Park Soo-kyung, Ko Bong Min, Han Jae Pil, Hong Su Jin, Lee Moon Sung
Department of Internal Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Digestive Disease Center and Research Institute, Department of Internal Medicine, Soonchunhyang University School of Medicine, Bucheon, Republic of Korea.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Mar;83(3):527-32.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.08.053. Epub 2015 Sep 7.
A previous study reported that cold snare polypectomy (CSP) was superior to cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) for the removal of diminutive colorectal polyps (DCPs) (≤5 mm) when the techniques were assessed for completeness of resection. However, completeness is expected to be greater with CFP when strict investigation of the remnant polyp is performed. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of CFP with narrow-band imaging (NBI) evaluation of polypectomy sites for removal of DCPs, compared with CSP.
This was a randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial at a tertiary-care referral hospital. Of the 380 patients screened, 146 patients with 231 DCPs were enrolled. CFP was used to resect DCPs until no remnant polyp was visible by NBI endoscopy. The primary noninferiority endpoint was histologic eradication of polyps, with a noninferiority margin of -10%.
A size of >3 mm was seen in 129 polyps (55.8%). The overall rates of histologic eradication were 90.5% in the CFP group and 93.0% in the CSP group (difference, 2.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.67 to 4.62). However, when confined to the polyps >3 mm, the histologic eradication rate was 86.8% and 93.4% (95% CI, -17.2 to 3.6), respectively. Polyp size, histology, location, and time taken for polypectomy did not differ between the groups. The failure rate of tissue retrieval was higher in the CSP than in the CFP group (7.8% vs 0.0%, respectively; P =.001).
In this study, >90% of all DCPs were completely resected by using CFP with NBI evaluation of polypectomy sites, showing noninferiority compared with CSP. However, in polyps measuring >3 mm, CFP failed to show noninferiority versus CSP. CFP appears to be the proper method for resection of DCPs 1 to 3 mm in size if no remnant polyp is visible by NBI endoscopy, but CFP is likely to be insufficient for larger polyps. (
NCT02201147.).
先前一项研究报告称,在评估切除完整性时,冷圈套息肉切除术(CSP)在切除微小(≤5mm)结直肠息肉(DCP)方面优于冷活检钳息肉切除术(CFP)。然而,当对残留息肉进行严格检查时,CFP的切除完整性预期会更高。本研究的目的是评估在切除DCP时,与CSP相比,CFP联合窄带成像(NBI)评估息肉切除部位的疗效。
这是一项在三级转诊医院进行的随机对照非劣效性试验。在380例筛查患者中,146例患者的231枚DCP被纳入研究。使用CFP切除DCP,直到NBI内镜检查看不到残留息肉。主要非劣效性终点是息肉的组织学根除,非劣效性界值为-10%。
129枚息肉(55.8%)直径>3mm。CFP组的组织学根除总率为90.5%,CSP组为93.0%(差异为2.5%;95%置信区间[CI],-9.67至4.62)。然而,当仅限于直径>3mm的息肉时,组织学根除率分别为86.8%和93.4%(95%CI,-17.2至3.6)。两组之间息肉大小、组织学类型、位置和息肉切除所需时间无差异。CSP组的组织取材失败率高于CFP组(分别为7.8%和0.0%;P=0.001)。
在本研究中,通过使用CFP联合NBI评估息肉切除部位,超过90%的所有DCP被完全切除,与CSP相比显示出非劣效性。然而,对于直径>3mm的息肉,CFP与CSP相比未显示出非劣效性。如果NBI内镜检查看不到残留息肉,CFP似乎是切除直径1至3mm DCP的合适方法,但对于较大息肉,CFP可能不足。(临床试验注册号:NCT02201147。)