Complete Closure After Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Polyps
NCT ID: NCT06807073
Last Updated: 2025-02-11
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.
RECRUITING
NA
686 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2025-02-28
2027-07-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
The hypothesis is that performing complete defect closure following EMR of large colorectal LSLs will result in lower rates of adverse events compared to cases where no defect closure is performed.
For participants with planned EMR, endoscopists will perform EMRs as per standard of care and:
* prophylactic defect closure will either not be performed (control group), or will be performed (experimental group);
* then, patients will be called between 14 and 44 days after EMR to assess for possible adverse events, and electronic medical files will be verified for emergency room visits and healthcare received for an adverse event;
* finally, patients will undergo follow-up colonoscopy 6 months and 18 months after randomization.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Reducing Neoplasia Recurrence After Non-thermal Endoscopic Resection of Large Colorectal Polyps
NCT07242820
Reducing Neoplasia Recurrence After Endoscopic Resection of Large Colorectal Polyps
NCT06271941
Does Routine Submucosal Injection Improve Complete Resection of 4-20 mm Neoplastic Colorectal Polyps?
NCT04548947
Complete Removal of Neoplastic Large Colorectal Polyps: a Prospective Randomized Comparison of Endoscopic Mucosal Resection or Conventional Polypectomy
NCT01950117
Endoscopic Full Thickness Resection Versus Standard Therapy of the Colorectal Neoplasia
NCT03868605
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Participants with planned EMR procedures will be approached by a research assistant before the EMR to request study participation. To mitigate loss to follow-up, patients will be questioned on their preferred contact method with multiple contact methods obtained to adequately reach patients. The importance of follow-up after EMR to detect and treat recurrence will also be highlighted both verbally and in the consent forms during initial patient contact.
Despite being experienced, all endoscopist participants will review dedicated teaching videos showing the standardized EMR approach. Videos demonstrating key technical details defect closure will also be circulated across sites to ensure a standardized approach for both procedures as described in the literature.
\- Control group: EMR will be performed as per standard of care with submucosal injection and electrocautery resection of all visually visible polyp tissue using a snare. After performing EMR with thermal ablation, prophylactic defect closure will not be performed. Endoscopists can chose to close defects if there are significant concerns for risk of perforation or active perforation after EMR. When the endoscopist determines that the resection is complete, a tattoo will be placed 3 cm distal to the resected lesion to allow for better identification of the resection site in case of follow-up colonoscopy for delayed bleeding. If multiple large polyps are found and removed, the largest lesion (study polyp) will be marked with two tattoos 3 cm distal and 3 cm proximal to the lesion, to clearly identify the study polyp resection site.
\- Experimental group: EMR will be performed as per standard of care with submucosal injection and electrocautery resection of all visually visible polyp tissue using a snare.
After performing EMR with thermal ablation, prophylactic defect closure will be performed. The choice of the number and types of closure devices used to achieve defect closure will be left to endoscopist discretion. If multiple large polyps are found and removed, the largest lesion (study polyp) will be marked with two tattoos 3 cm distal and 3 cm proximal to the lesion, to clearly identify the study polyp resection site. As per standard of care, endoscopists will take a photograph of the lesion before resection for documentation; a photograph of the EMR resection site will be taken before and after defect closure; a photograph of the defect will be taken if emergency colonoscopy is performed to treat delayed bleeding. When more than one lesion meeting inclusion criteria is present in a patient, all lesions 20mm or larger will be photographed next to an open snare to aid in size measurement.
\- 6-month \& 18-month follow-up colonoscopies: To mitigate loss to follow-up, patients will be questioned on their preferred contact method with multiple contact methods obtained to adequately reach patients. The importance of follow-up after EMR to detect and treat recurrence will also be highlighted both verbally and in the consent forms during initial patient contact. Patients will be sent a reminder that they will soon receive an invitation to undergo follow-up through their preferred contact method. If patients do not undergo follow-up after invitation, a research assistant will contact patients by phone to answer any concerns they might have at that time.
At follow-up colonoscopies, endoscopists will identify the resection scar tangential to the tattoo placed at the initial EMR. The resection scars will be observed under white light and digital chromoendoscopy to assess for visual recurrence. For all patients, four random biopsies will be taken at the resection scar. If visual recurrence is present, the lesions will be resected using the method deemed most appropriate by the endoscopist at the time and pathologically evaluated for histologic recurrence.
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
PARALLEL
PREVENTION
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) + prophylactic defect closure (defect closure)
Prophylactic defect closure will be performed using at least one new generation closure device.
Prophylactic defect closure
Endoscopists will use at least one new generation closure device to approximate the healthy mucosal surrounding the submucosal defect to ensure complete defect closure. Adequate apposition of the mucosal defect margins will be achieved when no visible submucosal areas \>3 mm along the closure line are present.
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR)
After performing EMR with thermal ablation, prophylactic defect closure will not be performed.
No prophylactic defect closure
After performing EMR with thermal ablation, prophylactic defect closure will not be performed.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Prophylactic defect closure
Endoscopists will use at least one new generation closure device to approximate the healthy mucosal surrounding the submucosal defect to ensure complete defect closure. Adequate apposition of the mucosal defect margins will be achieved when no visible submucosal areas \>3 mm along the closure line are present.
No prophylactic defect closure
After performing EMR with thermal ablation, prophylactic defect closure will not be performed.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* patients undergoing EMR for a large (≥20mm) colorectal LSL
* patients providing written and informed consent for study participation.
Exclusion Criteria
* non-elective colonoscopy;
* poor general health (American Society of Anesthesiologists classification \>III);
* coagulopathy or thrombocytopenia (international normalized ratio ≥1.5 or platelets \<50 x 109/L);
* pedunculated polyps (Paris class Ip, Isp);
* overt signs of deep submucosal invasive cancer (JNET 3);
* appendiceal orifice or terminal ileum invasion;
* pregnancy.
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM)
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Daniel Von Renteln
Gastroenterologist, MD
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
Daniel von Renteln, MD
Role: backup
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
2025-12350
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.