Colonic NeoplasmsCOWLNCT06217250
Hot EMR vs Underwater Cold EMR for Large Colonic Adenomas
A study testing Traditional EMR and the cold snare ("CO"), underwater technique ("W"), and the use of submucosal lift ("L") in both study arms in people with Colonic Neoplasms and Colonic Adenoma, run by Istituto Clinico Humanitas.
Trial summary
This randomized, multi-center trial aims to evaluate the advantages of underwater cold endoscopic mucosal resection technique (CS-EMR) in comparison to the conventional endoscopic mucosal resection technique (EMR) for laterally spreading colorectal lesions exceeding 20 mm in size. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Colonic Neoplasms, Colonic Adenoma, Colonic Lesion
- What is being tested?
- Traditional EMR and the cold snare ("CO"), underwater technique ("W"), and the use of submucosal lift ("L") in both study arms
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion, Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 330 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- 15 Apr 2024to Jan 2026
- 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
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- all patients ≥ 18 years of age undergoing colonoscopy for any indication (screening, anaemia, surveillance)
- patients who were able to give informed written consent.
Who cannot join
- lesions suspicious for submucosal invasion (e.g. Kudo V or Paris 0-IIa-IIc with nongranular surface).
- lesions with large (>10 mm) Paris 0-Is component that could compromise the nodular en-bloc resection and increase risk of submucosal invasion.
- suspected sessile serrated adenomas (SSAs) according to traditional features such as adherent surface mucus, cloud-like surface, interruption of mucosal vessels, Kudo II-o pit pattern.
- pedunculated polyps
- active/quiescent colitis
- patients with other lesions resected by hot snare during the same procedure.
- rectal lesions
- residual or recurrent adenoma after endoscopic mucosal resection
Trial locations and contacts
No sites are listed yet.
About this study
Official title: Hot EMR vs Underwater Cold EMR for Large Colonic Adenomas (>20 mm): the "CO.W.L." Prospective Randomized Trial
This randomized, multi-center trial aims to evaluate the advantages of underwater cold endoscopic mucosal resection technique (CS-EMR) in comparison to the conventional endoscopic mucosal resection technique (EMR) for laterally spreading colorectal lesions exceeding 20 mm in size. More precisely, our hypothesis posits that underwater cold EMR is non-inferior to conventional EMR in terms of recurrence rates, resection completeness and safety.
Read the detailed description
Endoscopic mucosal resection stands as one of the most commonly employed techniques for the removal of gastrointestinal lesions, particularly within the colon. "Piece-meal" endoscopic mucosal resection is the preferred approach for large colonic polyps without signs of deep infiltration. This method consists of the removal of lesions in multiple fragments.
The conventional procedure starts with the initial submucosal infiltration of the submucosal layer using a physiological solution and methylene blue, forming a cushion that facilitates tissue transection with the assistance of a diathermic snare. The goal is to remove the lesions in larger fragments whenever possible.
In contrast, the "cold" procedure, employs a specialized snare that enables tissue transection without the need for electrical current. This approach yields the same outcome as the conventional procedure but offers the advantage of reducing the risks associated with the use of diathermic current. Subsequently, the lesion fragments are retrieved for histological examination.
- Conditions
- Colonic Neoplasms, Colonic Adenoma, Colonic Lesion
- Being tested
- Traditional EMR, the cold snare ("CO"), underwater technique ("W"), and the use of submucosal lift ("L") in both study arms
- Medical subject headings
- Colonic Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Traditional EMRProcedure or surgery
Also called Endoscopic Mucosal Resection
Conventional EMR with thermal ablation of resection margins: initial submucosal injection of saline and methylene blue and subsequent piecemeal resection with 10- or 15-mm diathermic snare with subsequent thermal ablation of resection margins with snare tip soft coagulation.Nevertheless, this technique is associated with the emergence of serious adverse events (SAEs), including delayed bleeding (PPB), electrocautery-induced post-polipectomy syndrome (PPS), and perforation(4).
the cold snare ("CO"), underwater technique ("W"), and the use of submucosal lift ("L") in both study armsProcedure or surgery
The "cold-EMR" technique, as opposed to the conventional approach, employs a specialized snare that enables tissue transection without the need for electrical current, particularly in appropriately selected lesions. This approach yields the same efficacy outcome as the conventional procedure but offers the advantage of reducing the risks associated with polypectomy, which are often secondary to the use of diathermic current. Subsequently, the lesion fragments are retrieved for histological examination. Furthermore, the use of underwater setting, as demonstrated for hot EMR, could improve the effectiveness of cold-EMR.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Conventional EMR | Active comparator | Conventional EMR with thermal ablation of resection margins: initial submucosal injection of saline and methylene blue and subsequent piecemeal resection with 10- or 15-mm diathermic snare with subsequent thermal ablation of resection margins with snare tip soft coagulation. Receives: Procedure: Traditional EMR |
| Underwater Cold EMR | Experimental | Underwater Cold EMR (CS-EMR): after filling the lumen with water, initial submucosal injection of saline and methylene blue and subsequent piece-meal resection carried out with dedicated cold snare. Receives: Procedure: the cold snare ("CO"), underwater technique ("W"), and the use of submucosal lift ("L") in both study arms |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Success rate of resection defined as absence of residual/recurrence in SC1 and/or SC2
Measured: at 6 and/or 12 months
Secondary outcomes (6)
technical success
defined by the complete resection of polyp
Measured: 2 years
Rate of intraprocedural adverse events such as bleeding or perforation
Defined as any procedure-related complication that compromises the completeness of the procedure and/or results in unplanned hospitalization of the patient
Measured: 2 years
Rate of delayed bleeding of the patient
Measured: 2 years
Rate of post-polipectomy syndrome
Measured: 2 years
Rate of delayed perforation
Measured: 2 years
Avarage time of procedure and polyp resection time
Measured: 2 years
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted22 Jan 2024
- Study start15 Apr 2024 (estimated)
- Primary completionDec 2025 (estimated)
- Study completionJan 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (12)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Colonic NeoplasmsStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Istituto Clinico HumanitasThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- 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
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 330 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Istituto Clinico Humanitas
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06217250
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- COWL
- Acronym
- COWL
- Status last verified
- Nov 2023
- First submitted
- 9 Nov 2023
- Last updated
- 18 Apr 2024
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Nishihara R, Wu K, Lochhead P, Morikawa T, Liao X, Qian ZR, Inamura K, Kim SA, Kuchiba A, Yamauchi M, Imamura Y, Willett WC, Rosner BA, Fuchs CS, Giovannucci E, Ogino S, Chan AT. Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep 19;369(12):1095-105. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301969.
PubMed 24047059Ferlitsch M, Moss A, Hassan C, Bhandari P, Dumonceau JM, Paspatis G, Jover R, Langner C, Bronzwaer M, Nalankilli K, Fockens P, Hazzan R, Gralnek IM, Gschwantler M, Waldmann E, Jeschek P, Penz D, Heresbach D, Moons L, Lemmers A, Paraskeva K, Pohl J, Ponchon T, Regula J, Repici A, Rutter MD, Burgess NG, Bourke MJ. Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy. 2017 Mar;49(3):270-297. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-102569. Epub 2017 Feb 17.
PubMed 28212588Sidhu M, Shahidi N, Gupta S, Desomer L, Vosko S, Arnout van Hattem W, Hourigan LF, Lee EYT, Moss A, Raftopoulos S, Heitman SJ, Williams SJ, Zanati S, Tate DJ, Burgess N, Bourke MJ. Outcomes of Thermal Ablation of the Mucosal Defect Margin After Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: A Prospective, International, Multicenter Trial of 1000 Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps. Gastroenterology. 2021 Jul;161(1):163-170.e3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.03.044. Epub 2021 Mar 31.
PubMed 33798525Russo P, Barbeiro S, Awadie H, Libanio D, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Bourke M. Management of colorectal laterally spreading tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open. 2019 Feb;7(2):E239-E259. doi: 10.1055/a-0732-487. Epub 2019 Jan 30.
PubMed 30705959Thoguluva Chandrasekar V, Aziz M, Patel HK, Sidhu N, Duvvuri A, Dasari C, Kennedy KF, Ashwath A, Spadaccini M, Desai M, Jegadeesan R, Sathyamurthy A, Vennalaganti P, Kohli D, Hassan C, Pellise M, Repici A, Sharma P, Bourke MJ. Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Resection of Sessile Serrated Polyps 10 mm or Larger: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Oct;18(11):2448-2455.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.041. Epub 2019 Nov 29.
PubMed 31786330Spadaccini M, Alfarone L, Facciorusso A, Gkolfakis P, Thoguluva Chandrasekar V, Fugazza A, Colombo M, Capogreco A, Massimi D, Carrara S, Alkandari A, Bhandari P, Maselli R, Hassan C, Repici A. Cold-snare endoscopic resection of non-ampullary duodenal adenomas: Systematic review and pooled-analysis. Dig Liver Dis. 2024 Apr;56(4):656-662. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2023.09.013. Epub 2023 Sep 28.
PubMed 37777353Ito A, Suga T, Ota H, Tateiwa N, Matsumoto A, Tanaka E. Resection depth and layer of cold snare polypectomy versus endoscopic mucosal resection. J Gastroenterol. 2018 Nov;53(11):1171-1178. doi: 10.1007/s00535-018-1446-2. Epub 2018 Mar 7.
PubMed 29516270Suresh S, Zhang J, Ahmed A, Abu Ghanimeh M, Elbanna A, Kaur R, Isseh M, Watson A, Dang DT, Chathadi KV, Pompa R, Singla S, Piraka C, Zuchelli T. Risk factors associated with adenoma recurrence following cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection of polyps >/= 20 mm: a retrospective chart review. Endosc Int Open. 2021 Jun;9(6):E867-E873. doi: 10.1055/a-1399-8398. Epub 2021 May 27.
PubMed 34079869Maruoka D, Kishimoto T, Matsumura T, Arai M, Akizue N, Ishikawa K, Ohta Y, Kasamatsu S, Taida T, Ishigami H, Okimoto K, Saito K, Nakagawa T, Kato N. Underwater cold snare polypectomy for colorectal adenomas. Dig Endosc. 2019 Nov;31(6):662-671. doi: 10.1111/den.13427. Epub 2019 May 27.
PubMed 31038769Forbes N, Gupta S, Frehlich L, Meng ZW, Ruan Y, Montori S, Chebaa BR, Dunbar KB, Heitman SJ, Feagins LA, Albeniz E, Pohl H, Bourke MJ. Clip closure to prevent adverse events after EMR of proximal large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc. 2022 Nov;96(5):721-731.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.05.020. Epub 2022 Jun 3.
PubMed 35667388Rotermund C, Djinbachian R, Taghiakbari M, Enderle MD, Eickhoff A, von Renteln D. Recurrence rates after endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2022 Aug 7;28(29):4007-4018. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i29.4007.
PubMed 36157546Rex DK, Anderson JC, Pohl H, Lahr RE, Judd S, Antaki F, Lilley K, Castelluccio PF, Vemulapalli KC. Cold versus hot snare resection with or without submucosal injection of 6- to 15-mm colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2022 Aug;96(2):330-338. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.03.006. Epub 2022 Mar 12.
PubMed 35288147
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 18 Apr 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Hot EMR vs Underwater Cold EMR for Large Colonic Adenomas (>20 mm): the "CO.W.L." Prospective Randomized Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06217250
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- COWL / COWL
- Conditions
- Colonic Neoplasms, Colonic Adenoma, Colonic Lesion
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 330 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Istituto Clinico HumanitasUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 15 Apr 2024 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- Dec 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Jan 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 22 Jan 2024 (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 randomized, multi-center trial aims to evaluate the advantages of underwater cold endoscopic mucosal resection technique (CS-EMR) in comparison to the conventional endoscopic mucosal resection technique (EMR) for laterally spreading colorectal lesions exceeding 20 mm in size. More precisely, our hypothesis posits that underwater cold EMR is non-inferior to conventional EMR in terms of recurrence rates, resection completeness and safety.
Detailed description
Endoscopic mucosal resection stands as one of the most commonly employed techniques for the removal of gastrointestinal lesions, particularly within the colon. "Piece-meal" endoscopic mucosal resection is the preferred approach for large colonic polyps without signs of deep infiltration. This method consists of the removal of lesions in multiple fragments.
The conventional procedure starts with the initial submucosal infiltration of the submucosal layer using a physiological solution and methylene blue, forming a cushion that facilitates tissue transection with the assistance of a diathermic snare. The goal is to remove the lesions in larger fragments whenever possible.
In contrast, the "cold" procedure, employs a specialized snare that enables tissue transection without the need for electrical current. This approach yields the same outcome as the conventional procedure but offers the advantage of reducing the risks associated with the use of diathermic current. Subsequently, the lesion fragments are retrieved for histological examination.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Conventional EMR | Active comparator | Procedure: Traditional EMRConventional EMR with thermal ablation of resection margins: initial submucosal injection of saline and methylene blue and subsequent piecemeal resection with 10- or 15-mm diathermic snare with subsequent thermal ablation of resection margins with snare tip soft coagulation. |
| Underwater Cold EMR | Experimental | Procedure: the cold snare ("CO"), underwater technique ("W"), and the use of submucosal lift ("L") in both study armsUnderwater Cold EMR (CS-EMR): after filling the lumen with water, initial submucosal injection of saline and methylene blue and subsequent piece-meal resection carried out with dedicated cold snare. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- all patients ≥ 18 years of age undergoing colonoscopy for any indication (screening, anaemia, surveillance)
- patients who were able to give informed written consent.
Key exclusion criteria (8 listed)
- lesions suspicious for submucosal invasion (e.g. Kudo V or Paris 0-IIa-IIc with nongranular surface).
- lesions with large (>10 mm) Paris 0-Is component that could compromise the nodular en-bloc resection and increase risk of submucosal invasion.
- suspected sessile serrated adenomas (SSAs) according to traditional features such as adherent surface mucus, cloud-like surface, interruption of mucosal vessels, Kudo II-o pit pattern.
- pedunculated polyps
- active/quiescent colitis
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional EMRAlso: Endoscopic Mucosal ResectionConventional EMR with thermal ablation of resection margins: initial submucosal injection of saline and methylene blue and subsequent piecemeal resection with 10- or 15-mm diathermic snare with subsequent thermal ablation of resection margins with snare tip soft coagulation.Nevertheless, this technique is associated with the emergence of serious adverse events (SAEs), including delayed bleeding (PPB), electrocautery-induced post-polipectomy syndrome (PPS), and perforation(4). | Procedure or surgery | Conventional EMR |
| the cold snare ("CO"), underwater technique ("W"), and the use of submucosal lift ("L") in both study armsThe "cold-EMR" technique, as opposed to the conventional approach, employs a specialized snare that enables tissue transection without the need for electrical current, particularly in appropriately selected lesions. This approach yields the same efficacy outcome as the conventional procedure but offers the advantage of reducing the risks associated with polypectomy, which are often secondary to the use of diathermic current. Subsequently, the lesion fragments are retrieved for histological examination. Furthermore, the use of underwater setting, as demonstrated for hot EMR, could improve the effectiveness of cold-EMR. | Procedure or surgery | Underwater Cold EMR |
Primary outcome
Success rate of resection defined as absence of residual/recurrence in SC1 and/or SC2
Time frame: at 6 and/or 12 months
6 secondary outcomes
technical success
Time frame: 2 years
Rate of intraprocedural adverse events such as bleeding or perforation
Time frame: 2 years
Rate of delayed bleeding of the patient
Time frame: 2 years
Rate of post-polipectomy syndrome
Time frame: 2 years
Rate of delayed perforation
Time frame: 2 years
Avarage time of procedure and polyp resection time
Time frame: 2 years
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 18 Apr 2024.
- Background: PubMed 24047059Nishihara R, Wu K, Lochhead P, Morikawa T, Liao X, Qian ZR, Inamura K, Kim SA, Kuchiba A, Yamauchi M, Imamura Y, Willett WC, Rosner BA, Fuchs CS, Giovannucci E, Ogino S, Chan AT. Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep 19;369(12):1095-105. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301969.
- Background: PubMed 28212588Ferlitsch M, Moss A, Hassan C, Bhandari P, Dumonceau JM, Paspatis G, Jover R, Langner C, Bronzwaer M, Nalankilli K, Fockens P, Hazzan R, Gralnek IM, Gschwantler M, Waldmann E, Jeschek P, Penz D, Heresbach D, Moons L, Lemmers A, Paraskeva K, Pohl J, Ponchon T, Regula J, Repici A, Rutter MD, Burgess NG, Bourke MJ. Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy. 2017 Mar;49(3):270-297. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-102569. Epub 2017 Feb 17.
- Background: PubMed 33798525Sidhu M, Shahidi N, Gupta S, Desomer L, Vosko S, Arnout van Hattem W, Hourigan LF, Lee EYT, Moss A, Raftopoulos S, Heitman SJ, Williams SJ, Zanati S, Tate DJ, Burgess N, Bourke MJ. Outcomes of Thermal Ablation of the Mucosal Defect Margin After Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: A Prospective, International, Multicenter Trial of 1000 Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps. Gastroenterology. 2021 Jul;161(1):163-170.e3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.03.044. Epub 2021 Mar 31.
- Background: PubMed 30705959Russo P, Barbeiro S, Awadie H, Libanio D, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Bourke M. Management of colorectal laterally spreading tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open. 2019 Feb;7(2):E239-E259. doi: 10.1055/a-0732-487. Epub 2019 Jan 30.
- Background: PubMed 31786330Thoguluva Chandrasekar V, Aziz M, Patel HK, Sidhu N, Duvvuri A, Dasari C, Kennedy KF, Ashwath A, Spadaccini M, Desai M, Jegadeesan R, Sathyamurthy A, Vennalaganti P, Kohli D, Hassan C, Pellise M, Repici A, Sharma P, Bourke MJ. Efficacy and Safety of Endoscopic Resection of Sessile Serrated Polyps 10 mm or Larger: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Oct;18(11):2448-2455.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.11.041. Epub 2019 Nov 29.
- Background: PubMed 37777353Spadaccini M, Alfarone L, Facciorusso A, Gkolfakis P, Thoguluva Chandrasekar V, Fugazza A, Colombo M, Capogreco A, Massimi D, Carrara S, Alkandari A, Bhandari P, Maselli R, Hassan C, Repici A. Cold-snare endoscopic resection of non-ampullary duodenal adenomas: Systematic review and pooled-analysis. Dig Liver Dis. 2024 Apr;56(4):656-662. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2023.09.013. Epub 2023 Sep 28.
- Background: PubMed 29516270Ito A, Suga T, Ota H, Tateiwa N, Matsumoto A, Tanaka E. Resection depth and layer of cold snare polypectomy versus endoscopic mucosal resection. J Gastroenterol. 2018 Nov;53(11):1171-1178. doi: 10.1007/s00535-018-1446-2. Epub 2018 Mar 7.
- Background: PubMed 34079869Suresh S, Zhang J, Ahmed A, Abu Ghanimeh M, Elbanna A, Kaur R, Isseh M, Watson A, Dang DT, Chathadi KV, Pompa R, Singla S, Piraka C, Zuchelli T. Risk factors associated with adenoma recurrence following cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection of polyps >/= 20 mm: a retrospective chart review. Endosc Int Open. 2021 Jun;9(6):E867-E873. doi: 10.1055/a-1399-8398. Epub 2021 May 27.
- Background: PubMed 31038769Maruoka D, Kishimoto T, Matsumura T, Arai M, Akizue N, Ishikawa K, Ohta Y, Kasamatsu S, Taida T, Ishigami H, Okimoto K, Saito K, Nakagawa T, Kato N. Underwater cold snare polypectomy for colorectal adenomas. Dig Endosc. 2019 Nov;31(6):662-671. doi: 10.1111/den.13427. Epub 2019 May 27.
- Background: PubMed 35667388Forbes N, Gupta S, Frehlich L, Meng ZW, Ruan Y, Montori S, Chebaa BR, Dunbar KB, Heitman SJ, Feagins LA, Albeniz E, Pohl H, Bourke MJ. Clip closure to prevent adverse events after EMR of proximal large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc. 2022 Nov;96(5):721-731.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.05.020. Epub 2022 Jun 3.
- Background: PubMed 36157546Rotermund C, Djinbachian R, Taghiakbari M, Enderle MD, Eickhoff A, von Renteln D. Recurrence rates after endoscopic resection of large colorectal polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol. 2022 Aug 7;28(29):4007-4018. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i29.4007.
- Background: PubMed 35288147Rex DK, Anderson JC, Pohl H, Lahr RE, Judd S, Antaki F, Lilley K, Castelluccio PF, Vemulapalli KC. Cold versus hot snare resection with or without submucosal injection of 6- to 15-mm colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2022 Aug;96(2):330-338. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.03.006. Epub 2022 Mar 12.
Related trials for Colonic Neoplasms
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
Hepatic Artery Infusion of Carfilzomib in Participants With Liver Metastatic Disease Previously Treated With Hepatic Artery Infusion Pump Therapy
Colorectal Neoplasms, Neoplasms
Active, not recruiting
Streamlined Geriatric and Oncological Evaluation Based On IC Technology
Breast Cancer, Comorbidities and Coexisting Conditions
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
Natural History Study of Early Life Exposures in Agriculture (ELEA)
Prostate Cancer, Leukemia
RecruitingPhase 2
Tislelizumab in People With Colorectal Cancer
Colorectal Cancer
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Alberta Cancer Exercise Dose in Colorectal Cancer
Cancer, Colorectal Cancer
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.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Traditional EMR and the cold snare ("CO"), underwater technique ("W"), and the use of submucosal lift ("L") in both study arms in people with Colonic Neoplasms and Colonic Adenoma, run by Istituto Clinico Humanitas.
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 2 inclusion and 8 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: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 18 Apr 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
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?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Antonio Capogreco (02-82247385, antonio.capogreco@humanitas.it), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Success rate of resection defined as absence of residual/recurrence in SC1 and/or SC2 (time frame: at 6 and/or 12 months). 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 NCT06217250, which also lists 12 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 18 Apr 2024.