A80 ADVANCED ENDOSCOPIC RESECTION OF LARGE POLYPS & EARLY NEOPLASIA: OUTCOMES OF ENDOSCOPIC MUCOSAL RESECTION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Recent advances have resulted in a new technique termed endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). This procedure has been successful at removing large or complex polyps and achieving remission rates comparable to surgery. EMR can also be used to remove early, non-metastatic cancer and they are less invasive than surgery. However, they have been associated with their own complications, most serious of which being perforation. This procedure has recently become available in British Columbia for resection of both complex polyps and early established cancers in the colon. Aims Here we present patient outcomes of EMR procedures for the resection of colorectal polyps in British Columbia. Methods Retrospective data were collected on all EMR procedures done in Vancouver General Hospital and St. Paul’s Hospital (Vancouver, B.C.) from October 2012 (when procedure became available) to July 2019. Inclusion criteria were all adults who had undergone EMR for resection of polyps in the colon. Exclusion criteria were patients younger than 18 or patients who had EMR that resected polyps in the upper GI tract. Patients were referred to one of two endoscopists when one or more polyps suitable for EMR were identified during colonoscopy by other gastroenterologists. Collected data included patient demographics, polyp characteristics, procedure outcome, and complications. Results There were 211 EMR procedures performed on 182 patients (48.9% male). Patient age ranged from 27 to 86 (mean = 67.1). A total of 244 colon polyps were removed with an average size of 2.91 cm and ranged from 0.8 cm to 15 cm. Resected polyps had the following distribution: ascending colon (63.5%), transverse colon (10.2%), descending colon (5.7%), sigmoid colon (15.2%), and rectum (5.3%). Of those that reported resection type, 84.2% were piecemeal and 15.8% were en bloc. 40.9% of polyps were tubulovillous adenoma, 33.2% were tubular, 16.2% were sessile serrated, 6.4% were villous, and 3.4% were adenocarcinoma. Patients from 11 of the 211 EMR cases (5.2%) experienced post-procedure bleed and 4 of these 11 patients (36.4%) had been on anti-platelet or anti-coagulants (discontinued before procedure). Overall, patients from 51 (24.2%) EMR cases were on anti-platelet or anti-coagulants. 33 cases (15.6%) had residual polyps at the resection site that required additional endoscopic resection during follow-up and 14 patients (6.6%) required surgery. None of the EMR procedures resulted in perforation. Conclusions EMR is an effective minimally-invasive procedures that can be used to remove large, complicated colonic polyps and achieve long-term remission rate. The procedure has an acceptable risk profile, with complication and re-intervention rate similar or less than other procedures used to remove large, complicated polyps. Funding Agencies None
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".