Approaches to assessing completeness of colorectal polyp resections in clinical practice: a systematic scoping review

Abstract

Background

Protocols for standardized assessment of complete colorectal polyp resection are lacking, contributing to divergent quality standards and hindering reliable comparison of incomplete resection rates (IRRs) across resection devices, techniques, endoscopists, and institutions. We reviewed available methods to inform the development of such protocols.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to 30 July 2024. Studies describing the use or validation of methods for assessing completeness of polyp resection were included. Studies using recurrence detected at follow-up or histopathological resection specimen margin assessment as outcome measures were excluded, unless used as reference standards for evaluation of other methods.

Results

45 eligible studies were identified. Methods for assisting in visual confirmation of complete resection included image enhancement techniques (6 studies), artificial intelligence (1 study), and resection defect diameter (1 study). Methods for measuring IRRs based on a histopathological reference standard involved biopsy sampling (29 studies) and extended margin resection (8 studies). IRR measurement protocols differed in terms of factors such as location and number of biopsies (1–8) and widths of extended resections (1–3 mm). IRRs >10% were observed for all polyp size categories and almost all resection techniques, with considerable variability in IRRs reported across studies (biopsy sampling 0–24.2%; extended resection 0–61.1%).

Conclusions

Different methods are available to assist in visual confirmation of complete resection and measuring IRRs, with considerable variability in their application, highlighting the need for standardized assessment of complete colorectal polyp resection.

Publication History

Received: 19 June 2025

Accepted after revision: 07 January 2026

Accepted Manuscript online:
14 January 2026

Article published online:
13 February 2026

• References

• 1 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
• 2 Robertson DJ, Lieberman DA, Winawer SJ. et al. Colorectal cancers soon after colonoscopy: a pooled multicohort analysis. Gut 2014; 63: 949-956
• 3 Troelsen FS, Sørensen HT, Pedersen L. et al. Root-cause analysis of 762 Danish post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer patients. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 21: 3160-3169.e3165
• 4 Leung LJ, Lee JK, Merchant SA. et al. Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer etiologies in a large integrated US health care setting. Gastroenterology 2023; 164: 470-472.e473
• 5 Anderson R, Burr NE, Valori R. Causes of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers based on World Endoscopy Organization system of analysis. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 1287-1299.e1282
• 6 Burr NE, Beaton D, Trudgill N. et al. National root-cause analysis of 1724 post-colonoscopy colorectal cancers demonstrates avoidable harm. Endoscopy 2025;
• 7 Mann R, Gajendran M, Umapathy C. et al. Endoscopic management of complex colorectal polyps: current insights and future trends. Front Med (Lausanne) 2021; 8: 728704
• 8 Djinbachian R, Iratni R, Durand M. et al. Rates of incomplete resection of 1- to 20-mm colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2020; 159: 904-914.e912
• 9 Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H. et al. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc 2015; 13: 141-146
• 10 Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W. et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169: 467-473
• 11 Pohl H, Anderson JC, Aguilera-Fish A. et al. Recurrence of colorectal neoplastic polyps after incomplete resection. Ann Intern Med 2021; 174: 1377-1384
• 12 Kumarasinghe MP, Bourke MJ, Brown I. et al. Pathological assessment of endoscopic resections of the gastrointestinal tract: a comprehensive clinicopathologic review. Mod Pathol 2020; 33: 986-1006
• 13 Park E, Barge W, Kramer J. et al. Interobserver reliability of methods to determine complete resection of adenomas in colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2021; 53: 1250-1255
• 14 Matsuura N, Takeuchi Y, Yamashina T. et al. Incomplete resection rate of cold snare polypectomy: a prospective single-arm observational study. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 251-257
• 15 Taghiakbari M, Anderson JC, von Renteln D. et al. Extent of normal polyp resection margin: a possible quality measure for polyp resection. Gut 2024; 73: 216-218
• 16 Scott N, Cairns A, Prasad P. et al. Resection margin involvement after endoscopic excision of malignant colorectal polyps: definition of margin involvement and its impact upon tumour recurrence. Histopathology 2023; 83: 80-90
• 17 Dessain A, Snauwaert C, Baldin P. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection specimens in early colorectal cancer: lateral margins, macroscopic techniques, and possible pitfalls. Virchows Arch 2017; 470: 165-174
• 18 Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z. et al. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2016; 5: 210
• 19 Hurlstone DP, Cross SS, Brown S. et al. A prospective evaluation of high-magnification chromoscopic colonoscopy in predicting completeness of EMR. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 642-650
• 20 Cipolletta L, Bianco MA, Garofano ML. et al. Can magnification endoscopy detect residual adenoma after piecemeal resection of large sessile colorectal lesions to guide subsequent treatment? A prospective single-center study. Dis Colon Rectum 2009; 52: 1774-1779
• 21 Park SK, Ko BM, Han JP. et al. A prospective randomized comparative study of cold forceps polypectomy by using narrow-band imaging endoscopy versus cold snare polypectomy in patients with diminutive colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 527-532.e521
• 22 Kuwai T, Yamada T, Toyokawa T. et al. Local recurrence of diminutive colorectal polyps after cold forceps polypectomy with jumbo forceps followed by magnified narrow-band imaging: a multicenter prospective study. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 253-260
• 23 O’Morain NR, Syafiq MI, Shahin A. et al. Dye-based chromoendoscopy following polypectomy reduces incomplete polyp resection. Endosc Int Open 2020; 8: E13-e19
• 24 Jung Y, Moon JR, Jeon SR. et al. Usefulness of narrow-band imaging for the detection of remnant sessile-serrated adenoma (SSA) tissue after endoscopic resection: the KASID multicenter study. Surg Endosc 2021; 35: 5217-5224
• 25 Ferlitsch M, Hassan C, Bisschops R. et al. Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – update 2024. Endoscopy 2024; 56: 516-545
• 26 Kaltenbach T, Anderson JC, Burke CA. et al. Endoscopic removal of colorectal lesions: recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2020; 115: 435-464
• 27 Shahid MW, Buchner AM, Coron E. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy in detecting residual colorectal neoplasia after EMR: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 525-533
• 28 Desomer L, Tutticci N, Tate DJ. et al. A standardized imaging protocol is accurate in detecting recurrence after EMR. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 518-526
• 29 Kandel P, Brand EC, 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
• 30 Zorron Cheng Tao Pu L, Chiam KH, Yamamura T. et al. Narrow-band imaging for scar (NBI-SCAR) classification: from conception to multicenter validation. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 1146-1154.e1145
• 31 João M, Areia M, Pinto-Pais T. et al. Can white-light endoscopy or narrow-band imaging avoid biopsy of colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection scars? A multicenter randomized single-blind crossover trial. Endoscopy 2023; 55: 601-607
• 32 Ortiz O, Daca-Alvarez M, Rivero-Sánchez L. et al. Linked-color imaging versus high definition white-light endoscopy for evaluation of post-polypectomy scars of nonpedunculated lesions: LCI-Scar study. Endoscopy 2024; 56: 283-290
• 33 Rogart JN, Aslanian HR, Siddiqui UD. Narrow band imaging to detect residual or recurrent neoplastic tissue during surveillance endoscopy. Dig Dis Sci 2011; 56: 472-478
• 34 Kliegis L, Obst W, Bruns J. et al. Can a polyp detection and characterization system predict complete resection?. Dig Dis 2021; 40: 115-118
• 35 Kudo T, Horiuchi A, Kyodo R. et al. Mucosal defect size predicts the adequacy of resection of ≤10 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps using a new cold snare polypectomy technique. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 33: e484-e489
• 36 Draganov PV, Chang MN, Alkhasawneh A. et al. Randomized, controlled trial of standard, large-capacity versus jumbo biopsy forceps for polypectomy of small, sessile, colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 118-126
• 37 Liu S, Ho SB, Krinsky ML. Quality of polyp resection during colonoscopy: are we achieving polyp clearance?. Dig Dis Sci 2012; 57: 1786-1791
• 38 Pohl H, Srivastava A, Bensen SP. et al. Incomplete polyp resection during colonoscopy – results of the complete adenoma resection (CARE) study. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 74-80.e71
• 39 Dwyer JP, Tan JYC, Urquhart P. et al. A prospective comparison of cold snare polypectomy using traditional or dedicated cold snares for the resection of small sessile colorectal polyps. Endosc Int Open 2017; 5: E1062-e1068
• 40 Kawamura T, Takeuchi Y, Asai S. et al. A comparison of the resection rate for cold and hot snare polypectomy for 4–9 mm colorectal polyps: a multicentre randomised controlled trial (CRESCENT study). Gut 2018; 67: 1950-1957
• 41 Kim HS, Jung HY, Park HJ. et al. Hot snare polypectomy with or without saline solution/epinephrine lift for the complete resection of small colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 1539-1547
• 42 Maruoka D, Arai M, Akizue N. et al. Residual adenoma after cold snare polypectomy for small colorectal adenomas: a prospective clinical study. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 693-700
• 43 Papastergiou V, Paraskeva KD, Fragaki M. et al. Cold versus hot endoscopic mucosal resection for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps sized 6–10 mm: a randomized trial. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 403-411
• 44 Zhang Q, Gao P, Han B. et al. Polypectomy for complete endoscopic resection of small colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 733-740
• 45 Huh CW, Kim JS, Choi HH. et al. Jumbo biopsy forceps versus cold snares for removing diminutive colorectal polyps: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 90: 105-111
• 46 Caliţa M, Florescu DN, Streba CT. et al. The quality of colorectal polypectomy. Is it enough to have just a visual assessment of the site?. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2020; 61: 1301-1307
• 47 Desai S, Gupta S, Copur-Dahi N. et al. A prospective randomized study comparing jumbo biopsy forceps to cold snare for the resection of diminutive colorectal polyps. Surg Endosc 2020; 34: 1206-1213
• 48 Li D, Wang W, Xie J. et al. Efficacy and safety of three different endoscopic methods in treatment of 6–20 mm colorectal polyps. Scand J Gastroenterol 2020; 55: 362-370
• 49 Pedersen IB, Bretthauer M, Kalager M. et al. Incomplete endoscopic resection of colorectal polyps: a prospective quality assurance study. Endoscopy 2021; 53: 383-391
• 50 de Benito Sanz M, Hernández L, Garcia Martinez MI. et al. Efficacy and safety of cold versus hot snare polypectomy for small (5–9 mm) colorectal polyps: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 35-44
• 51 Ma X, Feng X, Li Y. et al. A Comparison of incomplete resection rate of large and small colorectal polyps by cold snare polypectomy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 20: 1163-1170
• 52 Meng QQ, Rao M, Gao PJ. Effect of cold snare polypectomy for small colorectal polyps. World J Clin Cases 2022; 10: 6446-6455
• 53 Pedersen IB, Rawa-Golebiewska A, Calderwood AH. et al. Complete polyp resection with cold snare versus hot snare polypectomy for polyps of 4–9 mm: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 961-969
• 54 Perrod G, Perez-Cuadrado-Robles E, Coron E. et al. Comparison of cold biopsy forceps vs cold snare for diminutive colorectal polyp removal: a multicenter non-inferiority randomized controlled trial. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 2022; 46: 101867
• 55 Rex DK, Anderson JC, Pohl H. et al. Cold versus hot snare resection with or without submucosal injection of 6- to 15-mm colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 96: 330-338
• 56 Wei MT, Louie CY, Chen Y. et al. Randomized Controlled Trial Investigating Cold Snare and Forceps Polypectomy Among Small POLYPs in Rates of Complete Resection: The TINYPOLYP Trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2022; 117: 1305-1310
• 57 Wei MT, Louie CY, Chen Y. et al. Randomized controlled trial investigating use of submucosal injection of EverLift in rates of complete resection of non-pedunculated 4–9 mm polyps. Int J Colorectal Dis 2022; 37: 1273-1279
• 58 Mangira D, Raftopoulos S, Vogrin S. et al. Effectiveness and safety of cold snare polypectomy and cold endoscopic mucosal resection for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps of 10–19 mm: a multicenter observational cohort study. Endoscopy 2023; 55: 627-635
• 59 Motchum L, Djinbachian R, Rahme E. et al. Incomplete resection rates of 4- to 20-mm non-pedunculated colorectal polyps when using wide-field cold snare resection with routine submucosal injection. Endosc Int Open 2023; 11: E480-e489
• 60 Kim MJ, Na SY, Kim JS. et al. Cold snare polypectomy versus cold endoscopic mucosal resection for small colorectal polyps: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Surg Endosc 2023; 37: 3789-3795
• 61 von Renteln D, Djinbachian R, Benard F. et al. Incomplete resection of colorectal polyps of 4–20 mm in size when using a cold snare, and its associated factors. Endoscopy 2023; 55: 929-937
• 62 Efthymiou M, Taylor AC, Desmond PV. et al. Biopsy forceps is inadequate for the resection of diminutive polyps. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 312-316
• 63 Jung YS, Park JH, Kim HJ. et al. Complete biopsy resection of diminutive polyps. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 1024-1029
• 64 Gómez V, Badillo RJ, Crook JE. et al. Diminutive colorectal polyp resection comparing hot and cold snare and cold biopsy forceps polypectomy. Results of a pilot randomized, single-center study (with videos). Endosc Int Open 2015; 3: E76-80
• 65 Kim JS, Lee BI, Choi H. et al. Cold snare polypectomy versus cold forceps polypectomy for diminutive and small colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 741-747
• 66 O’Connor SA, Brooklyn TN, Dunckley PD. et al. High complete resection rate for pre-lift and cold biopsy of diminutive colorectal polyps. Endosc Int Open 2018; 6: E173-e178
• 67 Yamasaki Y, Harada K, Yamamoto S. et al. Evaluation of complete cold forceps polypectomy resection rate for 3- to 5-mm colorectal polyps. Dig Endosc 2021; 33: 948-954
• 68 Lu Q, Xiong F, Wang XY. et al. Intestinal topical lidocaine spray improves the efficacy and safety of endoscopic sigmoid polypectomy. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 35: 822-828
• 69 Thoguluva Chandrasekar V, Aziz M, Patel HK. et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection of sessile serrated polyps 10 mm or larger: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 2448-2455.e2443
• 70 Belderbos TD, Leenders M, Moons LM. et al. Local recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 388-402
• 71 Cronin O, Kirszenblat D, Forbes N. et al. Geometry of cold snare polypectomy and risk of incomplete resection. Endoscopy 2024; 56: 214-219
• 72 Yang D, Draganov PV, King W. et al. Margin marking before colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection and its impact on neoplasia recurrence (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 95: 956-965
• 73 Meulen LWT, Bogie RMM, Winkens B. et al. Thermal ablation of mucosal defect margins to prevent local recurrence of large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open 2022; 10: E1127-e1135
• 74 Kemper G, Turan AS, Schoon EJ. et al. Endoscopic techniques to reduce recurrence rates after colorectal EMR: systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2021; 35: 5422-5429
• 75 Niu C, Bapaye J, Zhang J. et al. Tip-in versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2023; 57: 983-990
• 76 Conio M, Manta R, Filiberti RA. et al. Cap-assisted EMR versus standard inject and cut EMR for treatment of large colonic laterally spreading tumors: a randomized multicenter study (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 96: 829-839.e821
• 77 Chandan S, Khan SR, Kumar A. et al. Efficacy and histologic accuracy of underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for large (>20 mm) colorectal polyps: a comparative review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 94: 471-482.e479
• 78 Choi JM, Lee C, Park JH. et al. Complete resection of colorectal adenomas: what are the important factors in fellow training?. Dig Dis Sci 2015; 60: 1579-1588
• 79 Hassan C, Antonelli G, Dumonceau JM. et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – update 2020. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 687-700
• 80 Gupta S, Lieberman D, Anderson JC. et al. Recommendations for follow-up after colonoscopy and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2020; 115: 415-434
• 81 Kerbage A, Farha N, Sarmini MT. et al. Photodocumentation of large colorectal polyps: an audit of image quality. J Clin Gastroenterol 2025;
• 82 IJspeert JE, Bastiaansen BA, van Leerdam ME. et al. Development and validation of the WASP classification system for optical diagnosis of adenomas, hyperplastic polyps and sessile serrated adenomas/polyps. Gut 2016; 65: 963-970
• 83 Tate DJ, Jayanna M, Awadie H. et al. A standardized imaging protocol for the endoscopic prediction of dysplasia within sessile serrated polyps (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 222-231.e222