Cold snare polypectomy compared to cold forceps polypectomy for endoscopic resection of guideline defined diminutive polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for polyps < 10 mm in size. However, recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) showed conflicting results for the use of cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) vs. CSP for the resection of diminutive colorectal polyps (DCPs) (≤ 5 mm), especially for polyps ≤ 3 mm. Herein we compared CFP with CSP for patients with DCPs in this meta-analysis of RCTs. METHODS: We systematically searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed and EMBASE databases from inception to November 24, 2022, (Registration number INPLASY2022110135). The primary endpoint was DCP complete resection rate. The secondary endpoints were mean polypectomy time, polyp retrieval rate and complications. RESULTS: Seven RCTs involving 1023 DCPs were included. The complete resection rate (91.6% vs. 94.7%) for CFP was not significantly lower for polyps ≤ 5 mm (relative risk [RR] = 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98-1.07). Sub-group analysis showed that the complete resection rate (88.7% vs. 92.4%) for CFP was not significantly lower for DCPs > 3 mm (RR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.97-1.12). Another sub-group analysis showed that the complete resection rate (97.0% vs. 96.3%) was similar for polyps ≤ 3 mm for CFP vs. CSP (RR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.98-1.03). The mean polypectomy time was not different between CFP and CSP (95% CI: -11.86-10.18). The polyp retrieval rate (100% vs. 96.9%) was not significantly higher for CFP (RR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.98-1.07). There were no reported complications in the included studies. The overall study quality was moderate except for the removal of polyps ≤ 5 mm (low-quality evidence). CONCLUSION: CFP was comparable to CSP for the resection of polyps ≤ 3 mm; however, caution should be taken for DCPs > 3 mm because of the low complete resection rate (< 90%).

Guidelines for Colorectal Cold Polypectomy (supplement to "Guidelines for Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection/Endoscopic Mucosal Resection").

The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society published the second edition of the "Guidelines for Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection/Endoscopic Mucosal Resection" in 2019 to clarify the indications for colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection and to ensure appropriate preoperative diagnoses as well as effective and safe endoscopic treatment in front-line clinical settings. Endoscopic resection with electrocautery, including polypectomy and EMR, is indicated for colorectal polyps. Recently, the number of facilities introducing and implementing cold polypectomy without electrocautery has increased. Herein, we establish supplementary guidelines for cold polypectomy. Considering that the level of evidence for each statement is limited, these supplementary guidelines must be verified in clinical practice.

Endoscopic resection of local recurrences of diminutive polyps by cold forceps polypectomy.

OBJECTIVES: Cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) is an effective treatment for diminutive colorectal polyps. However, polyps occasionally recur, and there is no consensus on their long-term clinical management. Therefore, we investigated the short- and long-term clinical outcomes of re-CFP for recurrent diminutive colorectal polyps. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a follow-up of a multicenter, prospective study investigating the clinical outcomes of diminutive colorectal polyps excised by CFP with narrowband imaging-enhanced endoscopy and jumbo forceps. We evaluated short-term outcomes of re-CFP and patients at 1-year follow-up post re-CFP for recurrent colorectal polyps to determine long-term recurrence rates. Additionally, complete resection rates, clinicopathological features, number of forceps bites, and rate of short-term adverse events managed by re-CFP were evaluated. RESULTS: At 1-year follow-up, local recurrence was identified in 18 patients from the original study. The mean size of local recurrent polyps was 1.5 ± 0.6 mm, and all recurrent lesions were < 3 mm. Re-CFP could successfully excise locally recurrent polyps in all cases. All recurrent lesions were low-grade adenomas; no adverse events were reported. Additionally, 16 of 18 patients were evaluated endoscopically at 2-year follow-up; no recurrence was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Recurrent lesions following initial CFP were small and pathologically benign, and re-CFP was an effective treatment.

Evaluation of complete cold forceps polypectomy resection rate for 3- to 5-mm colorectal polyps.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The propriety of cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) using jumbo biopsy forceps for diminutive polyps remains controversial. We conducted a prospective study to evaluate the complete CFP resection rate of 3-5-mm polyps using additional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) specimens following CFP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with 3-5-mm protruded or flat elevated colorectal polyps diagnosed endoscopically as adenomas or serrated lesions were prospectively enrolled. CFP using jumbo biopsy forceps was used to remove the eligible polyps and repeated until the absence of residuals were confirmed via image-enhanced endoscopy or chromoendoscopy. After CFP, saline was injected at the defect, and the marginal specimen of the defect was resected using EMR to histologically evaluate the residue. The primary outcome was the complete CFP resection rate, which was defined as no residue at the EMR site. Other outcomes were the number of CFP bites and the complete resection rate by lesion size. RESULTS: Eighty patients with 120 polyps were enrolled. The mean polyp size was 4.1 ± 0.7 mm. The overall complete resection rate was 96.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.7-98.7), and the rates for 3-, 4- and 5-mm polyps were 100% (95% CI, 86.7-100), 96.0% (95% CI, 86.5-98.9) and 95.5% (95% CI, 85.1-98.8), respectively. The one-bite CFP rates were 92%, 60% and 31% for the 3-, 4- and 5-mm polyps, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The complete CFP resection rate for 3-5-mm polyps was acceptable, although the one-bite clearance rate decreased as the polyp size increased (UMIN000028841).

Indications for Cold Polypectomy Stratified by the Colorectal Polyp Size: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Cold polypectomy (CP) is widely used because of its safety profile. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to clarify the indications for CP based on polyp size. METHODS: We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials that compared cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and other procedures for polyps ≤10 mm. Large-scale prospective observational studies were also searched to assess delayed bleeding rates. The studies were integrated to assess the risk ratio for incomplete resection rates according to polyp size. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to evaluate the study bias. The certainty of cumulative evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. RESULTS: We found 280 articles and reviewed their eligibility. We selected and extracted 12 randomized controlled trials and 3 prospective observational studies. The risk ratio of incomplete resection of polyps ≤10 mm using CSP compared with hot snare polypectomy (HSP) was 1.36 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92-2.01). The risk ratio for incomplete removal using CSP compared with cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.31-0.82). For polyps ≤3 mm, the risk ratio of CSP compared with CFP was 1.40 (95% CI, 0.39-4.95). Certainty of cumulative evidence was considered low. No delayed bleeding after CP was reported after the treatment of 3446 polyps. CONCLUSIONS: CSP and HSP may result in the same complete resection rates for polyps ≤10 mm. For polyps ≤3 mm, CFP and CSP may have the same resection rates (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019122132).

Management and risk factors for incomplete resection associated with jumbo forceps polypectomy for diminutive colorectal polyps: a single-institution retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Cold forceps polypectomy is simple and widely used in clinical practice. However, there are concerns about the risk of incomplete resection using this technique. In recent years, it has been reported that polypectomy with jumbo forceps (JF) is an effective treatment modality for diminutive polyps (DPs) because JF are able to remove large tissue samples with the combined advantage of a higher complete histological resection rate for DPs than standard forceps. To our knowledge, no studies have evaluated the risk factors for incomplete resection when polypectomy with JF is performed for DPs. METHODS: From among 1129 DPs resected using JF at Hiroshima City Asa Citizens Hospital between November 2015 and December 2016, we retrospectively evaluated the clinical outcomes of 999 tumors with known histopathology and investigated the relationship between incomplete resection and clinicopathological factors. RESULTS: Most lesions [985 (87%)] were low-grade dysplasia and 14 (1%) were high-grade dysplasia. The en bloc resection rate was 92% (918/999) and the histological en bloc resection rate was 78% (777/999). Multivariate analysis showed that the significant independent predictors of incomplete resection were tumor size ≥ 4 mm [odds ratio (OR) 3.8; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.65-5.37; p < 0.01], non-tangential direction of forceps in relation to the tumor (OR 1.73; 95% CI 1.21-2.45; p < 0.01), and lack of muscularis mucosae in the pathological specimen (OR 15.7; 95% CI 9.16-27.7; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified significant independent predictors of incomplete resection of DPs which may be helpful when planning polypectomy with JF.

Comparative efficacy of cold polypectomy techniques for diminutive colorectal polyps: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although cold polypectomy techniques are preferred over polypectomy with electrocautery in the management of diminutive polyps, comprehensive comparisons among various cold polypectomy techniques have not yet been fully performed. METHODS: We searched for all relevant randomized controlled trials published up until October 2016 examining the efficacy of cold polypectomy techniques for diminutive polyps. Cold polypectomy techniques were classified as cold forceps polypectomy (CFP), jumbo forceps polypectomy (JFP), traditional cold snare polypectomy (CSP), and dedicated CSP, according to the type of device. A network meta-analysis was performed to calculate the direct and indirect estimates of efficacy among the cold polypectomy techniques. RESULTS: Seven studies with 703 patients and 968 polyps were included in the meta-analysis. Regarding comparative efficacy for complete histological eradication, there was no inconsistency in the network (Cochran's Q test, df = 4, P = 0.22; I 2 = 30%). In terms of complete histological eradication, both dedicated and traditional CSP were superior to CFP (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval [CI]] 4.31 [1.92-9.66] and 2.45 [1.30-4.63], respectively); dedicated CSP was superior to traditional CSP (OR [95% CI] 1.76 [1.07-2.89]); and there was no difference between JFP versus CFP (OR [95% CI] 1.36 [0.40-4.61]). Regarding tissue retrieval rate, there was no difference between dedicated versus traditional CSP (OR [95% CI] 1.03 [0.44-2.38]). The procedure time for CSP was comparable to that of CFP. CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated CSP was shown to be superior to other cold polypectomy techniques in terms of complete histological eradication. Cold polypectomy using a dedicated snare can be recommended for the removal of diminutive colorectal polyps.

Treatment outcomes and recurrence following standard cold forceps polypectomy for diminutive polyps.

BACKGROUND: The recurrence rate after standard cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) of diminutive polyps of ≤5 mm has not been fully determined. The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term follow-up results and recurrence rate after CFP of diminutive polyps. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 884 (738 men; age 53 years) asymptomatic subjects who underwent surveillance colonoscopy after CFP of 1-2 diminutive adenomatous polyps. Cumulative recurrence at the CFP site and risk factors for recurrence were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall recurrence over 59.7 months was 17 % after CFP of 1111 diminutive polyps. The rate of definite recurrence was 4 %, and probable recurrence was 13 %. Recurrence as advanced adenoma was 0.5 % (5/1111). The cumulative probabilities of recurrence at 3, 5, and 7 years after CFP were 10.0, 16.0, and 21.1 %, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that polyp 4-5 mm in size and right colonic polyp were risk factors for recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] 1.37; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.86 and HR 1.49; 95 % CI 1.08-2.04, respectively). The recurrence rate for 10 endoscopists who performed at least 50 CFPs ranged from 11.0 to 25.2 %; the probability of recurrence in those in the top half in terms of recurrence rate was 1.6-fold higher than that of those in the bottom half (95 % CI 1.17-2.19). CONCLUSIONS: Although recurrence may develop after standard CFP of diminutive polyps, recurrence as advanced adenoma is rare. Large polyp size, right colon polyp, and endoscopist are risk factors for recurrence after standard CFP.