A selective resection algorithm for large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) optimizes outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims While endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is firmly established as the cornerstone for the management of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs≥20 mm), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has gained traction due to its potential for en-bloc and potentially curative resection in cases of intramucosal adenocarcinoma (IMC) and superficial submucosal invasive cancer (S-SMIC). However, it requires specialized training, dedicated procedural time, increased resource allocation and carries increased procedural risks. In 2017, we developed a selective resection algorithm (SRA) that aims to risk-stratify LNPCPs and facilitate informed management by EMR or ESD. Methods Over 62 months until November 2023, all LPNCPs at a single-centre tertiary Canadian referral centre were evaluated using our SRA. Those with suspected S-SMIC (JNET 2b, Paris 0-IIc component or non-granular with pseudo-depression) or at high-risk of covert SMIC (colorectal non-granular with a Paris Is component, or rectal granular lesion with a Is component>10 mm) were selected for ESD, unless enbloc hot-EMR was considered feasible (20-25 mm size with adequate submucosal lift). Benign appearing LNPCPs underwent conventional hot-EMR and with suspected deep-SMIC were referred for surgery. Herein, we report on the patient, procedural and oncological outcomes of our SRA. Results 362 lesions were evaluated using our SRA and subsequently underwent endoscopic resection (ESD 88, En-bloc-EMR 21, Piecemeal-EMR 253). Compared with EMR, LNPCPs undergoing ESD were more likely to be of JNET 2B classification (70.5% vs 29.5%), contain a Paris 0-IIc component (29.5% vs 6.6%) and be in the rectum (71.6% vs 5.8%, P<0.001 for all). There were no differences in technical success (EMR 96.7% vs ESD 95.5%; P=0.580). ESD took longer 146.9±76.4 vs 43.9±29.8 mins (P<0.001) and was more likely to result in a DMI requiring clip closure (31.8% vs 8.8%, P<0.001). In cases of benign pathology, where SC1 was performed, recurrence was lower with ESD (0% vs. 7.1%; P=0.05). The majority of LNPCPs undergoing EMR were benign (n=256, 93.4%), with a recurrence of 7.1% at SC1 that was readily managed endoscopically (100%). A total of 45 cancers (12.4%) were resected, with the rate greater in the ESD group (30.7% vs 6.6%). The rates of curative resection were 0/13 by piecemeal EMR, 3/5 by en-bloc-EMR and 7/24 by ESD. Of the 13 piecemeal-EMR cases, 5 may have been cured by ESD (4 right colon, 1 left colon). The remainder of non-curative cases were due to adverse tumour biology. Therefore, according to our SRA, 10/15 (66.6%) of the endoscopically curable cancers had an en-bloc R0 excision. Conclusions Our colorectal SRA effectively identifies high-risk LNPCPs, with 30.7% of those undergoing ESD being malignant. This provides the ability to obtain a curative resection in patients with favourable tumour biology. Overall, when assessing LNPCPs amenable to cure, our colorectal SRA achieved a curative resection rate of 66.6%. Further optimisation of the algorithm may improve pre-resection identification of high-risk lesions that may benefit from en-bloc. Publication History Article published online: 27 March 2025 © 2025. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".