Margin marking before colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection and its impact on neoplasia recurrence (with video)

Published:November 29, 2021DOI:

      Background and Aims

      Ablation of resection margins after EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps decreases recurrence. Margin marking before EMR (EMR-MM) may represent an alternative method to achieve a healthy resection margin. We aimed to determine the efficacy of EMR-MM in reducing neoplasia recurrence.


      We conducted a single-center historical control study of EMR cases (EMR-MM vs conventional EMR) for nonpedunculated polyps ≥20 mm between 2016 and 2021. For EMR-MM, cautery marks were placed along the lateral margins of the polyp with the snare tip. EMR was then performed to include resection of the healthy mucosa containing the marks. We compared recurrence at surveillance colonoscopy after EMR-MM versus historical control subjects. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with recurrence.


      Two hundred ten patients with 210 polyps (median size, 30 mm; interquartile range: 25-40) underwent EMR-MM (n = 74) or conventional EMR (n = 136). Patient and lesion characteristics were similar between the groups. At a median follow-up of 6 months, the recurrence rate was lower with EMR-MM (6/74; 8%) compared with historical control subjects (39/136; 29%) (P < .001). EMR-MM was not associated with an increased rate of adverse events. On multivariable analysis, EMR-MM remained the strongest predictor of recurrence (odds ratio, .20; 95% confidence interval, .13-.64; P = .003) aside from polyp size (odds ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-6.01; P = .008).


      In this single-center historical control study, EMR-MM of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps reduced the recurrence risk by 80% when compared with conventional EMR. This simple technique may provide an alternative to margin ablation.


      EMR-MM (EMR with margin marking before resection), ESD (endoscopic submucosal dissection), IQR (interquartile range), OR (odds ratio), SC (surveillance colonoscopy)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Zauber A.G.
        • Winawer S.J.
        • O’Brien M.J.
        • et al.
        Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths.
        N Engl J Med. 2012; 366: 687-696
        • Jayanna M.
        • Burgess N.G.
        • Sing R.
        • et al.
        Cost-analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection vs. surgery for large laterally spreading colorectal lesions.
        Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016; 14: 271-278
        • Ahlenstiel G.
        • Hourigan L.F.
        • Brown G.
        • et al.
        Actual endoscopic versus predicted surgical mortality for treatment of advanced mucosal neoplasia of the colon.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2014; 80: 668-676
        • Brooker J.C.
        • Saunders B.P.
        • Shah S.G.
        • et al.
        Treatment with argon plasma coagulation reduces recurrence after piecemeal resection of large sessile colonic polyps: a randomized trial and recommendations.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2002; 55: 371-375
        • Moss A.
        • Bourke M.J.
        • Williams S.J.
        • et al.
        Endoscopic mucosal resection outcomes and prediction of submucosal cancer from advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia.
        Gastroenterology. 2011; 140: 1909-1918
        • Arebi N.
        • Swain D.
        • Suzuki N.
        • et al.
        Endoscopic mucosal resection of 161 cases of large sessile or flat colorectal polyps.
        Scand J Gastroenterol. 2007; 42: 859-866
        • Suresh S.
        • Zhang J.
        • Ahmed A.
        • et al.
        Risk factors associated with adenoma recurrence following cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection of polyps ≥ 20 mm: a retrospective chart review.
        Endosc Int Open. 2021; 9: E867-E873
        • Klein A.
        • Tate D.J.
        • Jayasekeran V.
        • et al.
        Thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins reduces adenoma recurrence after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection.
        Gastroenterology. 2019; 156: 604-613
        • Sidhu M.
        • Shahidi N.
        • Gupta S.
        • et al.
        Outcomes of thermal ablation of the mucosal defect margin after endoscopic mucosal resection: a prospective, international, multicentre trial of 1000 large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps.
        Gastroenterology. 2021; 161: 163-170
        • Emmanuel A.
        • Williams S.
        • Gulati S.
        • et al.
        Incidence of microscopic residual adenoma after complete wide-field endoscopic resection of large colorectal lesions: evidence for a mechanism of recurrence.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2021; 94: 368-375
        • Moss A.
        • Williams S.J.
        • Hourigan L.F.
        • et al.
        Long-term adenoma recurrence following wide-field endoscopic mucosal resection (WF-EMR) for advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia is infrequent: results and risk factors in 1000 cases from the Australian Colonic EMR (ACE) study.
        Gut. 2015; 64: 57-65
        • Von Renteln D.
        • Pohl H.
        Is ablation of the endoscopic mucosal resection margin the new standard for colorectal polyps?.
        Gastroenterology. 2019; 156: 546-548
        • Lieberman D.A.
        • Rex D.K.
        • Winawer S.J.
        • et al.
        Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.
        Gastroenterology. 2012; 143: 844-857
        • Gupta S.
        • Lieberman D.
        • Anderson J.C.
        • et al.
        Recommendations for follow-up after colonoscopy and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer.
        Gastroenterology. 2020; 158: 1131-1153
        • Burgess N.G.
        • Bassan M.S.
        • McLeod D.
        • et al.
        Deep mural injury and perforation after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection: a new classification and analysis of risk factors.
        Gut. 2017; 66: 1779-1789
        • Katsinelos P.
        • Lazaraki G.
        • Chatzimavroudis G.
        • et al.
        A retrospective comparative study of argon plasma versus polypectomy snare tip coagulation: effect on recurrence rate after resection of large laterally spreading type lesions.
        Ann Gastroenterol. 2019; 32: 178-184
        • Kandel P.
        • Werlang M.E.
        • Ahn I.R.
        • et al.
        Prophylactic snare tip soft coagulation and its impact on adenoma recurrence after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection.
        Dig Dis Sci. 2019; 64: 3300-3306
        • Bhurwal A.
        • Bartel M.J.
        • Heckman M.G.
        • et al.
        Endoscopic mucosal resection: learning curve for large nonpolypoid colorectal neoplasia.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2016; 84: 959-968
        • Kandel P.
        • Brand E.C.
        • Pelt J.
        • et al.
        Endoscopic scar assessment after colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection scars: When is biopsy necessary (EMR Scar Assessment Project for Endoscope (ESCAPE) trial).
        Gut. 2019; 68: 1633-1641

      Linked Article

      • Connecting the dots to eliminate recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection in the colon
        Gastrointestinal EndoscopyVol. 95Issue 5
        • Preview
          Innovations in EMR over the past decade have solidified its position as the preferred first-line intervention for large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs). Careful optical assessment and lesion selection, together with technologic advances, have allowed the safe and effective removal of LNPCPs without features of submucosal invasive cancer by EMR. The major historical limitations of EMR, including intraprocedural bleeding, clinically significant post-EMR bleeding, recognition and treatment of deep mural injury, and the removal of lesions in difficult locations (ileocecal valve and anorectal junction), have all been largely overcome by scientific study.
        • Full-Text
        • PDF