstein RI, Gordon SR et al (2013) Incomplete polyp resection during colonoscopy - Results of the complete adenoma resection (CARE) study. Gastroenterology [Internet] 144(1):74–80.e1. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2012.09.043