The Addition of Endoscopic Sphincterotomy to Biliary Stent Placement and its Impact on the Risk of Adverse Events: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) is not mandatory before biliary stenting. The impact of ES before biliary stent placement remains uncertain. Previous studies have reported that ES can increase adverse event rates by up to 4.5 times compared to no ES. We aimed to assess the occurrence of post-ERCP adverse events following biliary stent placement with and without ES. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Subgroup analyses were performed with patients undergoing biliary drainage due to obstruction, using metal stents, and using plastic stents. Secondary outcomes included were post-procedure bleeding, perforation, stent/catheter occlusion, stent/catheter migration, and cholangitis. Heterogeneity was examined using I2 statistics, and a random-effects model was employed. Review manager 5.4 was used for statistical analyses. RESULTS: Seven RCTs with 1,022 patients were included. There was no significant difference between ES and non-ES groups (OR 0.46; 95% 0.19 to 1.09; p = 0.08; I2 = 59%) regarding PEP; however, a significant difference in bleeding rates was found between groups, favoring non-ES (OR 7.55; 95% CI 2.46 to 23.21; p = 0.0004; I2 = 0%). The analysis of the occurrence of cholangitis (OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.58 to 2.69; p = 0.56; I2 = 67%); perforation (OR 1.95; 95% CI 0.07 to 55.73; p = 0.70; I2 = 58%); stent/catheter migration (OR 1.95; 95% CI 0.07 to 55.73; p = 0.23; I2 = 6%); and stent/catheter occlusion (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.37 to 2.19; p = 0.81; I2 = 0%) did not favor either group. CONCLUSION: Performing ES before biliary drainage does not impact the PEP rate but is associated with an increased postprocedure bleeding rate.

Comparing three-dimensional endorectal ultrasound and magnification chromoendoscopy for early rectal neoplasia invasion depth assessment.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate assessment of invasion depth of early rectal neoplasms is essential for optimal therapy. We aimed to compare three-dimensional endorectal ultrasound (3D-ERUS) with magnification chromoendoscopy (MCE) regarding their accuracy in assessing parietal invasion depth (T). METHODS: Patients with middle and distal rectum neoplasms were prospectively included. Two providers blinded to each other's assessment performed 3D-ERUS and MCE, respectively. The T stage assessed through ERUS was compared to the MCE evaluation. The results were compared to the surgical specimen anatomopathological report. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive (PPV), and negative (NPV) predictive values were calculated for the T stage and for the final therapy (local excision or radical surgery). RESULTS: In 8 years, 70 patients were enrolled, and all underwent both exams. MCE and ERUS showed an accuracy of 94.3% and 85.7%, sensitivity of 83.7 and 93.3%, specificity of 96.4 and 83.6%, PPV of 86.7 and 60.9%, and NPV of 96.4 and 97.9%, respectively. Kappa for T stage assessed through ERUS was 0.64 and 0.83 for MCE. CONCLUSION: MCE and 3D-ERUS had good diagnostic performance, but the endoscopic method had higher accuracy. Both methods reliably assessed lesion extension, circumferential involvement, and distance from the anal verge.

Underwater versus conventional EMR for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) is the standard modality for removing nonpedunculated colorectal lesions. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has emerged as an alternative method. There are few comparative studies between these techniques, especially evaluating recurrence. Therefore, the purpose of this trial was to compare CEMR and UEMR for the resection of colorectal lesions with respect to efficacy, safety, and recurrence rate. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial of UEMR versus CEMR for naïve and nonpedunculated lesions measuring between 10 and 40 mm. The primary outcome was adenoma recurrence at 6 months after the resection. Secondary outcomes were rates of technical success, en bloc resection, and adverse events. Block randomization was used to assign patients. Tattooing was performed to facilitate localization of the scars and eventual recurrences. Endoscopic follow-up was scheduled at 6 months after the procedure. The sites of resections were examined with white-light imaging, narrow-band imaging (NBI), and conventional chromoscopy with indigo carmine followed by biopsies. RESULTS: One hundred five patients with 120 lesions were included, with a mean size of 17.5 ± 7.1 (SD) mm. Sixty-one lesions were resected by UEMR and 59 by CEMR. The groups were similar at baseline regarding age, sex, average size, and histologic type. Lesions in the proximal colon in the CEMR group corresponded to 83% and in the UEMR group to 67.8% (P = .073). There was no difference between groups regarding success rate (1 failure in each group) and en bloc resection rate (60.6% UEMR vs 54.2% CEMR, P = .48). Intraprocedural bleeding was observed in 5 CEMRs (8.5%) and 2 UEMRs (3.3%) (P = .27). There was no perforation or delayed hemorrhage in either groups. Recurrence rate was higher in the CEMR arm (15%) than in the UEMR arm (2%) (P = .031). Therefore, the relative risk of 6-month recurrence rate in the CEMR group was 7.5-fold higher (95% CI, 0.98-58.20), with a number needed to treat of 7.7 (95% CI, 40.33-4.22). The higher recurrence rate in the CEMR group persisted only for lesions measuring 21 to 40 mm (35.7% vs 0%; P = .04). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that UEMR was associated with a lower adenoma recurrence rate than was CEMR. Both endoscopic techniques were effective and had similar rates of adverse events for the treatment of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection with versus without traction for pathologically staged T1B esophageal cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Positive vertical margins (VMs) are common after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of T1b esophageal cancer (EC) and are associated with an increased risk of recurrence. Traction during ESD provides better exposure of the submucosa and may allow deeper dissection, potentially reducing the risk of positive VMs. We conducted a retrospective multicenter study to compare the proportion of resections with positive VMs in ESD performed with versus without traction in pathologically staged T1b EC. METHODS: Patients who underwent ESD revealing T1b EC (squamous or adenocarcinoma) at 10 academic tertiary referral centers in the United States (n = 9) and Brazil (n = 1) were included. Demographic and clinical data were abstracted. ESD using either traction techniques (tunneling, pocket) or traction devices (clip line, traction wire) were classified as ESD with traction (Tr-ESD) and those without were classified as conventional ESD without traction. The primary outcome was a negative VM. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess associations with negative VMs. RESULTS: A total of 166 patients with pathologically staged T1b EC underwent Tr-ESD (n = 63; 38%) or conventional ESD without traction (n = 103; 62%). Baseline factors were comparable between both groups. On multivariable analysis, Tr-ESD was found to be independently associated with negative VMs (odds ratio, 2.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-4.91; P = .037) and R0 resection (odds ratio, 2.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-6.23; P = .008). CONCLUSION: Tr-ESD seems to be associated with higher odds of negative VMs than ESD without traction for pathologically staged T1b EC, and future well-conducted prospective studies are warranted to establish the findings of the current study.

Impact of a Routine Colorectal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the Surgical Management of Nonmalignant Colorectal Lesions Treated in a Referral Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Recent data show an increasing number of abdominal surgeries being performed for the treatment of nonmalignant colorectal polyps in the West but in settings in which colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection is not routinely performed. This study evaluated the number of nonmalignant colorectal lesions referred to surgical treatment in a tertiary cancer center that incorporated magnification chromoendoscopy and endoscopic submucosal dissection as part of the standard management of complex colorectal polyps. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to estimate the number of patients with nonmalignant colorectal lesions referred to surgical resection at our institution after the standardization of routine endoscopic submucosal dissection and to describe outcomes for patients undergoing colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection. DESIGN: Single-center retrospective study from a prospectively collected database of endoscopic submucosal dissections and colorectal surgeries performed between January 2016 and December 2019. SETTING: Reference cancer center. PATIENTS: Consecutive adult patients with complex nonmalignant colorectal polyps were included. INTERVENTIONS: Patients with nonmalignant colorectal polyps were treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection or surgery (elective colectomy, rectosigmoidectomy, low anterior resection, or proctocolectomy). MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the percentage of patients referred to colorectal surgery for nonmalignant lesions. RESULTS: In the study period, 1.1% of 825 colorectal surgeries were performed for nonmalignant lesions, and 97 complex polyps were endoscopically removed by endoscopic submucosal dissection. The en bloc, R0, and curative resection rates of endoscopic submucosal dissection were 91.7%, 83.5%, and 81.4%, respectively. The mean tumor size was 59 (SD 37.8) mm. Perforations during endoscopic submucosal dissection occurred in 3 cases, all treated with clipping. One patient presented with a delayed perforation 2 days after the endoscopic resection and underwent surgery. The mean follow-up period was 3 years, with no tumor recurrence in this cohort. LIMITATIONS: Single-center retrospective study. CONCLUSIONS: A workflow that includes assessment of the lesions with magnification chromoendoscopy and resection through endoscopic submucosal dissection can lead to a very low rate of abdominal surgery for nonmalignant colorectal lesions. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C123 . IMPACTO DE LA DISECCIN SUBMUCOSA ENDOSCPICA COLORRECTAL DE RUTINA EN EL MANEJO QUIRRGICO DE LESIONES COLORRECTALES NO MALIGNAS TRATADAS EN UN CENTRO ONCOLGICO DE REFERENCIA: ANTECEDENTES:Datos recientes muestran un número cada vez mayor de cirugías abdominales realizadas para el tratamiento de pólipos colorrectales no malignos en Occidente, pero no en los entornos donde la disección submucosa endoscópica colorrectal se realiza de forma rutinaria. El estudio evaluó el número de lesiones colorrectales no malignas referidas a tratamiento quirúrgico en un centro oncológico terciario, que incorporó cromoendoscopia de aumento y disección submucosa endoscópica como parte del manejo estándar de pólipos colorrectales complejos.OBJETIVO:Estimar el número de pacientes con lesiones colorrectales no malignas referidos para resección quirúrgica en nuestra institución, después de la estandarización de la disección submucosa endoscópica de rutina y describir los resultados para los pacientes sometidos a disección submucosa endoscópica colorrectal.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo de un solo centro, a partir de una base de datos recolectada prospectivamente de disecciones submucosas endoscópicas y cirugías colorrectales realizadas entre enero de 2016 y diciembre de 2019.AJUSTE:Centro oncológico de referencia.PACIENTES:Pacientes adultos consecutivos con pólipos colorrectales no malignos complejos.INTERVENCIONES:Pacientes con pólipos colorrectales no malignos tratados mediante disección submucosa endoscópica o cirugía (colectomía electiva, rectosigmoidectomía, resección anterior baja o proctocolectomía).PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:La medida de resultado primario fue el porcentaje de pacientes remitidos a cirugía colorrectal por lesiones no malignas.RESULTADOS:En el período, 1,1% de 825 cirugías colorrectales fueron realizadas por lesiones no malignas y 97 pólipos complejos fueron extirpados por. disección submucosa endoscópica. Las tasas de resección en bloque, R0 y curativa de disección submucosa endoscópica fueron 91,7%, 83,5% y 81,4%, respectivamente. El tamaño tumoral medio fue de 59 (DE 37,8) mm. Se produjeron perforaciones durante la disección submucosa endoscópica en 3 casos, todos tratados con clipaje. Un paciente presentó una perforación diferida 2 días después de la resección endoscópica y fue intervenido quirúrgicamente. El seguimiento medio fue de 3 años, sin recurrencia tumoral en esta cohorte.LIMITACIONES:Estudio retrospectivo de un solo centro.CONCLUSIONES:Un flujo de trabajo que incluye la evaluación de las lesiones con cromoendoscopia de aumento y resección a través de disección submucosa endoscópica, puede conducir a una tasa muy baja de cirugía abdominal para lesiones colorrectales no malignas. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C123 . (Traducción-Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy ).

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) is the established method for the resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRL) ≥ 10 mm. In the last decade, underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has been introduced as a potential alternative. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to compare the recurrence and safety of UEMR and CEMR by analyzing only randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE until April 2023. Studies met the following inclusion criteria: (1) RCTs, (2) comparing UEMR with CEMR, (3) NPCRL ≥ 10 mm, and (4) reporting the outcomes of interest. Primary outcomes were recurrence and safety. Secondary outcomes were en bloc, R0, complete resection, clipping and adverse events per type. RESULTS: Five RCTs were included. UEMR was associated with a lower recurrence rate (OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.32-0.97). Thus, the RR of recurrence was 1.7 times higher in the CEMR group (95% CI, 1.04-2.77). There was no significant difference in the pooled safety analysis. UEMR showed better en bloc resection rates (OR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.15-2.07), but subgroup analysis showed comparable rates in lesions ≥ 20 mm. R0 resection was higher in UEMR (OR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.23-2.41). Other outcomes were not different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: UEMR is as safe as CEMR, with a higher overall R0 rate and a higher en bloc resection rate for lesions < 20 mm, leading to a lower overall recurrence rate. The results of this meta-analysis support the widespread use of UEMR.

Impact of radiotherapy on adverse events of self-expanding metallic stents in patients with esophageal cancer.

Self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) are considered the treatment of choice for the palliation of dysphagia and fistulas in inoperable esophageal neoplasms. However, the safety of SEMSs in patients who received or who will be submitted to radiotherapy (RT) is uncertain. The study aimed to evaluate the impact of RT on adverse events (AEs) in patients with esophageal cancer with SEMSs. This is a retrospective study conducted at a tertiary cancer hospital from 2009 to 2018. We collected information regarding RT, the histological type of the tumor, the model of SEMSs and AEs after stent placement. Three hundred twenty-three patients with malignant stenosis or fistula were treated with SEMSs. The predominant histological type was squamous cell carcinoma (79.6%). A total of 282 partially covered and 41 fully covered SEMSs were inserted. Of the 323 patients, 182 did not received RT, 118 received RT before SEMS placement and 23 after. Comparing the group that received RT before stent insertion with the group that did not, the first one presented a higher frequency of severe pain (9/118 7.6% vs. 3/182 1.6%; P = 0.02). The group treated with RT after stent placement had a higher risk of global AEs (13/23 56.5% vs. 63/182 34.6%; P = 0.019), ingrowth/overgrowth (6/23 26.1% vs. 21/182 11.5%; P = 0.045) and gastroesophageal reflux (2/23 8.7% vs. 2/182 1.1%; P = 0.034). Treatment with RT before stent placement in patients with inoperable esophageal neoplasm prolongs survival and is associated with an increased risk of severe chest pain. Treatment with RT of patients with an esophageal stent increases the frequency of minor, not life-threatening AEs.

Outcomes for endoscopic submucosal dissection of pathologically staged T1b esophageal cancer: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for T1b esophageal cancer (EC) and its recurrence rates remain unclear in the West. Using a multicenter cohort, we evaluated technical outcomes and recurrence rates of ESD in the treatment of pathologically staged T1b EC. METHODS: We included patients who underwent ESD of T1b EC at 7 academic tertiary referral centers in the United States (n = 6) and Brazil (n = 1). We analyzed demographic, procedural, and histopathologic characteristics and follow-up data. Time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence rates. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients with pathologically staged T1b EC after ESD were included in the study. A preprocedure staging EUS was available in 54 patients and was Tis/T1a in 27 patients (50%) and T1b in 27 patients (50%). En-bloc resection rate was 92.4% (61/66) and R0 resection rate was 54.5% (36/66). Forty-nine of 66 patients (74.2%) did not undergo surgery immediately after resection and went on to surveillance. Ten patients had ESD resection within the curative criteria, and no recurrences were seen in a 13-month (range, 3-18.5) follow-up period in these patients. Ten of 39 patients (25.6%) with noncurative resections had residual/recurrent disease. Of the 10 patients with noncurative resection, local recurrence alone was seen in 5 patients (12.8%) and metastatic recurrence in 5 patients (12.8%). On univariate analysis, R1 resection had a higher risk of recurrent disease (hazard ratio, 6.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-30.36; P = .023). CONCLUSIONS: EUS staging of T1b EC has poor accuracy, and a staging ESD should be considered in these patients. ESD R0 resection rates were low in T1b EC, and R1 resection was associated with recurrent disease. Patients with noncurative ESD resection of T1b EC who cannot undergo surgery should be surveyed closely, because recurrent disease was seen in 25% of these patients.

Tube-in-tube endoscopic vacuum therapy for the closure of upper gastrointestinal fistulas, leaks, and perforations.

BACKGROUND : Although endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) has been successfully used to treat postoperative upper gastrointestinal (UGI) wall defects, its use demands special materials and several endoscopic treatment sessions. Herein, we propose a technical modification of EVT using a double tube (tube-in-tube drain) without polyurethane sponges for the drainage element. The tube-in-tube drainage device enables irrigation and application of suction. A flowchart for standardizing the management of postoperative UGI wall defects with this device is presented. METHODS : An EVT modification was made to achieve frequent fistula cleansing, with 3 % hydrogen peroxide rinsing, and the application of negative pressure. A tube-in-tube drain without polyurethane sponges can be inserted like a nasogastric tube or passed through a previously positioned surgical drain. This was a retrospective two-center observational study, with data collected from 30 consecutive patients. Technical success, clinical success, adverse events, time under therapy, interval time from procedure to fistula diagnosis and treatment start, size of transmural defect, volume of cavity, number of endoscopic treatment sessions, and mortality were reviewed. RESULTS : 30 patients with UGI wall defects were treated. The technical and clinical success rates were 100 % and 86.7 %, respectively. Three patients (10 %) had adverse events and three patients (10 %) died. The median time under therapy was of 19 days (range 1-70) and the median number of endoscopic sessions was 3 (range 1-9). CONCLUSIONS : This standardized approach and EVT modification using a tube-in-tube drain, with frequent fistula cleansing, were successful and safe in a wide variety of UGI wall defects.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs. endoscopic mucosal resection for early Barrett's neoplasia in the West: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The difference in clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for early Barrett's esophagus (BE) neoplasia remains unclear. We compared the recurrence/residual tissue rates, resection outcomes, and adverse events after ESD and EMR for early BE neoplasia. METHODS: We included patients who underwent EMR or ESD for BE-associated high grade dysplasia (HGD) or T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) at eight academic hospitals. We compared demographic, procedural, and histologic characteristics, and follow-up data. A time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence/residual disease and a Kaplan-Meier curve was used to compare the groups. RESULTS: 243 patients (150 EMR; 93 ESD) were included. EMR had lower en bloc (43 % vs. 89 %; P < 0.001) and R0 (56 % vs. 73 %; P = 0.01) rates than ESD. There was no difference in the rates of perforation (0.7 % vs. 0; P > 0.99), early bleeding (0.7 % vs. 1 %; P > 0.99), delayed bleeding (3.3 % vs. 2.1 %; P = 0.71), and stricture (10 % vs. 16 %; P = 0.16) between EMR and ESD. Patients with non-curative resections who underwent further therapy were excluded from the recurrence analysis. Recurrent/residual disease was 31.4 % [44/140] for EMR and 3.5 % [3/85] for ESD during a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 15.5 (6.75-30) and 8 (2-18) months, respectively. Recurrence-/residual disease-free survival was significantly higher in the ESD group. More patients required additional endoscopic resection procedures to treat recurrent/residual disease after EMR (EMR 24.2 % vs. ESD 3.5 %; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ESD is safe and results in more definitive treatment of early BE neoplasia, with significantly lower recurrence/residual disease rates and less need for repeat endoscopic treatments than with EMR.

Long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic microsurgery for the treatment of rectal tumors.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic microsurgery are good options for the treatment of rectal adenomas and early rectal carcinomas, but whether long-term outcomes of these procedures are comparable is not known. The aim of this study was to address this question. METHODS: A retrospective single-center study evaluating 98 consecutive procedures between June 2008 and December 2017 was performed in a tertiary cancer center. Consecutive patients who had undergone either endoscopic submucosal resection or transanal endoscopic microsurgery for rectal adenomas and early rectal carcinomas were evaluated, and long-term recurrence and complication rates were compared. RESULTS: Both groups were similar regarding sex, age, preoperative surgical risk, and en bloc resection rate (95.7% in the endoscopic and 100% in the surgical group, P = 0.81). Mean follow-up period was 37.6 months. Lesions resected endoscopically were significantly larger (68.5 mm) than those resected by transanal resection (44.5 mm), P = 0.003. Curative resections occurred in 97.2% of endoscopic resections and 85.2% of the surgical ones (P = 0.04). Comparing resections that fulfilled histologic curative criteria, there were no recurrences in the endoscopic group (out of 69 cases) and two recurrences in the transanal group (8.3% of 24 cases), P = 0.06. Late complications occurred in 12.7% of endoscopic procedures and 25.9% of surgical procedures (P = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, endoscopic submucosal resection seems to have advantages over transanal endoscopic microsurgery, with similar en bloc resection rate and lower rate of late complications and recurrences. Multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed to support our findings.

Management of Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Guideline Recommendations From the International Consensus Group.

Description: This update of the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (UGIB) refines previous important statements and presents new clinically relevant recommendations. Methods: An international multidisciplinary group of experts developed the recommendations. Data sources included evidence summarized in previous recommendations, as well as systematic reviews and trials identified from a series of literature searches of several electronic bibliographic databases from inception to April 2018. Using an iterative process, group members formulated key questions. Two methodologists prepared evidence profiles and assessed quality (certainty) of evidence relevant to the key questions according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Group members reviewed the evidence profiles and, using a consensus process, voted on recommendations and determined the strength of recommendations as strong or conditional. Recommendations: Preendoscopic management: The group suggests using a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less to identify patients at very low risk for rebleeding, who may not require hospitalization. In patients without cardiovascular disease, the suggested hemoglobin threshold for blood transfusion is less than 80 g/L, with a higher threshold for those with cardiovascular disease. Endoscopic management: The group suggests that patients with acute UGIB undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. Thermocoagulation and sclerosant injection are recommended, and clips are suggested, for endoscopic therapy in patients with high-risk stigmata. Use of TC-325 (hemostatic powder) was suggested as temporizing therapy, but not as sole treatment, in patients with actively bleeding ulcers. Pharmacologic management: The group recommends that patients with bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata who have had successful endoscopic therapy receive high-dose proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy (intravenous loading dose followed by continuous infusion) for 3 days. For these high-risk patients, continued oral PPI therapy is suggested twice daily through 14 days, then once daily for a total duration that depends on the nature of the bleeding lesion. Secondary prophylaxis: The group suggests PPI therapy for patients with previous ulcer bleeding who require antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy for cardiovascular prophylaxis.

Clinical and endoscopic aspects of metastases to the gastrointestinal tract.

BACKGROUND: Studies that describe metastases to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract are restricted to small case series. An increase in the frequency of this condition is expected, so it would be useful to better characterize the endoscopic aspects of metastasis to the GI tract. The aims of this study were to describe the frequency and endoscopic features of the lesions, and to analyze the survival rate after diagnosis of metastasis. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center, observational study, conducted between 2009 and 2017. Patients with metastasis to the GI tract were included. RESULTS: 95 patients were included. Melanoma (25.3 %), lung (15.8 %), and breast (14.7 %) were the most frequent primary tumors. The most common endoscopic presentation was a solitary, ulcerated lesion in the gastric body. Conventional biopsy was diagnostic in 98.9 % of the cases. The mean and median survival rates were 13.3 months (95 % confidence interval [CI] 8.2 - 18.3) and 4.7 months (95 %CI 3.7 - 5.6), respectively. Palliative treatment with chemo- and/or radiotherapy after the diagnosis of the metastasis was related to a higher survival rate. CONCLUSIONS: Melanoma, lung, and breast cancer were the most common primary tumors to metastasize to the GI tract. The endoscopic features could not predict the primary site of the tumor. The finding of metastasis in the GI tract is related to the final stage of the cancer disease but patients who received palliative treatment with chemo- and/or radiotherapy after diagnosis of GI metastasis had higher survival rates.

Role of Magnification Chromoendoscopy in the Management of Colorectal Neoplastic Lesions Suspicious for Submucosal Invasion.

BACKGROUND: Correctly predicting the depth of tumor invasion in the colorectal wall is crucial for successful endoscopic resection of superficial colorectal neoplasms. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of magnifying chromoendoscopy in a Western medical center to predict the depth of invasion by the pit pattern classification in patients with colorectal neoplasms with a high risk of submucosal invasion. DESIGN: This single-center retrospective study, from a prospectively collected database, was conducted between April 2009 and June 2015. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a single academic center. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients with colorectal neoplasms with high risk of submucosal invasion were included. These tumors were defined by large (≥20 mm) sessile polyps (nonpedunculated), laterally spreading tumors, or depressed lesions of any size. INTERVENTIONS: Patients underwent magnifying chromoendoscopy and were classified according to the Kudo pit pattern. The therapeutic decision, endoscopic or surgery, was defined by the magnification assessment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of magnifying chromoendoscopy for assessment of these lesions were determined. RESULTS: A total of 123 lesions were included, with a mean size of 54.0 ± 37.1 mm. Preoperative magnifying chromoendoscopy with pit pattern classification had 73.3% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 100% positive predictive value, 96.4% negative predictive value, and 96.7% accuracy to predict depth of invasion and consequently to guide the appropriate treatment. Thirty-three rectal lesions were also examined by MRI, and 31 were diagnosed as T2 lesions. Twenty two (70.1%) of these lesions were diagnosed as noninvasive by magnifying colonoscopy, were treated by endoscopic resection, and met the curative criteria. LIMITATIONS: This was a single-center retrospective study with a single expert endoscopist experience. CONCLUSIONS: Magnifying chromoendoscopy is highly accurate for assessing colorectal neoplasms suspicious for submucosal invasion and can help to select the most appropriate treatment. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A920.

Risk assessment of lymph node metastases in early gastric adenocarcinoma fulfilling expanded endoscopic resection criteria.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Early gastric cancer (EGC) is known to present a low rate of lymph node metastases (LNMs). Gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy is usually curative for EGC. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a well-accepted treatment modality for lesions that meet the classic criteria: those mucosal differentiated adenocarcinoma measuring 20 mm or less, without ulceration. Expanded criteria for ESD have been proposed based on a null LNM rate from large gastrectomy series from Japan. Patients with LNM have been reported in Western centers, heightening the need for validation of expanded criteria. Our aim was to assess the risk of LNM in gastrectomy specimens of patients with EGC who met the expanded criteria for ESD. METHODS: We conducted an evaluation of gastrectomy specimens including LNM staging of patients submitted to gastrectomy for EGC in a 39-year retrospective cohort. RESULTS: A total of 389 surgical specimens were included. From them, 135 fulfilled criteria for endoscopic resection. None of the 31 patients with classic criteria had LNM. From the 104 patients with expanded criteria, 3 had LNM (n = 104 [2.9%], 95% confidence interval, .7%-8.6%), all of them with undifferentiated tumors without ulceration, measuring less than 20 mm. CONCLUSIONS: There is a small risk of LNM in EGC when expanded criteria for ESD are met. Refinement of the expanded criteria for the risk of LNM may be desirable in a Brazilian cohort. Meanwhile, the decision to complement the endoscopic treatment with gastrectomy will have to take into consideration the individual risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality.

Self-expandable metal stent for malignant esophagorespiratory fistula: predictive factors associated with clinical failure.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Malignant esophagorespiratory fistulas (MERFs) usually are managed by the placement of self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) but with conflicting results. This study aimed to identify risk factors associated with clinical failure after SEMS placement for the treatment of MERFs. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database used at a tertiary-care cancer hospital, with patients treated with SEMS placement for MERFs between January 2009 and February 2016. Logistic regression was used to identify predictive factors for clinical outcomes and to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI). The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis, and comparisons were made by using the log-rank test. RESULTS: A total of 71 patients (55 male, mean age 59 years) were included in the study, and 70 were considered for the final analysis (1 failed stent insertion). Clinical failure occurred in 44% of patients. An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 3 or 4 and fistula development during esophageal cancer treatment were associated with an increased risk of clinical failure. ECOG status of 3 or 4, pulmonary infection at the time of SEMS placement, and prior radiation therapy were predictive factors associated with lower overall survival. Dysphagia scores improved significantly 15 days after stent insertion. The overall stent-related adverse event rate was 30%. Stent migration and occlusion caused by tumor overgrowth were the most common adverse events. CONCLUSION: SEMS placement is a reasonable treatment option for MERFs; however, ECOG status of 3 or 4 and fistula development during esophageal cancer treatment may be independent predictors of clinical failure after stent placement.