Background/Aims: Early colorectal cancer (ECC) is commonly resected endoscopically. Perforation is a devastating complication of endoscopic resection. We aimed to identify the characteristics and predictive risk factors for perforation related to endoscopic resection of ECC. Methods: This nationwide retrospective multicenter study included patients with ECC who underwent endoscopic resection. We investigated the demographics, endoscopic findings at the time of treatment, and histopathological characteristics of the resected specimens. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the clinical factors associated with procedure-related perforations. Survival analysis was conducted to assess the impact of perforation on the overall survival of patients with ECC. Results: This study included 965 participants with a mean age of 63.4 years. The most common endoscopic treatment was conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (n=573, 59.4%), followed by conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (n=259, 26.8%). Thirty-three patients (3.4%) experienced perforations, most of which were managed endoscopically (n=23/33, 69.7%). Patients who undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection-hybrid and precut endoscopic mucosal resection have a higher risk of perforation than those who undergo conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio, 78.65 and 39.72, p<0.05). Procedure-related perforations were not associated with patient survival. Conclusions Perforation after endoscopic resection had no significant impact on the prognosis of ECC. The type of endoscopic resection was a crucial predictor of perforation. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to further investigate endoscopic resection of ECC.

Background/Aims: Early colorectal cancer (ECC) is commonly resected endoscopically. Perforation is a devastating complication of endoscopic resection. We aimed to identify the characteristics and predictive risk factors for perforation related to endoscopic resection of ECC. Methods: This nationwide retrospective multicenter study included patients with ECC who underwent endoscopic resection. We investigated the demographics, endoscopic findings at the time of treatment, and histopathological characteristics of the resected specimens. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the clinical factors associated with procedure-related perforations. Survival analysis was conducted to assess the impact of perforation on the overall survival of patients with ECC. Results: This study included 965 participants with a mean age of 63.4 years. The most common endoscopic treatment was conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (n=573, 59.4%), followed by conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (n=259, 26.8%). Thirty-three patients (3.4%) experienced perforations, most of which were managed endoscopically (n=23/33, 69.7%). Patients who undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection-hybrid and precut endoscopic mucosal resection have a higher risk of perforation than those who undergo conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio, 78.65 and 39.72, p<0.05). Procedure-related perforations were not associated with patient survival. Conclusions Perforation after endoscopic resection had no significant impact on the prognosis of ECC. The type of endoscopic resection was a crucial predictor of perforation. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to further investigate endoscopic resection of ECC.

Background/Aims: Early colorectal cancer (ECC) is commonly resected endoscopically. Perforation is a devastating complication of endoscopic resection. We aimed to identify the characteristics and predictive risk factors for perforation related to endoscopic resection of ECC. Methods: This nationwide retrospective multicenter study included patients with ECC who underwent endoscopic resection. We investigated the demographics, endoscopic findings at the time of treatment, and histopathological characteristics of the resected specimens. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the clinical factors associated with procedure-related perforations. Survival analysis was conducted to assess the impact of perforation on the overall survival of patients with ECC. Results: This study included 965 participants with a mean age of 63.4 years. The most common endoscopic treatment was conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (n=573, 59.4%), followed by conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (n=259, 26.8%). Thirty-three patients (3.4%) experienced perforations, most of which were managed endoscopically (n=23/33, 69.7%). Patients who undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection-hybrid and precut endoscopic mucosal resection have a higher risk of perforation than those who undergo conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio, 78.65 and 39.72, p<0.05). Procedure-related perforations were not associated with patient survival. Conclusions Perforation after endoscopic resection had no significant impact on the prognosis of ECC. The type of endoscopic resection was a crucial predictor of perforation. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to further investigate endoscopic resection of ECC.

Background/Aims: Early colorectal cancer (ECC) is commonly resected endoscopically. Perforation is a devastating complication of endoscopic resection. We aimed to identify the characteristics and predictive risk factors for perforation related to endoscopic resection of ECC. Methods: This nationwide retrospective multicenter study included patients with ECC who underwent endoscopic resection. We investigated the demographics, endoscopic findings at the time of treatment, and histopathological characteristics of the resected specimens. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the clinical factors associated with procedure-related perforations. Survival analysis was conducted to assess the impact of perforation on the overall survival of patients with ECC. Results: This study included 965 participants with a mean age of 63.4 years. The most common endoscopic treatment was conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (n=573, 59.4%), followed by conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (n=259, 26.8%). Thirty-three patients (3.4%) experienced perforations, most of which were managed endoscopically (n=23/33, 69.7%). Patients who undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection-hybrid and precut endoscopic mucosal resection have a higher risk of perforation than those who undergo conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio, 78.65 and 39.72, p<0.05). Procedure-related perforations were not associated with patient survival. Conclusions Perforation after endoscopic resection had no significant impact on the prognosis of ECC. The type of endoscopic resection was a crucial predictor of perforation. Large-scale prospective studies are needed to further investigate endoscopic resection of ECC.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.