Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-24 @ 5:49 PM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-29 @ 2:42 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT03962868
Status:
UNKNOWN
Last Update Posted:
2023-05-31
First Post:
2019-05-22
Is Gene Therapy:
True
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD) Versus Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) for Large Non Pedunculated Colonic Adenomas: a Randomized Comparative Trial
Sponsor:
University Hospital, Limoges
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD) Versus Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) for Large Non Pedunculated Colonic Adenomas: a Randomized Comparative Trial
Status:
UNKNOWN
Status Verified Date:
2023-05
Last Known Status:
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
RESECT COLON
Brief Summary:
Initially developed in Japan for the treatment of endemic superficial gastric cancers, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) allows resection of pre-neoplastic and neoplastic lesions of the digestive tract into a single fragment. It allows a perfect pathological analysis, and decreases the rate of recurrence of the adenoma to less than 2% However, this procedure, which is technically more challenging, is also more risky (perforation rate at 4% vs. 1% for WF-EMR) and longer. Submucosal dissection is also more expensive in terms of equipment, but this difference can be offset by the cost of the high number of iterative colonoscopies required in patients who have had endoscopic resection by WF-EMR.
Scientific debate is agitating the Western world1,2 and Japanese experts do not perform WF-EMR anymore, whereas no comparative prospective study has compared these two procedures.
We therefore propose to compare these two endoscopic resection strategies in terms of recurrence rate at 6 months and to estimate the differential cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios over a 36-month time horizon.
Scientific debate is agitating the Western world1,2 and Japanese experts do not perform WF-EMR anymore, whereas no comparative prospective study has compared these two procedures.
We therefore propose to compare these two endoscopic resection strategies in terms of recurrence rate at 6 months and to estimate the differential cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios over a 36-month time horizon.
Detailed Description:
None
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
False
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: