GelPOINT® Path-Assisted Endoscopic Removal of Colon and Rectal Polyps: A Feasibility and Safety Study

July 20, 2026 updated by: Tara Keihanian, Baylor College of Medicine

GelPOINT® Path-Assisted Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Colorectal Polyps: A Feasibility and Safety Study

This prospective, single-center, observational feasibility and safety study will evaluate the use of the GelPOINT® Path transanal access platform during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for the removal of colorectal polyps. The GelPOINT® Path system is designed to improve access, maintain stable insufflation, and enhance visualization during advanced endoscopic procedures.

The study will enroll adult patients undergoing ESD for eligible colorectal lesions. The primary objective is to evaluate the technical feasibility, procedural performance, and safety of GelPOINT® Path-assisted ESD. Procedural outcomes, including procedure speed, technical success, resection outcomes, and procedure-related adverse events, will be collected prospectively. Participants will receive standard clinical care and will be followed for approximately 4 weeks after the procedure to assess delayed adverse events.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Recruiting

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Detailed Description

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an advanced endoscopic technique that enables en bloc removal of large or complex colorectal lesions while preserving the bowel and reducing the need for surgical resection. Despite its advantages, colorectal ESD remains technically demanding because of limited visualization, unstable luminal distension, and restricted instrument maneuverability, particularly in the distal colon and rectum.

The GelPOINT® Path transanal access platform has been widely used in transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) to provide stable insufflation and improved access for rectal procedures. This study will evaluate whether incorporating the GelPOINT® Path platform into colorectal ESD can improve procedural efficiency while maintaining the safety and effectiveness of standard ESD.

This is a prospective, single-center, observational feasibility and safety study enrolling approximately 30 adult patients undergoing ESD for eligible colorectal lesions. All procedures will be performed by experienced advanced endoscopists as part of routine clinical care. The use of the GelPOINT® Path platform will be determined by the treating physician according to standard clinical practice. No experimental therapeutic interventions or deviations from routine clinical management will occur.

Clinical, procedural, pathological, and follow-up data will be collected prospectively using standardized case report forms. Outcomes will include technical success, procedure time, dissection speed, en bloc resection, R0 resection, curative resection, device performance, operator workload, and intraprocedural and delayed adverse events. Participants will be followed for approximately 4 weeks after the procedure to evaluate post-procedural safety.

The findings from this study are expected to provide important feasibility and safety data regarding the use of the GelPOINT® Path platform as an adjunct to colorectal ESD and may help guide the design of future comparative studies evaluating its clinical effectiveness.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Observational

Enrollment (Estimated)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
30

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Contact

The name and contact information for the person who can answer enrollment questions for a clinical study. Each location where the study is being conducted may also have a specific contact, who may be better able to answer those questions.

Study Locations

  • United States
    • Texas
      • Houston, Texas, United States, 77030
        • Recruiting
        • Baylor College of Medicine
        • Sub-Investigator:
          • Mohamed Othman, MD
        • Sub-Investigator:
          • Fares Ayoub, MD
        • Contact:
        • Contact:

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sampling Method

Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

Adult patients referred for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of eligible colorectal neoplastic lesions located in the transverse colon, descending colon, rectosigmoid colon, or rectum who meet all study eligibility criteria and provide written informed consent.

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Adults aged 18 years or older.
  • Able and willing to provide written informed consent.
  • Colorectal polyps located in the transverse colon, descending colon, rectosigmoid colon, or rectum (rectal lesions located at least 2 cm from the anal verge).
  • Referred for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of colorectal neoplastic lesions meeting at least one of the following criteria:
  • Lesions with prior resection or scarring proximal to the sigmoid colon.
  • Granular lateral spreading tumors (GLST) >30 mm.
  • Non-granular lateral spreading tumors (NGLST) >20 mm.
  • Lesions with suspected submucosal invasion, including Paris classification IIa+IIc lesions or lesions with a positive non-lifting sign

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Younger than 18 years of age.
  • Unable or unwilling to provide informed consent.
  • Pregnant.
  • Pedunculated lesions (Paris classification Ip or Isp).
  • Lesions involving the appendix or ileocecal valve

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

Cohorts and Interventions

Group / Cohort

Group / Cohort

A group or subgroup of participants in an observational study that is assessed for biomedical or health outcomes.
GelPOINT® Path-Assisted ESD
Adult participants undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for eligible colorectal polyps using the GelPOINT® Path transanal access platform as part of standard clinical care. The study will prospectively evaluate the feasibility, technical performance, and safety of GelPOINT® Path-assisted ESD, including procedural outcomes and procedure-related adverse events.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Procedure Speed
Time Frame: During the index procedure
Procedure speed, calculated as lesion surface area (cm²) divided by total procedure time (hours), to evaluate the technical performance of GelPOINT® Path-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection.
During the index procedure

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
En Bloc Resection Rate
Time Frame: During the index procedure
Percentage of lesions resected en bloc (in a single piece).
During the index procedure
Complete (R0) Resection Rate
Time Frame: Pathology assessment following the index procedure (within approximately 2 weeks)
Percentage of lesions with histologically negative lateral and vertical margins following resection.
Pathology assessment following the index procedure (within approximately 2 weeks)

Other Outcome Measures

Other Outcome Measures

For clinical trials, a planned measurement described in the protocol that is used to determine the effect of an intervention/treatment on participants. For observational studies, a measurement or observation that is used to describe patterns of diseases or traits, or associations with exposures, risk factors, or treatment. Types of outcome measures include primary outcome measure and secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Intraprocedural Adverse Events
Time Frame: During the index procedure
Incidence of intraprocedural adverse events, including muscularis propria injury, perforation, and bleeding.
During the index procedure
Post-Procedural Adverse Events
Time Frame: Up to 4 weeks after
Incidence of delayed adverse events, including delayed bleeding, perforation, post-polypectomy syndrome, and other procedure-related complications.
Up to 4 weeks after

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Baylor College of Medicine

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Principal Investigator: Tara Keihanian, MD, Baylor College of Medicine

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
May 19, 2026

Primary Completion (Estimated)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
March 25, 2027

Study Completion (Estimated)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
April 30, 2027

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
July 20, 2026

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
July 20, 2026

First Posted (Actual)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
July 23, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
July 23, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
July 20, 2026

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
April 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • H-59028

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Polyp Colorectal

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings