Follow-up Protocol of Colorectal Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Scars
NCT ID: NCT04239365
Last Updated: 2022-10-05
Study Results
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.
COMPLETED
NA
210 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2020-01-31
2022-05-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
There are few studies that have examined the accuracy of advanced endoscopic imaging for the prediction of histological recurrence but none of these imaging modalities have been validated for surveillance after EMR. Therefore, current guidelines strongly recommend systematic biopsy of EMR scar.
The main aim of this study is to assess the incremental benefit of narrow band imaging (NBI) and white light endoscopy (WLE) randomizing the initial technique for the endoscopic detection of post-EMR recurrence and to asses if this advanced imaging method achieve sufficient diagnostic accuracy to exclude recurrence without the need for biopsy.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Clinical Outcomes After EMR or ESD of Colorectal Neoplasms - A Multicenter Registry
NCT05653960
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
Endoscopic Full Thickness Resection Versus Standard Therapy of the Colorectal Neoplasia
NCT03868605
Cold EMR Vs Standard EMR for the Treatment of Large Nonpedunculated Homogeneous Colorectal Lesions
NCT04418843
Improving Complete Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) of Colorectal Neoplasia
NCT01471756
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
b. Selection patient method: inclusion by invitation of patients undergoing the first follow-up surveillance colonoscopy after successful EMR of colorectal lesion.
c. Sample size: 210 (two groups of 105 patients). To improve accuracy from 85% (value obtained by a study that did not show significant differences in the accuracy of NBI followed by WLE vs. WLE followed by NBI) to 95% and assuming a normal distribution and a power of 80% (α=0.05), the calculated sample size of each of the 2 groups was 96; allowing for a 10% dropout rate, the sample size is 105 per group (210 patients overall).
d. Procedures and data collection methods: i. Each procedure is performed by the same endoscopist. ii. All patients receive split dose bowel preparation. iii. All colonoscopies are performed using high definition colonoscopes with NBI ( EVIS EXERA III CV 185 and CV 190; Olympus Inc., Tokyo, Japan). iv. Colon inspection is done with WLE during withdrawal. v. At the proximity of the scar WLE and NBI were used randomly one after the other (WLE\>NBI or NBI\>WLE). If NBI is the first technique used, it is switched prior to scar detection, avoiding, as far as possible, a glance with WLE. The edges of the scar are interrogated followed by the centre of the scar and finding are recorded. vi. After both evaluations, if there is no suspicion of recurrence, the site is sampled by at least 2 biopsies of the scar edge. If there is any suspicion of recurrence, tissue sample is obtained and then treated by endoscopic resection using standard methods. At least 2 biopsies specimens from normal appearing scar are also obtained.
e. Analysed variables: i. patient characteristics; ii. data from baseline colonoscopy; iii. data from first surveillance colonoscopy (see outcome measures).
f. Statistical analysis: i. Performed using statistical software IBM SPSS Statistics, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. ii. Continuous variables are reported as mean and standard deviation or median and interquartile range, if they have normal or not normal distribution, respectively; categorical variables as absolute and relative frequency. iii. Continuous variables are compared between two groups using Student's T test if they have a normal distribution and homogeneity of variance or Mann-Whitney U if these conditions are not met. Categorical variables are compared using Pearson's X2 test or Fisher test. iv. Sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values and accuracy are calculated using 2x2 contingency tables. v. All hypotheses are two-tailed and a P-value\<0.05 is considered statistically significant.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
CROSSOVER
DIAGNOSTIC
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Group A: WLE followed by NBI
EMR scar is interrogated using WLE followed by NBI
WLE followed by NBI or NBI followed by WLE (crossover design)
EMR scar is inspected using WLE followed by NBI or vice versa
Group B: NBI followed by WLE
EMR scar is interrogated using NBI followed by WLE
WLE followed by NBI or NBI followed by WLE (crossover design)
EMR scar is inspected using WLE followed by NBI or vice versa
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
WLE followed by NBI or NBI followed by WLE (crossover design)
EMR scar is inspected using WLE followed by NBI or vice versa
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
* inflammatory bowel disease, inadequate bowel preparation (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale total score \< 6 or \< 2 in a segment),
* EMR scar not identified during colonoscopy,
* tissue acquisition unfeasibly.
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Portuguese Oncology Institute, Coimbra
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Mafalda Cainé João
Medical Doctor
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Miguel Areia, PhD
Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR
Gastroenterology Department
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Portuguese Oncology Institute - Coimbra
Coimbra, , Portugal
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Rembacken B, Hassan C, Riemann JF, Chilton A, Rutter M, Dumonceau JM, Omar M, Ponchon T. Quality in screening colonoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Endoscopy. 2012 Oct;44(10):957-68. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1325686. Epub 2012 Sep 17. No abstract available.
Tate DJ, Desomer L, Klein A, Brown G, Hourigan LF, Lee EY, Moss A, Ormonde D, Raftopoulos S, Singh R, Williams SJ, Zanati S, Byth K, Bourke MJ. Adenoma recurrence after piecemeal colonic EMR is predictable: the Sydney EMR recurrence tool. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Mar;85(3):647-656.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.11.027. Epub 2016 Nov 28.
Hassan C, Quintero E, Dumonceau JM, Regula J, Brandao C, Chaussade S, Dekker E, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Ferlitsch M, Gimeno-Garcia A, Hazewinkel Y, Jover R, Kalager M, Loberg M, Pox C, Rembacken B, Lieberman D; European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy. 2013 Oct;45(10):842-51. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1344548. Epub 2013 Sep 12.
Ferlitsch M, Moss A, Hassan C, Bhandari P, Dumonceau JM, Paspatis G, Jover R, Langner C, Bronzwaer M, Nalankilli K, Fockens P, Hazzan R, Gralnek IM, Gschwantler M, Waldmann E, Jeschek P, Penz D, Heresbach D, Moons L, Lemmers A, Paraskeva K, Pohl J, Ponchon T, Regula J, Repici A, Rutter MD, Burgess NG, Bourke MJ. Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy. 2017 Mar;49(3):270-297. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-102569. Epub 2017 Feb 17.
Desomer L, Tutticci N, Tate DJ, Williams SJ, McLeod D, Bourke MJ. A standardized imaging protocol is accurate in detecting recurrence after EMR. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Mar;85(3):518-526. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.06.031. Epub 2016 Jun 22.
Kandel P, Brand EC, Pelt J, Ball CT, Chen WC, Bouras EP, Gomez V, Raimondo M, Woodward TA, Wallace MB; EMR SCAR Group. Endoscopic scar assessment after colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection scars: when is biopsy necessary (EMR Scar Assessment Project for Endoscope (ESCAPE) trial). Gut. 2019 Sep;68(9):1633-1641. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2018-316574. Epub 2019 Jan 11.
Riu Pons F, Andreu M, Gimeno Beltran J, Alvarez-Gonzalez MA, Seoane Urgorri A, Dedeu JM, Barranco Priego L, Bessa X. Narrow band imaging and white light endoscopy in the characterization of a polypectomy scar: A single-blind observational study. World J Gastroenterol. 2018 Dec 7;24(45):5179-5188. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i45.5179.
Hayashi N, Tanaka S, Hewett DG, Kaltenbach TR, Sano Y, Ponchon T, Saunders BP, Rex DK, Soetikno RM. Endoscopic prediction of deep submucosal invasive carcinoma: validation of the narrow-band imaging international colorectal endoscopic (NICE) classification. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Oct;78(4):625-32. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.04.185. Epub 2013 Jul 30.
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.
Joao M, Areia M, Pinto-Pais T, Gomes LC, Saraiva S, Alves S, Elvas L, Brito D, Saraiva S, Teixeira-Pinto A, Claro I, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Cadime AT. Can white-light endoscopy or narrow-band imaging avoid biopsy of colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection scars? A multicenter randomized single-blind crossover trial. Endoscopy. 2023 Jul;55(7):601-607. doi: 10.1055/a-2018-1612. Epub 2023 Jan 23.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
PortugueseOIC 004
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.