A61 USE OF ADJUNCTIVE REMOVAL TECHNIQUES FOR ENDOSCOPIC MUCOSAL RESECTION OF LARGE NON-PEDUNCULATED COLONIC POLYPS IS PREDICTIVE OF POLYP RECURRENCE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) allows for safe and effective removal of large non-pedunculated colon polyps. However, prior studies have shown significant recurrence rates between 10–30% after EMR, which have led to recommendations for close endoscopic follow-up and the use of techniques such as snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) to EMR margins to prevent recurrence. Models such as the Size/Morphology/Site/Access score (SMSA) have been developed to aid in identifying polyp complexity and patients at high risk of recurrence. Numerous individual risk factors for recurrence have previously been reported, however the significance of these factors have varied between studies, with limited data from Canadian centres. Aims To evaluate predictors of recurrence for large non-pedunculated polyps following EMR. Methods Consecutive patients between April 1, 2017 to March 1, 2019 who underwent EMR were retrospectively identified from endoscopy unit administrative records. Patients with non-pedunculated colorectal polyps ≥ 2 cm that were removed by EMR were included if follow-up endoscopy data were available. Polyps found to contain invasive adenocarcinoma on histology and/or were referred for surgical resection were excluded. Patient demographic, pre-procedural, intra-procedural, and post-procedural data to time of first follow-up colonoscopy were extracted. Recurrence was defined as a positive pathology specimen from the EMR scar at follow-up. Adjunctive techniques were defined as the use of any non-snare resection or ablation technique for removal of visible adenoma at the time of the EMR. Chi-square and multivariate regression analyses were conducted for variables of interest. Results 517 patients underwent large polyp EMR during the study time period with 265 patients satisfying inclusion criteria. Median age of patients was 67 years (IQR 14); 48% were female. STSC was performed to EMR margins in 94% of cases. 30.9% and 69.1% of polyps were SMSA grade 3 and grade 4 respectively. Adjunctive removal techniques were utilized in 31% of patients, 95% of which was hot avulsion. 15% of patients had recurrence on follow-up endoscopy. Higher SMSA grade was associated with the use of adjunctive techniques (20% vs. 37%, p=0.006). The use of adjunctive removal techniques (OR 2.92, p=0.007) and male gender (OR 3.45, p=0.002) were the only factors found to be significantly predictive of recurrence on multivariate analysis. Conclusions Male gender and the use of adjunctive removal techniques, particularly hot avulsion, are independently predictive of recurrence after EMR of large complex colorectal polyps. Male patients and those who require hot avulsion may be considered high risk for recurrence and warrant closer follow-up. Funding Agencies None
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».