EMR-C VS EMR-S in Colonic Lateral Spreading Tumors Treatment (LST)
NCT ID: NCT03498664
Last Updated: 2019-01-11
Study Results
Results pending
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
UNKNOWN
Clinical Phase
NA
Total Enrollment
200 participants
Study Classification
INTERVENTIONAL
Study Start Date
2018-03-15
Study Completion Date
2019-09-15
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
"Lateral Spreading Tumors" (LSTs) are dysplastic lesions whose protrusion within the lumens the colon is not more than twice as compared to the surrounding non-dysplastic mucosa.
They can be divided into two groups:
Granular type (LST-G) and Non Granular type (LST-NG) Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are currently the most used techniques to resect this type of lesions. Compared to other methods of tissue ablation, EMR allows to carry out the histological evaluation of the resected fragments and ESD of the lesion in toto ("en bloc") EMR is currently the most used technique for removal of LST, but for lesions of ≥ 30 mm the resection is performed "piecemeal", i.e. fragmentary. This can compromise an adequate histological evaluation of the lateral and deep margins of the lesion.
Colonic EMR (EMR-S) is usually performed using a polypectomy snare, after lifting the lesion from the underlying layers with a submucosal injection of liquid (EMR standard or "inject-and-cut"). The aspiration of the lesion inside a plastic cap preloaded on the tip of the colonoscope ("cap-assisted EMR" - EMR-C) is almost exclusively used for the treatment of gastric and esophageal lesions. Its use for lesions of the colon and duodenum has been reported in limited experiences The principal aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of the EMR-C for the removal of large colonic LST-G and LST-NG, comparing it with EMR-S.
They can be divided into two groups:
Granular type (LST-G) and Non Granular type (LST-NG) Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are currently the most used techniques to resect this type of lesions. Compared to other methods of tissue ablation, EMR allows to carry out the histological evaluation of the resected fragments and ESD of the lesion in toto ("en bloc") EMR is currently the most used technique for removal of LST, but for lesions of ≥ 30 mm the resection is performed "piecemeal", i.e. fragmentary. This can compromise an adequate histological evaluation of the lateral and deep margins of the lesion.
Colonic EMR (EMR-S) is usually performed using a polypectomy snare, after lifting the lesion from the underlying layers with a submucosal injection of liquid (EMR standard or "inject-and-cut"). The aspiration of the lesion inside a plastic cap preloaded on the tip of the colonoscope ("cap-assisted EMR" - EMR-C) is almost exclusively used for the treatment of gastric and esophageal lesions. Its use for lesions of the colon and duodenum has been reported in limited experiences The principal aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of the EMR-C for the removal of large colonic LST-G and LST-NG, comparing it with EMR-S.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Full Thickness Resection or Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Difficult Colorectal Lesions.
NCT05502276
Colorectal Neoplasms
COMPLETED
NA
Endoscopic Treatment for Local Residual Neoplasia
NCT02386618
Colorectal Cancer
COMPLETED
NA
Recurrence Rate After Endoscopic Resection of , Laterally Spreading Tumor Granular Type (LST-G) of the Colon and Rectum: Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Vs. Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
NCT06815406
Colorectal Cancer
RECRUITING
NA
Endoscopic Treatment of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumor(NET) Less Than 10mm
NCT03982264
Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumor
UNKNOWN
NA
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Laterally Spreading Lesions.
NCT04593407
Neoplasms, Colorectal
RECRUITING
NA
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Colorectal carcinoma (CRC) is the second cause of death for cancer in industrialized countries, with annual incidence and mortality of about one million and 500.000 case respectively.
It's well known that most of CRC follow the path adenoma-carcinoma: early diagnosis and endoscopic removal of colonic polyps has been proved to be useful in preventing cancer.
Most of colorectal polyps are smaller than 1 cm and can be successfully resected with a standard polypectomy. However, between 0.8% and 5% of patients develop sessile polyps or lesions larger than 20 mm, of which removal can be difficult, requiring high endoscopic experience.
Recent prospective studies report that 7%-36% of CRC have a flat or depressed morphology and are more likely to infiltrate the submucosa compared with polypoid ones.
A univariate analysis has proved that the size of the lesion is the only significant risk factor associated with malignant evolution.
Contrary to sessile polyps (SP) that are protruding lesions without a peduncle and whose base has almost the same dimension of the head, "Lateral Spreading Tumors" (LSTs) are dysplastic lesions whose protrusion within the lumen is not more than twice as compared to the surrounding non-dysplastic mucosa. According to Kudo classification they are larger than 1 cm in size, slightly elevated and extending laterally along the intestinal wall.
They can be divided into two groups (according to Paris Classification, 2005, updated for the colon in Kyoto Classification 2008):
* Granular type (LST-G) characterized by nodular aggregates and sub-classified into homogeneous (0-IIa according to Paris Classification) and mixed nodular (0-IIa, 0-Is + IIa, 0-II+ Is) subtypes.
* Non Granular type (LST-NG) characterized by a non nodular surface and sub-classified into elevated (0-IIa) and pseudo-depressed (0-IIa + 0-IIc, 0-IIc +0- IIa) subtypes.
The risk of developing cancer is different between the two types (57.7% in LST-NG vs 32.7% in LST-G). LST-NG are more likely to invade the submucosa compared to LST-G (14% vs 7%). Within the LST-G group, lesions with a mixed nodular morphology have a greater tendency to infiltrate the submucosa compared to the homogeneous ones.
Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are currently the most used techniques to resect this type of lesions. Compared to other methods of tissue ablation, EMR allows to carry out the histological evaluation of the resected fragments and ESD of the lesion in toto ("en bloc").
EMR allows the resection of superficial neoplasia of gastro-intestinal tract (GI) confined to the mucosa, in the absence of vascular and/or lymphatic invasion.
ESD compared with EMR allows to remove "en bloc" lesions ≥20 mm in size. It should be preferred for lesions with higher risk of invasiveness or when the removal of the deepest layers or of the whole submucosa is desired, despite the size of the lesion. However, ESD is a complex procedure which requires a long training period and it is associated with higher risk of perforation compared with EMR (6.2% vs 1.3%). Furthermore, ESD requires a longer execution time.
Therefore, EMR is currently the most used technique for removal of LST, but for lesions of ≥ 30 mm the resection is performed "piecemeal", i.e. fragmentary. This can compromise an adequate histological evaluation of the lateral and deep margins of the lesion.
Piecemeal resection increases the risk of residual disease that ranges from 12% to 20% compared with 5% described after "en bloc" removal while the percentage of recurrence reported for polypoid lesions ≥ 20 mm is on average 25% (21) and reaches 55% in some studies.
Colonic EMR is usually performed using a polypectomy snare, after lifting the lesion from the underlying layers with a submucosal injection of liquid (EMR standard or "inject-and-cut"). The aspiration of the lesion inside a plastic cap preloaded on the tip of the colonoscope ("cap-assisted EMR" - EMR-C) is almost exclusively used for the treatment of gastric and esophageal lesions. Its use for lesions of the colon and duodenum has been reported in limited experiences.
The advantage of diagnostic "cap-assisted colonoscopy" (CAC) is the higher chance of reaching cecum even by less experienced endoscopists in a shorter time, with less pain for the patients and a better observation of the mucosa behind the folds and at the flexures. There are not enough concordant data about the percentage of missing lesions, especially if small in size (27, 28). The cap makes the position of the instrument more stable during standard "inject-and-cut" technique (EMR-S), and reduces execution time. However, the realization of the EMR-C for colonic lesions isn't reported (29).
The use of EMR-C in colon is controversial because of the risk of entrapping the muscular layer in the polypectomy snare with risk of perforation.
The advantage of using the cap is represented by the possibility to perform mucosectomy of lesions located in difficult positions (between haustra, near or involving the ileo-caecal valve), thanks to the improved visibility on the operative field.
Our group has reported a 4% of residual disease/recurrence rate, much lower than those reported by other authors who performed EMR-S. We had a perforation and bleeding rate of 0% and 7% respectively vs 0.4% and 11% as reported in literature with EMR-S.
More recently, a study of 134 lesions treated with EMR-C reported a recurrence rate of 1.8% on 82 lesions treated, with a mean of 4.2 months follow-up.
The principal aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of the EMR-C for the removal of large colonic granular and non-granular Lateral Spreading Tumors (LST-G, LST-NG), comparing it with EMR-S.
Patients with colorectal LST-G/NG ≥30 mm will be included. Patients who refuse endoscopic follow up will be excluded from the study. The total enrollment period will be 6 months Endoscopic evaluation in patients without invasive carcinoma will be performed at 3, 6 and 12 months, and then annually Follow-up period will last 12 months from the enrollment of the last patient.
Will be defined as:
Residual lesion: the presence of adenomatous tissue endoscopically visible at follow-up colonoscopies within the first year from EMR.
Recurrent lesion: the presence of adenomatous tissue endoscopically visible after 2 (at 3 and 6 months from EMR) previous negative colonoscopies.
It's well known that most of CRC follow the path adenoma-carcinoma: early diagnosis and endoscopic removal of colonic polyps has been proved to be useful in preventing cancer.
Most of colorectal polyps are smaller than 1 cm and can be successfully resected with a standard polypectomy. However, between 0.8% and 5% of patients develop sessile polyps or lesions larger than 20 mm, of which removal can be difficult, requiring high endoscopic experience.
Recent prospective studies report that 7%-36% of CRC have a flat or depressed morphology and are more likely to infiltrate the submucosa compared with polypoid ones.
A univariate analysis has proved that the size of the lesion is the only significant risk factor associated with malignant evolution.
Contrary to sessile polyps (SP) that are protruding lesions without a peduncle and whose base has almost the same dimension of the head, "Lateral Spreading Tumors" (LSTs) are dysplastic lesions whose protrusion within the lumen is not more than twice as compared to the surrounding non-dysplastic mucosa. According to Kudo classification they are larger than 1 cm in size, slightly elevated and extending laterally along the intestinal wall.
They can be divided into two groups (according to Paris Classification, 2005, updated for the colon in Kyoto Classification 2008):
* Granular type (LST-G) characterized by nodular aggregates and sub-classified into homogeneous (0-IIa according to Paris Classification) and mixed nodular (0-IIa, 0-Is + IIa, 0-II+ Is) subtypes.
* Non Granular type (LST-NG) characterized by a non nodular surface and sub-classified into elevated (0-IIa) and pseudo-depressed (0-IIa + 0-IIc, 0-IIc +0- IIa) subtypes.
The risk of developing cancer is different between the two types (57.7% in LST-NG vs 32.7% in LST-G). LST-NG are more likely to invade the submucosa compared to LST-G (14% vs 7%). Within the LST-G group, lesions with a mixed nodular morphology have a greater tendency to infiltrate the submucosa compared to the homogeneous ones.
Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are currently the most used techniques to resect this type of lesions. Compared to other methods of tissue ablation, EMR allows to carry out the histological evaluation of the resected fragments and ESD of the lesion in toto ("en bloc").
EMR allows the resection of superficial neoplasia of gastro-intestinal tract (GI) confined to the mucosa, in the absence of vascular and/or lymphatic invasion.
ESD compared with EMR allows to remove "en bloc" lesions ≥20 mm in size. It should be preferred for lesions with higher risk of invasiveness or when the removal of the deepest layers or of the whole submucosa is desired, despite the size of the lesion. However, ESD is a complex procedure which requires a long training period and it is associated with higher risk of perforation compared with EMR (6.2% vs 1.3%). Furthermore, ESD requires a longer execution time.
Therefore, EMR is currently the most used technique for removal of LST, but for lesions of ≥ 30 mm the resection is performed "piecemeal", i.e. fragmentary. This can compromise an adequate histological evaluation of the lateral and deep margins of the lesion.
Piecemeal resection increases the risk of residual disease that ranges from 12% to 20% compared with 5% described after "en bloc" removal while the percentage of recurrence reported for polypoid lesions ≥ 20 mm is on average 25% (21) and reaches 55% in some studies.
Colonic EMR is usually performed using a polypectomy snare, after lifting the lesion from the underlying layers with a submucosal injection of liquid (EMR standard or "inject-and-cut"). The aspiration of the lesion inside a plastic cap preloaded on the tip of the colonoscope ("cap-assisted EMR" - EMR-C) is almost exclusively used for the treatment of gastric and esophageal lesions. Its use for lesions of the colon and duodenum has been reported in limited experiences.
The advantage of diagnostic "cap-assisted colonoscopy" (CAC) is the higher chance of reaching cecum even by less experienced endoscopists in a shorter time, with less pain for the patients and a better observation of the mucosa behind the folds and at the flexures. There are not enough concordant data about the percentage of missing lesions, especially if small in size (27, 28). The cap makes the position of the instrument more stable during standard "inject-and-cut" technique (EMR-S), and reduces execution time. However, the realization of the EMR-C for colonic lesions isn't reported (29).
The use of EMR-C in colon is controversial because of the risk of entrapping the muscular layer in the polypectomy snare with risk of perforation.
The advantage of using the cap is represented by the possibility to perform mucosectomy of lesions located in difficult positions (between haustra, near or involving the ileo-caecal valve), thanks to the improved visibility on the operative field.
Our group has reported a 4% of residual disease/recurrence rate, much lower than those reported by other authors who performed EMR-S. We had a perforation and bleeding rate of 0% and 7% respectively vs 0.4% and 11% as reported in literature with EMR-S.
More recently, a study of 134 lesions treated with EMR-C reported a recurrence rate of 1.8% on 82 lesions treated, with a mean of 4.2 months follow-up.
The principal aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and the safety of the EMR-C for the removal of large colonic granular and non-granular Lateral Spreading Tumors (LST-G, LST-NG), comparing it with EMR-S.
Patients with colorectal LST-G/NG ≥30 mm will be included. Patients who refuse endoscopic follow up will be excluded from the study. The total enrollment period will be 6 months Endoscopic evaluation in patients without invasive carcinoma will be performed at 3, 6 and 12 months, and then annually Follow-up period will last 12 months from the enrollment of the last patient.
Will be defined as:
Residual lesion: the presence of adenomatous tissue endoscopically visible at follow-up colonoscopies within the first year from EMR.
Recurrent lesion: the presence of adenomatous tissue endoscopically visible after 2 (at 3 and 6 months from EMR) previous negative colonoscopies.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Allocation Method
RANDOMIZED
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Primary Study Purpose
TREATMENT
Blinding Strategy
SINGLE
Outcome Assessors
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
EMR-C group
A plastic cap for mucosectomy (MH-597, Olympus Optical Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) with an outer diameter of 17 mm and a length of 15 mm will be preloaded on the tip of the colonoscope. Inside the distal end of the cap there is a gutter which positions the opened polypectomy snare.
After submucosal injection, the cap will be applied against the lesion which will be aspirated by "controlled suction", avoiding excessive protrusion of tissue in order not to trap the muscular layer.
The tissue will then be gripped with the snare and resection will be performed. A specific polypectomy snare which can be adapted into the gutter of the cap will be used (SD-221U-25, Olympus Optical Co., Ltd, Tokyo, Japan).
Group Type
EXPERIMENTAL
cap for mucosectomy
Intervention Type
DEVICE
endoscopic mucosal resection of colonic lesions with a plastic cap for mucosectomy
EMR-S group
The resection will be performed using a standard polypectomy snare, which diameter will be chosen according to the size of the lesion, after lifting the lesion from the underlying layers with a submucosal injection of liquid.
Group Type
ACTIVE_COMPARATOR
standard snare for polypectomy
Intervention Type
DEVICE
endoscopic mucosal resection of colonic lesions with standard inject and cut mucosectomy
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
cap for mucosectomy
endoscopic mucosal resection of colonic lesions with a plastic cap for mucosectomy
Intervention Type
DEVICE
standard snare for polypectomy
endoscopic mucosal resection of colonic lesions with standard inject and cut mucosectomy
Intervention Type
DEVICE
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Patients ≥18 years Colonic LST-G/NG () ≥ 30 mm in size. Patients able to undergo all follow up procedures as indicated in the protocol and to provide written informed consent, at least 48 hours before the intervention (reasoned consent).
Exclusion Criteria
* Presence of sessile polyps Non polypoid lesions 0-III according to Paris Classification Lesions with suspicion of malignancy (rigidity, non-lifting lesions, mucosal fragility, ulceration) Patients unable to provide informed consent Patients with coagulopathy and INR \>1.5 (not corrected with replacement therapy, such as enoxaparin).
Patients who have undergone previous attempt of lesion resection (residual disease, local recurrence).
Patients with histological diagnosis of submucosal invading neoplasia who will be sent to surgery and excluded from follow-up.
Patients who have undergone previous attempt of lesion resection (residual disease, local recurrence).
Patients with histological diagnosis of submucosal invading neoplasia who will be sent to surgery and excluded from follow-up.
Minimum Eligible Age
18 Years
Eligible Sex
ALL
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Azienda USL 1 Imperiese
OTHER
Sponsor Role
collaborator
Azienda Ospedaliera Niguarda Cà Granda
OTHER
Sponsor Role
collaborator
Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Senese
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Mario Marini
MD, Director of Gastroenterology and Operative Endoscopy Unit, Santa Maria Alle Scotte Hospital, Siena, Italy.
Responsibility Role
PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Mario Marini, MD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Gastroenterology and Operative Endoscopy Unit, Santa Maria Alle Scotte Hospital, Siena, Italy.
Massimo Conio, MD
Role: STUDY_CHAIR
ASL 1 imperiese
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
AOUSenese
Siena, , Italy
Site Status
RECRUITING
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Italy
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Muto T, Bussey HJ, Morson BC. The evolution of cancer of the colon and rectum. Cancer. 1975 Dec;36(6):2251-70. doi: 10.1002/cncr.2820360944.
Reference Type
RESULT
Rembacken BJ, Fujii T, Cairns A, Dixon MF, Yoshida S, Chalmers DM, Axon AT. Flat and depressed colonic neoplasms: a prospective study of 1000 colonoscopies in the UK. Lancet. 2000 Apr 8;355(9211):1211-4. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(00)02086-9.
Reference Type
RESULT
Jung M. The 'difficult' polyp: pitfalls for endoscopic removal. Dig Dis. 2012;30 Suppl 2:74-80. doi: 10.1159/000341898. Epub 2012 Nov 23.
Reference Type
RESULT
Xu MD, Wang XY, Li QL, Zhou PH, Zhang YQ, Zhong YS, Chen WF, Ma LL, Qin WZ, Hu JW, Yao LQ. Colorectal lateral spreading tumor subtypes: clinicopathology and outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2013 Jan;28(1):63-72. doi: 10.1007/s00384-012-1543-2. Epub 2012 Jul 29.
Reference Type
RESULT
Tsuda S, Veress B, Toth E, Fork FT. Flat and depressed colorectal tumours in a southern Swedish population: a prospective chromoendoscopic and histopathological study. Gut. 2002 Oct;51(4):550-5. doi: 10.1136/gut.51.4.550.
Reference Type
RESULT
Saitoh Y, Waxman I, West AB, Popnikolov NK, Gatalica Z, Watari J, Obara T, Kohgo Y, Pasricha PJ. Prevalence and distinctive biologic features of flat colorectal adenomas in a North American population. Gastroenterology. 2001 Jun;120(7):1657-65. doi: 10.1053/gast.2001.24886.
Reference Type
RESULT
Kim WH, Suh JH, Kim TI, Shin SK, Paik YH, Chung HW, Kim DY, Jeong JH, Kang JK, Kim H, Kim NK. Colorectal flat neoplasia. Dig Liver Dis. 2003 Mar;35(3):165-71. doi: 10.1016/s1590-8658(03)00024-0.
Reference Type
RESULT
The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Dec;58(6 Suppl):S3-43. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(03)02159-x. No abstract available.
Reference Type
RESULT
Kudo S. Endoscopic mucosal resection of flat and depressed types of early colorectal cancer. Endoscopy. 1993 Sep;25(7):455-61. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-1010367. No abstract available.
Reference Type
RESULT
Kudo S, Kashida H, Tamura T, Kogure E, Imai Y, Yamano H, Hart AR. Colonoscopic diagnosis and management of nonpolypoid early colorectal cancer. World J Surg. 2000 Sep;24(9):1081-90. doi: 10.1007/s002680010154.
Reference Type
RESULT
Conio M, Blanchi S, Repici A, Ruggeri C, Fisher DA, Filiberti R. Cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal polyps. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010 Jun;53(6):919-27. doi: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181d95a54.
Reference Type
RESULT
Uraoka T, Saito Y, Matsuda T, Ikehara H, Gotoda T, Saito D, Fujii T. Endoscopic indications for endoscopic mucosal resection of laterally spreading tumours in the colorectum. Gut. 2006 Nov;55(11):1592-7. doi: 10.1136/gut.2005.087452. Epub 2006 May 8.
Reference Type
RESULT
Othman MO, Wallace MB. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in 2011, a Western perspective. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2011 Apr;35(4):288-94. doi: 10.1016/j.clinre.2011.02.006. Epub 2011 Mar 31.
Reference Type
RESULT
Saito Y, Fukuzawa M, Matsuda T, Fukunaga S, Sakamoto T, Uraoka T, Nakajima T, Ikehara H, Fu KI, Itoi T, Fujii T. Clinical outcome of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection of large colorectal tumors as determined by curative resection. Surg Endosc. 2010 Feb;24(2):343-52. doi: 10.1007/s00464-009-0562-8. Epub 2009 Jun 11.
Reference Type
RESULT
Moss A, Bourke MJ, Williams SJ, Hourigan LF, Brown G, Tam W, Singh R, Zanati S, Chen RY, Byth K. Endoscopic mucosal resection outcomes and prediction of submucosal cancer from advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia. Gastroenterology. 2011 Jun;140(7):1909-18. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2011.02.062. Epub 2011 Mar 8.
Reference Type
RESULT
Binmoeller KF, Bohnacker S, Seifert H, Thonke F, Valdeyar H, Soehendra N. Endoscopic snare excision of "giant" colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996 Mar;43(3):183-8. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(96)70313-9.
Reference Type
RESULT
Woodward TA, Heckman MG, Cleveland P, De Melo S, Raimondo M, Wallace M. Predictors of complete endoscopic mucosal resection of flat and depressed gastrointestinal neoplasia of the colon. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012 May;107(5):650-4. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2011.473.
Reference Type
RESULT
Khashab M, Eid E, Rusche M, Rex DK. Incidence and predictors of "late" recurrences after endoscopic piecemeal resection of large sessile adenomas. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Aug;70(2):344-9. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.10.037. Epub 2009 Feb 27.
Reference Type
RESULT
Zlatanic J, Waye JD, Kim PS, Baiocco PJ, Gleim GW. Large sessile colonic adenomas: use of argon plasma coagulator to supplement piecemeal snare polypectomy. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999 Jun;49(6):731-5. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(99)70291-9.
Reference Type
RESULT
Mahadeva S, Rembacken BJ. Standard "inject and cut" endoscopic mucosal resection technique is practical and effective in the management of superficial colorectal neoplasms. Surg Endosc. 2009 Feb;23(2):417-22. doi: 10.1007/s00464-008-9983-z. Epub 2008 Sep 20.
Reference Type
RESULT
Conio M, Repici A, Demarquay JF, Blanchi S, Dumas R, Filiberti R. EMR of large sessile colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Aug;60(2):234-41. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(04)01567-6.
Reference Type
RESULT
Conio M, Blanchi S, Filiberti R, Ruggeri C, Fisher DA. Cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection of large polyps involving the ileocecal valve. Endoscopy. 2010 Aug;42(8):677-80. doi: 10.1055/s-0030-1255565. Epub 2010 Jun 30.
Reference Type
RESULT
Conio M, De Ceglie A, Filiberti R, Fisher DA, Siersema PD. Cap-assisted EMR of large, sporadic, nonampullary duodenal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Dec;76(6):1160-9. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.08.009. Epub 2012 Sep 26.
Reference Type
RESULT
Park SY, Kim HS, Yoon KW, Cho SB, Lee WS, Park CH, Joo YE, Choi SK, Rew JS. Usefulness of cap-assisted colonoscopy during colonoscopic EMR: a randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Oct;74(4):869-75. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.06.005. Epub 2011 Aug 6.
Reference Type
RESULT
Hewett DG, Rex DK. Cap-fitted colonoscopy: a randomized, tandem colonoscopy study of adenoma miss rates. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Oct;72(4):775-81. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.04.030. Epub 2010 Jun 25.
Reference Type
RESULT
Sanchez-Yague A, Kaltenbach T, Yamamoto H, Anglemyer A, Inoue H, Soetikno R. The endoscopic cap that can (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Jul;76(1):169-78.e1-2. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.04.447. No abstract available.
Reference Type
RESULT
Buchner AM, Guarner-Argente C, Ginsberg GG. Outcomes of EMR of defiant colorectal lesions directed to an endoscopy referral center. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Aug;76(2):255-63. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.02.060. Epub 2012 May 31.
Reference Type
RESULT
Kashani A, Lo SK, Jamil LH. Cap-assisted Endoscopic Mucosal Resection is Highly Effective for Nonpedunculated Colorectal Lesions. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2016 Feb;50(2):163-8. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000315.
Reference Type
RESULT
Jass JR, Sobin LH, Watanabe H. The World Health Organization's histologic classification of gastrointestinal tumors. A commentary on the second edition. Cancer. 1990 Nov 15;66(10):2162-7. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19901115)66:103.0.co;2-n.
Reference Type
RESULT
Schlemper RJ, Riddell RH, Kato Y, Borchard F, Cooper HS, Dawsey SM, Dixon MF, Fenoglio-Preiser CM, Flejou JF, Geboes K, Hattori T, Hirota T, Itabashi M, Iwafuchi M, Iwashita A, Kim YI, Kirchner T, Klimpfinger M, Koike M, Lauwers GY, Lewin KJ, Oberhuber G, Offner F, Price AB, Rubio CA, Shimizu M, Shimoda T, Sipponen P, Solcia E, Stolte M, Watanabe H, Yamabe H. The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia. Gut. 2000 Aug;47(2):251-5. doi: 10.1136/gut.47.2.251.
Reference Type
RESULT
Belderbos TD, Leenders M, Moons LM, Siersema PD. Local recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2014 May;46(5):388-402. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1364970. Epub 2014 Mar 26.
Reference Type
RESULT
Conio M, Manta R, Filiberti RA, Baron TH, Pasquale L, Marini M, De Ceglie A. 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. 2022 Nov;96(5):829-839.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.06.002. Epub 2022 Jun 11.
Reference Type
DERIVED
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
90/2014
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
Endoscopic Full Thickness Resection Versus Standard Therapy of the Colorectal Neoplasia
NCT03868605
UNKNOWN
NA
Cold Snare Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) vs Cold EMR With Margin Snare Tip Soft Coagulation (STSC)
NCT05041478
RECRUITING
NA
ESD for Colorectal LSL Using a Selective Strategy - a Prospective Cohort Study
NCT04008407
RECRUITING
NA
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD) Versus Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) for Large Non Pedunculated Colonic Adenomas: a Randomized Comparative Trial
NCT03962868
UNKNOWN
NA
Endoscopic Therapy for Laterally Spreading Tumors (LSTs)
NCT06464874
COMPLETED
Endoscopic Resection for Small Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors
NCT06901856
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
Comparison Rectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection to Endoscopic Mucosal Resection
NCT02198729
COMPLETED
NA
Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracies of Various Endoscopic Examination Techniques
NCT03109938
UNKNOWN
Technical Failure During Colorectal Endoscopic Full Thickness Resection (EFTR): The "Through Thick and Thin" Study
NCT05913453
COMPLETED
Endoscopic Resection for Small Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors
NCT05429216
NOT_YET_RECRUITING
NA
Endoscopic Resection of Gastrointestinal Neoplasms
NCT04780256
RECRUITING
The Real-time Optical Diagnosis Value of Optical Enhancement Endoscopy in Colorectal Sessile Serrated Adenomas/Polyps
NCT03238573
UNKNOWN
Efficacy and Safety of a New Polypectomy Snare for Cold-polypectomy for Small Colorectal Polyps
NCT02245854
COMPLETED
NA
Magnetic Guided Counetrtraction During Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
NCT06962293
RECRUITING
NA
Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection In Colon
NCT03803891
UNKNOWN
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Gastrointestinal Neoplasms
NCT01378507
UNKNOWN
NA
Efficacy and Safety of ESD for the Treatment of Superficial Gastric Neoplasms
NCT05930860
RECRUITING
Study on a New Endoscopic Platform for the ESD of Colorectal Lesions: Tissue Retraction System
NCT03553199
COMPLETED
NA
Histological Prediction and Choice of the Resection Strategy in Front of a Colorectal Lesion > 2 cm: Prospective Comparison of Endoscopic Characterization, Non-targeted and Targeted Biopsies
NCT04482491
COMPLETED
Circumferential Submucosal Incision Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Versus Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Colonic Polyps
NCT01369316
WITHDRAWN
NA
Complete Closure After Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps
NCT06807073
RECRUITING
NA
Multicentric Study an Endoscopic Treatment of Digestive Neoplasia by Submucosal Dissection Evaluation of a New Water Jet System
NCT01910974
COMPLETED
NA
Cold Snare Polypectomy Vs. Cold Forceps Polypectomy Using Narrow-band Imaging Endoscopy for Removal of Diminutive Colorectal Polyps
NCT02201147
COMPLETED
NA
Study of Narrow Band Imaging in the Characterization of Residual Neoplasia After Endoscopic Piecemeal Mucosal Resection
NCT02448693
COMPLETED
NA
UEMR vs. CEMR for Diminutive Non-pedunculated Colorectal Polyps
NCT03833492
COMPLETED
NA