Colorectal LesionsSHORT-ESDNCT05347446
Hybrid Versus Non-Hybrid Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Polyps (SHORT-ESD)
A study testing Hybrid ESD and Non-hybrid ESD in people with Colorectal Lesions, run by AdventHealth at 5 sites in United States.
Trial summary
This proposed trial will randomize 60 patients with a ≥20 mm large colorectal polyp to either undergo hybrid or non-hybrid ESD. For the primary comparison (hybrid vs non-hybrid ESD), the primary outcome will be procedure time. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Colorectal Lesions
- What is being tested?
- Hybrid ESD and Non-hybrid ESD
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 247 participants
- Where
- 5 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- 9 May 2022to 19 Dec 2024
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Any patient ≥18 years
- Ability to provide informed consent
- Patient scheduled to undergo colonoscopy with endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps
- Non-pedunculated polyps measuring ≥20 mm in lateral diameter by endoscopic estimation
Who cannot join
- Age < 18 years
- Inability to provide informed consent
- Pedunculated polyps (as defined by Paris classification type Ip)8
- Lesions < 20 mm in lateral diameter
- Suspected adenocarcinoma with deep submucosal invasion (e.g. Paris III morphology, Kudo type Vn pit pattern)4,13
- Previously attempted incomplete endoscopic resection (EMR) of the lesion
Show all 9Show fewer
- Uncorrected coagulopathy defined as an elevated INR ≥ 1.5 and/or platelet count < 50,000
- Any standard contraindication to anesthesia and/or colonoscopy
- Pregnancy or lactating women
Trial locations and contacts
5 sites in 1 country.
5 sites in 1 country
United States5 sites
Parkview
Fort Wayne, Indiana, 46845
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida, 32611
Baylor College of Medicine
Houston, Texas, 77030
AdventHealth Orlando
Orlando, Florida, 32803
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington, 98195
About this study
Official title: Hybrid Versus Non-Hybrid Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Polyps: A Randomized Trial (SHORT-ESD)
This proposed trial will randomize 60 patients with a ≥20 mm large colorectal polyp to either undergo hybrid or non-hybrid ESD. For the primary comparison (hybrid vs non-hybrid ESD), the primary outcome will be procedure time. The study will further examine the safety and efficacy of hybrid ESD compared to non-hybrid ESD and investigate factors that may be associated with resection outcomes.
Read the detailed description
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) permits the en-bloc resection of colorectal lesions irrespective of size. En-bloc resection, as opposed to piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of colorectal polyps ≥20 mm, provides a more definitive resection specimen for accurate histopathological assessment, and is associated with a low risk for recurrence1,2.
Current guidelines from the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES), the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and the American Gastroenterology Association (AGA), recommend ESD as a preferred strategy for superficial colorectal lesions with suspicion for advanced neoplasia or early cancer (e.g. depressed morphology, advanced surface pattern, nongranular laterally spreading tumor [LST-NG], polyps, ≥20 mm in size)3-5. In these cases, ESD procures an ideal pathological specimen for submucosal staging, provides curative intent, and prevents unnecessary surgery for lesions with low risk for lymph node metastasis6 Yet, ESD in the United States and Europe has been primarily restricted to specialized centers for a variety of reasons, notably due to its technical complexity7. Technical difficulty resides primarily in the process of submucosal dissection using endoknives. Maintaining adequate visualization of the dissection plane during ESD is often regarded the rate-limiting step (Figure 1 Non-hybrid ESD). Other factors, including maintaining the endoknife parallel to the dissection plane and accounting for paradoxical scope movements due to patient-related factors (e.g. colon redundancy, peristalsis, breathing movements) represent formidable challenges during colorectal ESD. These technical hurdles can lead to prolonged procedural times and higher risk for adverse events8. Overcoming these barriers is necessary for the safe and widespread adoption of ESD in Western clinical practice.
To reduce the technical difficulty of colorectal ESD, several techniques have been introduced, such as the introduction of traction techniques to assist with the exposure and visualization of the dissection plane during ESD8. However, many of these traction techniques require additional devices, second-hand assistance, and have a learning curve of their own9-12. Hence, many of these methods have not been widely adopted.
Hybrid ESD is a modified ESD technique that uses snare-assisted resection as part of the procedure7. With hybrid ESD, a circumferential mucosal incision followed by limited submucosal dissection is performed. Following this, a snare is placed around the lesion, slowly closed to allow resection by traversing the submucosal space. The main advantage of this method is that it reduces the need for deep submucosal dissection underneath the center of the lesion, which intuitively would reduce procedural time and risk of adverse events. Furthermore, snare resection is a technique that is familiar to most endoscopists in the West.
A recent systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated outcomes between hybrid ESD and conventional ESD for colorectal lesions7. In aggregate, when compared with conventional ESD among over 2000 patients, hybrid ESD was associated with a shorter procedural time (mean difference of 18.5 minutes, p=0.003). The rate of adverse events decreased for hybrid ESD compared with conventional ESD (odds ratio 1.56; p=0.04), but no difference when stratified by perforation rate (odds ratio 1.86; p=0.11) or delayed bleeding (odds ratio 1.15; p=0.7). Conversely, hybrid ESD was associated with a lower rate of en-bloc resection when compared to conventional ESD (odds ratio 0.31; p<0.001)7. There are several limitations with this data. For one, 14 out of the 16 studies included in this analysis were observational in design. Hence, important factors, such as lesion size, endoscopist experience, type of snare, were not accounted for in most of the studies. Notably, the meta-analysis included studies in which hybrid ESD was used as a rescue therapy after failed conventional ESD, which further complicates the interpretability of the results. Furthermore, only 4 studies originated from the West (Europe) and none from the United States, limiting the generalizability of this technique by US endoscopists. In all, high-quality studies evaluating hybrid ESD for colorectal lesions are needed.
This proposed trial will randomize 60 patients with a ≥20 mm large colorectal polyp to either undergo hybrid or non-hybrid ESD. For the primary comparison (hybrid vs non-hybrid ESD), the primary outcome will be procedure time. The study will further examine the safety and efficacy of hybrid ESD compared to non-hybrid ESD and investigate factors that may be associated with resection outcomes.
This trial is timely, as ESD has been endorsed in recent years by multiple international and national GI societies. This study will provide information on the feasibility of hybrid ESD as a modified technique that can be more widely adopted in the West. The findings of this trial will therefore help identify a safe and practical ESD technique for large colorectal polyps.
- Conditions
- Colorectal Lesions
- Being tested
- Hybrid ESD, Non-hybrid ESD
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Hybrid ESDProcedure or surgery
Also called Endoscopic Mucosal Resection
Method of removing colon lesion
Non-hybrid ESDProcedure or surgery
Also called Endoscopic Mucosal Resection
Method of removing colon lesion
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Hybrid ESD | Active comparator | Hybrid ESD is a modified ESD technique that uses snare-assisted resection as part of the procedure. With hybrid ESD, a circumferential mucosal incision followed by limited submucosal dissection is performed. Following this, a snare is placed around the lesion, slowly closed to allow resection by traversing the submucosal space Receives: Procedure: Hybrid ESD |
| Non-Hybrid ESD | Active comparator | A partial or complete circumferential mucosal incision will be performed to expose the submucosa around and underneath the polyp. Endoscopic resection will then proceed via conventional ESD, submucosal tunneling or pocket technique. Receives: Procedure: Non-hybrid ESD |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
• The primary endpoint is to compare procedural time between hybrid vs non-hybrid ESD.
The primary endpoint is to compare procedural time between hybrid vs non-hybrid ESD. Procedure time is defined as the time from the beginning of the submucosal injection to completion of the ESD, defined as complete removal of the polyp from the colonic wall and all interventions for any intraprocedural adverse events.
Procedure speed will be calculated by diving the area of the resected specimen by the procedure time (cm2/minute). The following formula will be used to calculate the area: π (3.14) x 0.25 x long axis x short axis/procedure time.
Measured: 1 day
Secondary outcomes (7)
En-Bloc resection rate
- En-Bloc resection rate: Compare en-bloc resection rate between the two arms (hybrid ESD vs non-hybrid ESD). En-bloc resection is defined as resection of the lesion in one single piece.
Measured: 1 day
Completeness of resection
Completeness of resection: defined as removal of all visible polyp tissue at the end of the ESD as assessed by the endoscopist.
Measured: 1 day
Complete (R0) resection rate
.Complete (R0) resection rate: Compare complete (R0) resection rate between the two arms (hybrid ESD vs non-hybrid ESD). Complete resection is defined as successful en-bloc resection with histologically negative lateral and deep resection margins.
Measured: 1 day
Polyp recurrence
Polyp recurrence: presence of biopsy proven neoplastic polyp tissue at the ESD resection site at SC following complete polyp resection
Measured: 6 months
Incidence of overall severe adverse events
- Incidence of overall severe adverse events: aggregate of all severe adverse events that occur at the time of the procedure (immediate complications) or during 30 days of follow-up. Severe adverse events include severe bleeding, perforation, post-polypectomy syndrome, and clinical events that require non-elective hospital admission.
Measured: 6 months
Proportion of unremovable polyps
- Proportion of polyps that could not be removed by the assigned treatment, required cross-over to the other arm and/or additional interventions (e.g. use of traction devices, conversion to EMR)
Measured: 6 months
ESD technical difficulty:
- ESD technical difficulty: difficulty of the task at hand graded by each endoscopist after each case using the National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) Task Load Index (NASA-TLX)27.
Measured: 1 day
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted26 Apr 2022
- Study start9 May 2022
- Primary completion17 Jan 2024
- Study completion19 Dec 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (27)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Colorectal LesionsStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- This is a randomized trial where the subject will either be randomized to Hybrid Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection or Non-Hybrid Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection. The provider nor the participant will be aware of what group the subject will be randomized to.
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider
- Enrolment
- 247 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- AdventHealth
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Dennis Yang, MD, Principal investigator, AdventHealth Orlando
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05347446
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 1880189
- Acronym
- SHORT-ESD
- Status last verified
- Jan 2025
- First submitted
- 21 Apr 2022
- Last updated
- 15 Jan 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: There is no plan to share IPD.
Publications
Yang D, Othman M, Draganov PV. Endoscopic Mucosal Resection vs Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection For Barrett's Esophagus and Colorectal Neoplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 May;17(6):1019-1028. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.09.030. Epub 2018 Sep 26.
PubMed 30267866ASGE Technology Committee; Maple JT, Abu Dayyeh BK, Chauhan SS, Hwang JH, Komanduri S, Manfredi M, Konda V, Murad FM, Siddiqui UD, Banerjee S. Endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(6):1311-25. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.12.010. Epub 2015 Mar 18.
PubMed 25796422Pimentel-Nunes P, Pioche M, Albeniz E, Berr F, Deprez P, Ebigbo A, Dewint P, Haji A, Panarese A, Weusten BLAM, Dekker E, East JE, Sanders DS, Johnson G, Arvanitakis M, Ponchon T, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Bisschops R. Curriculum for endoscopic submucosal dissection training in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy. 2019 Oct;51(10):980-992. doi: 10.1055/a-0996-0912. Epub 2019 Aug 30.
PubMed 31470448Tanaka S, Kashida H, Saito Y, Yahagi N, Yamano H, Saito S, Hisabe T, Yao T, Watanabe M, Yoshida M, Kudo SE, Tsuruta O, Sugihara KI, Watanabe T, Saitoh Y, Igarashi M, Toyonaga T, Ajioka Y, Ichinose M, Matsui T, Sugita A, Sugano K, Fujimoto K, Tajiri H. JGES guidelines for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection. Dig Endosc. 2015 May;27(4):417-434. doi: 10.1111/den.12456. Epub 2015 Mar 5.
PubMed 25652022Draganov PV, Wang AY, Othman MO, Fukami N. AGA Institute Clinical Practice Update: Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the United States. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Jan;17(1):16-25.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.07.041. Epub 2018 Aug 2.
PubMed 30077787Fuccio L, Hassan C, Ponchon T, Mandolesi D, Farioli A, Cucchetti A, Frazzoni L, Bhandari P, Bellisario C, Bazzoli F, Repici A. Clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Jul;86(1):74-86.e17. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.02.024. Epub 2017 Feb 28.
PubMed 28254526McCarty TR, Bazarbashi AN, Thompson CC, Aihara H. Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) compared with conventional ESD for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2021 Oct;53(10):1048-1058. doi: 10.1055/a-1266-1855. Epub 2020 Dec 16.
PubMed 32947624The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Dec;58(6 Suppl):S3-43. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(03)02159-x. No abstract available.
PubMed 14652541Yang D, Draganov PV. Gaining traction: pulley-ing your weight during endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Jan;89(1):185-187. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.09.021. No abstract available.
PubMed 30567675Ge PS, Thompson CC, Jirapinyo P, Aihara H. Suture pulley countertraction method reduces procedure time and technical demand of endoscopic submucosal dissection among novice endoscopists learning endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective randomized ex vivo study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Jan;89(1):177-184. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.08.032. Epub 2018 Aug 25.
PubMed 30148993Iwasa T, Nakadate R, Onogi S, Okamoto Y, Arata J, Oguri S, Ogino H, Ihara E, Ohuchida K, Akahoshi T, Ikeda T, Ogawa Y, Hashizume M. A new robotic-assisted flexible endoscope with single-hand control: endoscopic submucosal dissection in the ex vivo porcine stomach. Surg Endosc. 2018 Jul;32(7):3386-3392. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6188-y. Epub 2018 Apr 17.
PubMed 29667042Turiani Hourneaux de Moura D, Aihara H, Jirapinyo P, Farias G, Hathorn KE, Bazarbashi A, Sachdev A, Thompson CC. Robot-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection versus conventional ESD for colorectal lesions: outcomes of a randomized pilot study in endoscopists without prior ESD experience (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Aug;90(2):290-298. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.03.016. Epub 2019 Mar 25.
PubMed 30922861Kudo S, Rubio CA, Teixeira CR, Kashida H, Kogure E. Pit pattern in colorectal neoplasia: endoscopic magnifying view. Endoscopy. 2001 Apr;33(4):367-73. doi: 10.1055/s-2004-826104. No abstract available.
PubMed 11315901ASGE Standards of Practice Committee; Acosta RD, Abraham NS, Chandrasekhara V, Chathadi KV, Early DS, Eloubeidi MA, Evans JA, Faulx AL, Fisher DA, Fonkalsrud L, Hwang JH, Khashab MA, Lightdale JR, Muthusamy VR, Pasha SF, Saltzman JR, Shaukat A, Shergill AK, Wang A, Cash BD, DeWitt JM. The management of antithrombotic agents for patients undergoing GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Jan;83(1):3-16. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.09.035. Epub 2015 Nov 24. No abstract available.
PubMed 26621548Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, Pike IM, Adler DG, Fennerty MB, Lieb JG 2nd, Park WG, Rizk MK, Sawhney MS, Shaheen NJ, Wani S, Weinberg DS. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jan;81(1):31-53. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.058. Epub 2014 Dec 2. No abstract available.
PubMed 25480100
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 15 Jan 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Hybrid Versus Non-Hybrid Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Polyps: A Randomized Trial (SHORT-ESD)
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05347446
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SHORT-ESD / 1880189
- Conditions
- Colorectal Lesions
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 247 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- AdventHealthUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 9 May 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 17 Jan 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 19 Dec 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 26 Apr 2022 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This proposed trial will randomize 60 patients with a ≥20 mm large colorectal polyp to either undergo hybrid or non-hybrid ESD. For the primary comparison (hybrid vs non-hybrid ESD), the primary outcome will be procedure time. The study will further examine the safety and efficacy of hybrid ESD compared to non-hybrid ESD and investigate factors that may be associated with resection outcomes.
Detailed description
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) permits the en-bloc resection of colorectal lesions irrespective of size. En-bloc resection, as opposed to piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of colorectal polyps ≥20 mm, provides a more definitive resection specimen for accurate histopathological assessment, and is associated with a low risk for recurrence1,2.
Current guidelines from the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES), the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), and the American Gastroenterology Association (AGA), recommend ESD as a preferred strategy for superficial colorectal lesions with suspicion for advanced neoplasia or early cancer (e.g. depressed morphology, advanced surface pattern, nongranular laterally spreading tumor [LST-NG], polyps, ≥20 mm in size)3-5. In these cases, ESD procures an ideal pathological specimen for submucosal staging, provides curative intent, and prevents unnecessary surgery for lesions with low risk for lymph node metastasis6 Yet, ESD in the United States and Europe has been primarily restricted to specialized centers for a variety of reasons, notably due to its technical complexity7. Technical difficulty resides primarily in the process of submucosal dissection using endoknives. Maintaining adequate visualization of the dissection plane during ESD is often regarded the rate-limiting step (Figure 1 Non-hybrid ESD). Other factors, including maintaining the endoknife parallel to the dissection plane and accounting for paradoxical scope movements due to patient-related factors (e.g. colon redundancy, peristalsis, breathing movements) represent formidable challenges during colorectal ESD. These technical hurdles can lead to prolonged procedural times and higher risk for adverse events8. Overcoming these barriers is necessary for the safe and widespread adoption of ESD in Western clinical practice.
To reduce the technical difficulty of colorectal ESD, several techniques have been introduced, such as the introduction of traction techniques to assist with the exposure and visualization of the dissection plane during ESD8. However, many of these traction techniques require additional devices, second-hand assistance, and have a learning curve of their own9-12. Hence, many of these methods have not been widely adopted.
Hybrid ESD is a modified ESD technique that uses snare-assisted resection as part of the procedure7. With hybrid ESD, a circumferential mucosal incision followed by limited submucosal dissection is performed. Following this, a snare is placed around the lesion, slowly closed to allow resection by traversing the submucosal space. The main advantage of this method is that it reduces the need for deep submucosal dissection underneath the center of the lesion, which intuitively would reduce procedural time and risk of adverse events. Furthermore, snare resection is a technique that is familiar to most endoscopists in the West.
A recent systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated outcomes between hybrid ESD and conventional ESD for colorectal lesions7. In aggregate, when compared with conventional ESD among over 2000 patients, hybrid ESD was associated with a shorter procedural time (mean difference of 18.5 minutes, p=0.003). The rate of adverse events decreased for hybrid ESD compared with conventional ESD (odds ratio 1.56; p=0.04), but no difference when stratified by perforation rate (odds ratio 1.86; p=0.11) or delayed bleeding (odds ratio 1.15; p=0.7). Conversely, hybrid ESD was associated with a lower rate of en-bloc resection when compared to conventional ESD (odds ratio 0.31; p<0.001)7. There are several limitations with this data. For one, 14 out of the 16 studies included in this analysis were observational in design. Hence, important factors, such as lesion size, endoscopist experience, type of snare, were not accounted for in most of the studies. Notably, the meta-analysis included studies in which hybrid ESD was used as a rescue therapy after failed conventional ESD, which further complicates the interpretability of the results. Furthermore, only 4 studies originated from the West (Europe) and none from the United States, limiting the generalizability of this technique by US endoscopists. In all, high-quality studies evaluating hybrid ESD for colorectal lesions are needed.
This proposed trial will randomize 60 patients with a ≥20 mm large colorectal polyp to either undergo hybrid or non-hybrid ESD. For the primary comparison (hybrid vs non-hybrid ESD), the primary outcome will be procedure time. The study will further examine the safety and efficacy of hybrid ESD compared to non-hybrid ESD and investigate factors that may be associated with resection outcomes.
This trial is timely, as ESD has been endorsed in recent years by multiple international and national GI societies. This study will provide information on the feasibility of hybrid ESD as a modified technique that can be more widely adopted in the West. The findings of this trial will therefore help identify a safe and practical ESD technique for large colorectal polyps.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Double blind (participant, care provider)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- This is a randomized trial where the subject will either be randomized to Hybrid Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection or Non-Hybrid Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection. The provider nor the participant will be aware of what group the subject will be randomized to.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Hybrid ESD | Active comparator | Procedure: Hybrid ESDHybrid ESD is a modified ESD technique that uses snare-assisted resection as part of the procedure. With hybrid ESD, a circumferential mucosal incision followed by limited submucosal dissection is performed. Following this, a snare is placed around the lesion, slowly closed to allow resection by traversing the submucosal space |
| Non-Hybrid ESD | Active comparator | Procedure: Non-hybrid ESDA partial or complete circumferential mucosal incision will be performed to expose the submucosa around and underneath the polyp. Endoscopic resection will then proceed via conventional ESD, submucosal tunneling or pocket technique. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Any patient ≥18 years
- Ability to provide informed consent
- Patient scheduled to undergo colonoscopy with endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps
- Non-pedunculated polyps measuring ≥20 mm in lateral diameter by endoscopic estimation
Key exclusion criteria (9 listed)
- Age < 18 years
- Inability to provide informed consent
- Pedunculated polyps (as defined by Paris classification type Ip)8
- Lesions < 20 mm in lateral diameter
- Suspected adenocarcinoma with deep submucosal invasion (e.g. Paris III morphology, Kudo type Vn pit pattern)4,13
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Hybrid ESDAlso: Endoscopic Mucosal ResectionMethod of removing colon lesion | Procedure or surgery | Hybrid ESD |
| Non-hybrid ESDAlso: Endoscopic Mucosal ResectionMethod of removing colon lesion | Procedure or surgery | Non-Hybrid ESD |
Primary outcome
• The primary endpoint is to compare procedural time between hybrid vs non-hybrid ESD.
Time frame: 1 day
The primary endpoint is to compare procedural time between hybrid vs non-hybrid ESD. Procedure time is defined as the time from the beginning of the submucosal injection to completion of the ESD, defined as complete removal of the polyp from the colonic wall and all interventions for any intraprocedural adverse events. Procedure speed will be calculated by diving the area of the resected specimen by the procedure time (cm2/minute). The following formula will be used to calculate the area: π (3.14) x 0.25 x long axis x short axis/procedure time.
7 secondary outcomes
En-Bloc resection rate
Time frame: 1 day
Completeness of resection
Time frame: 1 day
Complete (R0) resection rate
Time frame: 1 day
Polyp recurrence
Time frame: 6 months
Incidence of overall severe adverse events
Time frame: 6 months
Proportion of unremovable polyps
Time frame: 6 months
ESD technical difficulty:
Time frame: 1 day
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 15 Jan 2025.
- Results publication: PubMed 30267866Yang D, Othman M, Draganov PV. Endoscopic Mucosal Resection vs Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection For Barrett's Esophagus and Colorectal Neoplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 May;17(6):1019-1028. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.09.030. Epub 2018 Sep 26.
- Results publication: PubMed 25796422ASGE Technology Committee; Maple JT, Abu Dayyeh BK, Chauhan SS, Hwang JH, Komanduri S, Manfredi M, Konda V, Murad FM, Siddiqui UD, Banerjee S. Endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(6):1311-25. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.12.010. Epub 2015 Mar 18.
- Results publication: PubMed 31470448Pimentel-Nunes P, Pioche M, Albeniz E, Berr F, Deprez P, Ebigbo A, Dewint P, Haji A, Panarese A, Weusten BLAM, Dekker E, East JE, Sanders DS, Johnson G, Arvanitakis M, Ponchon T, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Bisschops R. Curriculum for endoscopic submucosal dissection training in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy. 2019 Oct;51(10):980-992. doi: 10.1055/a-0996-0912. Epub 2019 Aug 30.
- Results publication: PubMed 25652022Tanaka S, Kashida H, Saito Y, Yahagi N, Yamano H, Saito S, Hisabe T, Yao T, Watanabe M, Yoshida M, Kudo SE, Tsuruta O, Sugihara KI, Watanabe T, Saitoh Y, Igarashi M, Toyonaga T, Ajioka Y, Ichinose M, Matsui T, Sugita A, Sugano K, Fujimoto K, Tajiri H. JGES guidelines for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection. Dig Endosc. 2015 May;27(4):417-434. doi: 10.1111/den.12456. Epub 2015 Mar 5.
- Results publication: PubMed 30077787Draganov PV, Wang AY, Othman MO, Fukami N. AGA Institute Clinical Practice Update: Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the United States. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Jan;17(1):16-25.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2018.07.041. Epub 2018 Aug 2.
- Results publication: PubMed 28254526Fuccio L, Hassan C, Ponchon T, Mandolesi D, Farioli A, Cucchetti A, Frazzoni L, Bhandari P, Bellisario C, Bazzoli F, Repici A. Clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Jul;86(1):74-86.e17. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.02.024. Epub 2017 Feb 28.
- Results publication: PubMed 32947624McCarty TR, Bazarbashi AN, Thompson CC, Aihara H. Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) compared with conventional ESD for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2021 Oct;53(10):1048-1058. doi: 10.1055/a-1266-1855. Epub 2020 Dec 16.
- Results publication: PubMed 14652541The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Dec;58(6 Suppl):S3-43. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(03)02159-x. No abstract available.
- Results publication: PubMed 30567675Yang D, Draganov PV. Gaining traction: pulley-ing your weight during endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Jan;89(1):185-187. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.09.021. No abstract available.
- Results publication: PubMed 30148993Ge PS, Thompson CC, Jirapinyo P, Aihara H. Suture pulley countertraction method reduces procedure time and technical demand of endoscopic submucosal dissection among novice endoscopists learning endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective randomized ex vivo study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Jan;89(1):177-184. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.08.032. Epub 2018 Aug 25.
- Results publication: PubMed 29667042Iwasa T, Nakadate R, Onogi S, Okamoto Y, Arata J, Oguri S, Ogino H, Ihara E, Ohuchida K, Akahoshi T, Ikeda T, Ogawa Y, Hashizume M. A new robotic-assisted flexible endoscope with single-hand control: endoscopic submucosal dissection in the ex vivo porcine stomach. Surg Endosc. 2018 Jul;32(7):3386-3392. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6188-y. Epub 2018 Apr 17.
- Results publication: PubMed 30922861Turiani Hourneaux de Moura D, Aihara H, Jirapinyo P, Farias G, Hathorn KE, Bazarbashi A, Sachdev A, Thompson CC. Robot-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection versus conventional ESD for colorectal lesions: outcomes of a randomized pilot study in endoscopists without prior ESD experience (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Aug;90(2):290-298. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.03.016. Epub 2019 Mar 25.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. There is no plan to share IPD.
Related trials for Colorectal Lesions
RecruitingObservational study
Outcomes of Knife-Assisted Full-Thickness Resection for Rectal Lesions: A Multicenter Study
Colorectal Cancer
RecruitingObservational study
Characterization of Colorectal Dysplasic Lesions and Stratification of Their Evolving Risk in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patients: a Prospective, Observational and Multicenter Study
Crohn Disease (CD), Colitis Ulcerative
Enrolling by invitation
Cold Snare Piecemeal Resection vs Cold Snare Endoscopic Mucosal Resection
Colon Polyp, Colon Adenoma
Recruiting
Screening Women With Prior HPV for Anal Neoplasia
HPV-related Lower Genital Tract Neoplasias, HPV-related Anal Neoplasias
Active, not recruitingObservational study
Microwave Ablation or Wedge Resection for the Treatment of Lung, Sarcoma and Colorectal Lesions, ALLUME Study
Lung Non-Small Cell Carcinoma, Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Dennis Yang, MD principal investigator
AdventHealth Orlando
5 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Hybrid ESD and Non-hybrid ESD in people with Colorectal Lesions, run by AdventHealth at 5 sites in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 9 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 15 Jan 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 5 sites in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
• The primary endpoint is to compare procedural time between hybrid vs non-hybrid ESD. (time frame: 1 day). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05347446, which also lists 27 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 15 Jan 2025.