Open Access
CC BY 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2025; 13: a24798672
DOI: 10.1055/a-2479-8672
Original article

Endoscopic mucosal resection defect inspection for predicting recurrences: International image-based survey

Authors

  • Gijs Kemper

    1   Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboudumc, NIJMEGEN, Netherlands (Ringgold ID: RIN6034)
  • Ramon-Michel Schreuder

    2   Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Catharina Ziekenhuis, Eindhoven, Netherlands (Ringgold ID: RIN3168)
  • R. W.M. Schrauwen

    3   Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Bernhoven Hospital Location Uden, Uden, Netherlands (Ringgold ID: RIN97772)
  • Jochim S. Terhaar sive Droste

    4   Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Den Bosch, Netherlands (Ringgold ID: RIN10233)
  • Peter Siersema

    5   Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands (Ringgold ID: RIN6993)
  • Erwin-Jan M. van Geenen

    1   Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboudumc, NIJMEGEN, Netherlands (Ringgold ID: RIN6034)
Preview

Abstract

Background and study aims Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a safe and minimally invasive procedure to remove colorectal non-pedunculated polyps. Recurrence rates are relatively high and differ among endoscopists. We aimed to evaluate whether endoscopists are able to predict recurrence based on thorough inspection of images of mucosal defects after an assumed complete EMR.

Methods We developed an online survey in which endoscopists were invited to indicate whether they expected recurrence to develop when inspecting 30 post-EMR defect images. All EMRs were considered to be complete resections by the performing endoscopist. Participating endoscopists were scored based on the number of correct answers regarding presence or absence of recurrence found at first surveillance colonoscopy.

Results A total of 140 endoscopists responded to the survey (response rate 25%). A total of 124 respondents with a mean age of 46.5 years evaluated the 30 images. The overall score in the cohort was 70%, indicating that respondents were able to correctly predict recurrence in three-quarters of cases with an overall level of certainty of 53.4%. When comparing results of experienced and less experienced endoscopists based on the number of endoscopic submucosal dissections and/or EMRs performed yearly, no difference (71% versus 69%, P = 0.23) was found.

Conclusions This study shows that recurrences after presumed complete EMR can reasonably well be predicted by both experienced and less experienced endoscopists when evaluating images with mucosal defects. Thorough inspection of the post-EMR defect may reduce recurrence rates by recognizing and subsequent treatment of suspect areas.



Publication History

Received: 13 May 2024

Accepted after revision: 11 November 2024

Article published online:
07 January 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

Bibliographical Record
Gijs Kemper, Ramon-Michel Schreuder, R. W.M. Schrauwen, Jochim S. Terhaar sive Droste, Peter Siersema, Erwin-Jan M. van Geenen. Endoscopic mucosal resection defect inspection for predicting recurrences: International image-based survey. Endosc Int Open 2025; 13: a24798672.
DOI: 10.1055/a-2479-8672
 
  • References

  • 1 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
  • 2 Belderbos TD, Leenders M, Moons LMG. et al. Local recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 388-402
  • 3 Kemper G, Turan AS, Schoon EJ. et al. Endoscopic techniques to reduce recurrence rates after colorectal EMR: systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2021; 35: 5422-5429
  • 4 Pohl H, Srivastava A, Bensen SP. et al. Incomplete polyp resection during colonoscopy-results of the complete adenoma resection (CARE) study. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 74-80 e1
  • 5 Klein A, Tate DJ, Jayasekeran V. et al. Thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins reduces adenoma recurrence after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection. Gastroenterology 2019; 156: 604-613 e3
  • 6 Tanaka S, Kashida H, Saito Y. et al. Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society guidelines for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection. Dig Endosc 2020; 32: 219-239
  • 7 Shahidi N, Vosko S, Gupta S. et al. Previously attempted large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps are effectively managed by endoscopic mucosal resection. Am J Gastroenterol 2021; 116: 958-966
  • 8 Dhillon AS, Ravindran S, Thomas-Gibson S. Recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection: there's more to it than meets the eye. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 94: 376-378
  • 9 Emmanuel A, Williams S, Gulari S. et al. Incidence of microscopic residual adenoma after complete wide-field endoscopic resection of large colorectal lesions: evidence for a mechanism of recurrence. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 94: 368-375
  • 10 Inoue T, Fujii H, Koyama F. et al. Intraluminal lavage to remove exfoliated tumor cells after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Surg Endosc 2016; 30: 2773-2778
  • 11 Kandel P, Werlang ME, Ahn IR. et al. Prophylactic snare tip soft coagulation and its impact on adenoma recurrence after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection. Dig Dis Sci 2019; 64: 3300-3306
  • 12 Sidhu M, Shahidi N, Gupta S. et al. 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 2021; 161: 163-170 e3