Technical Advances in Endoscopic Resection Techniques for Lower GI Malignancies.

Background: The management of bulky neoplastic lesions in the digestive tract has historically been a surgical pursuit. With advancements in endoscopic techniques, particularly endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), a paradigm shift toward organ preservation has been initiated. These endoscopic methods, developed incrementally since the 1980s, have progressively enabled curative management of lesions with minimal morbidity, challenging the previously unchallenged domain of surgery. Summary: This review traces the evolution of endoscopic resection from snare polypectomy and EMR to sophisticated ESD, highlighting the technological innovations that have expanded the scope of endoscopic resection. It discusses the intricacies of various EMR techniques like underwater EMR, anchoring EMR, and hybrid EMR, alongside traction-assisted methods and the use of viscous solutions for submucosal injection. Additionally, the manuscript delves into the advancements in ESD, emphasizing traction strategies, knife technology, and the optimization of endoscopes. The benefits of these advancements are weighed against the challenges in anatomopathological interpretation posed by piecemeal resections. Key Messages: The continuous amelioration of endoscopic resection techniques has significantly improved the outcomes of digestive tract lesion management, particularly in achieving R0 resections and reducing recurrence rates. These advancements represent a monumental step toward minimizing the invasiveness of lesion management. However, despite the progress, the necessity for early follow-up post-EMR remains due to the non-negligible recurrence rates, underscoring the need for a rigorous postoperative surveillance regimen. Furthermore, our review suggests that while ESD has transformed the therapeutic landscape, its widespread adoption hinges on further simplification, safety enhancement, and acceleration of the procedure, possibly through innovations like adaptive traction devices.

EUS vs. ERCP-guided primary drainage of inoperable distal malignant biliary obstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) as first-line interventions in distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO). We assessed the efficacy and safety of these two approaches. METHODS: A PubMed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases bibliographic search until 01/12/2023 was performed to identify RCTs comparing EUS-BD to ERCP for primary biliary drainage in inoperable patients with DMBO. Primary outcome was technical success. Secondary outcomes were clinical success, adverse events (AEs), mean procedure time, 1-year stent patency, and overall survival. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using random-effect model. RESULTS: Five studies (519 patients) were included. The RR for pooled technical success in EUS-BD was 1.06 ([0.96-1.17]; P=0.27) and 1.02 [0.97-1.08]; P=0.45) for clinical success. 1-year stent patency was similar among the two groups (RR 1.15; [0.94-1.42], P=0.17), with lower reintervention in the EUS-BD group (RR 0.58; [0.37-0.9]; P=0.01). The RR of AEs rate was 0.85 [0.49-1.46]; P=0.55) and severe AEs of 0.97 [0.10-0.17]; P=0.98). On subgroup analysis, EUS-lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) outperformed ERCP in term of technical success (RR 1.17; [1.01-1.35]; P=0.03). Procedure time was lower in EUS-BD (standardized mean difference -2.36 minutes; [-2.68 to -2.05]; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-BD showed a statistically significant lower re-intervention rate compared to ERCP, but with similar technical success rate, stent patency, clinical success rate and safety profile, while in the subgroup of EUS-LAMS, the technical success was better than ERCP Keywords: distal; biliary obstruction; efficacy; safety.

Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Vs Conventional EMR for Superficial Nonampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors in the Western Setting.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) is established as the primary treatment modality for superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs), but recently underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) has emerged as a potential alternative. The majority of previous studies focused on Asian populations and small lesions (≤20 mm). We aimed to compare the efficacy and outcomes of U-EMR vs C-EMR for SNADETs in a Western setting. METHODS: This was a retrospective multinational study from 10 European centers that performed both C-EMR and U-EMR between January 2013 and July 2023. The main outcomes were the technical success, procedure-related adverse events (AEs), and the residual/recurrent adenoma (RRA) rate, evaluated on a per-lesion basis. We assessed the association between the type of endoscopic mucosal resection and the occurrence of AEs or RRAs using mixed-effects logistic regression models (propensity scores). Sensitivity analyses were performed for lesions ≤20 mm or >20 mm. RESULTS: A total of 290 SNADETs submitted to endoscopic resection during the study period met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed (C-EMR: n = 201, 69.3%; U-EMR: n = 89, 30.7%). The overall technical success rate was 95.5% and comparable between groups. In logistic regression models, compared with U-EMR, C-EMR was associated with a significantly higher frequency of overall delayed AEs (odds ratio [OR], 4.95; 95% CI, 2.87-8.53), postprocedural bleeding (OR, 7.92; 95% CI, 3.95-15.89), and RRAs (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.49-5.37). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results when solely considering either small (≤20 mm) or large (>20 mm) lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with C-EMR, U-EMR was associated with a lower rate of overall AEs and RRAs, regardless of lesion size. Our results confirm the possible role of U-EMR as an effective and safe technique in the management of SNADETs.

Traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection for resection of ileocecal valve neoplasia: a French retrospective multicenter case series.

BACKGROUND: The ileocecal valve (ICV) is considered to be one of the most difficult locations for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of traction-assisted ESD in this situation. METHODS: All patients who underwent traction-assisted ESD for an ICV lesion at three centers were identified from a prospective ESD database. En bloc and R0 rates were evaluated. Factors associated with non-R0 resection were explored. RESULTS: 106 patients with an ICV lesion were included. The median lesion size was 50 mm (interquartile range 38-60) and 58.5% (62/106) invaded the terminal ileum. The en bloc and R0 resection rates were 94.3% and 76.4%, respectively. Factors associated with non-R0 resection were lesions covering ≥75% of the ICV (odds ratio [OR] 0.21. 95%CI 0.06-0.76; P=0.02), and involving the anal lip (OR 0.36, 95%CI 0.13-0.99; P=0.04) or more than two sites on the ICV (OR 0.27, 95%CI 0.07-0.99; P=0.03). CONCLUSION: Traction-assisted ESD for treatment of ICV lesions was a safe and feasible option. Large lesions and anal lip involvement appeared to be factors predictive of difficulty.

The environmental impact of small-bowel capsule endoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: The environmental impact of endoscopy, including small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), is a topic of growing attention and concern. This study aimed to evaluate the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (kgCO2) generated by an SBCE procedure. METHODS: Life cycle assessment methodology (ISO 14040) was used to evaluate three brands of SBCE device and included emissions generated by patient travel, bowel preparation, capsule examination, and video recording. A survey of 87 physicians and 120 patients was conducted to obtain data on travel, activities undertaken during the procedure, and awareness of environmental impacts. RESULTS: The capsule itself (4 g) accounted for < 6 % of the total product weight. Packaging (43-119 g) accounted for 9 %-97 % of total weight, and included deactivation magnets (5 g [4 %-6 %]) and paper instructions (11-50 g [up to 40 %]). A full SBCE procedure generated approximately 20 kgCO2, with 0.04 kgCO2 (0.2 %) attributable to the capsule itself and 18 kgCO2 (94.7 %) generated by patient travel. Capsule retrieval using a dedicated device would add 0.98 kgCO2 to the carbon footprint. Capsule deconstruction revealed materials (e. g. neodymium) that are prohibited from environmental disposal; 76 % of patients were not aware of the illegal nature of capsule disposal via wastewater, and 63 % would have been willing to retrieve it. The carbon impact of data storage and capsule reading was negligible. CONCLUSION: The carbon footprint of SBCE is mainly determined by patient travel. The capsule device itself has a relatively low carbon footprint. Given that disposal of capsule components via wastewater is illegal, retrieval of the capsule is necessary but would likely be associated with an increase in device-related emissions.

Curative criteria for endoscopic treatment of colorectal cancer.

As endoscopic treatment enables en bloc resection of T1 colorectal cancers, the risk of recurrence, often assimilated to the risk of lymph node metastases, must be assessed in order to offer patients an additional treatment if this risk is deemed significant. The curative criteria currently used by most guidelines are depth of invasion <1 mm, well or moderately differentiated tumour, absence of lympho-vascular invasion, absence of significant budding and tumour-free resection margins. However, these factors must be assessed by qualified pathologists, as they are difficult to evaluate. Moreover, the combination of these factors leads to unnecessary surgery in over 80 % of patients whose tumours are classified as high risk. Refinement of current criteria and research into new tumour and immunological markers are needed to better predict the actual risk of our patients.

Non-metastatic colon cancer: French Intergroup Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatments, and follow-up (TNCD, SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, ACHBT, SFP, AFEF, and SFR).

INTRODUCTION: This article is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of non-metastatic colon cancer (CC), revised in November 2022. METHODS: These guidelines represent collaborative work of all French medical and surgical societies involved in the management of CC. Recommendations were graded in three categories (A, B, and C) according to the level of evidence found in the literature published up to November 2022. RESULTS: Initial evaluation of CC is based on clinical examination, colonoscopy, chest-abdomen-pelvis computed tomography (CT) scan, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) assay. CC is usually managed by surgery and adjuvant treatment depending on the pathological findings. The use of adjuvant therapy remains a challenging question in stage II disease. For high-risk stage II CC, adjuvant chemotherapy must be discussed and fluoropyrimidine monotherapy or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy proposed according to the type and number of poor prognostic features. Oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (FOLFOX or CAPOX) is the current standard for adjuvant therapy of patients with stage III CC. However, these regimens are associated with significant oxaliplatin-induced neurotoxicity. The results of the recent IDEA study provide evidence that 3 months of treatment with CAPOX is as effective as 6 months of oxaliplatin-based therapy in patients with low-risk stage III CC (T1-3 and N1). A 6-month oxaliplatin-based therapy remains the standard of care for high-risk stage III CC (T4 and/or N2). For patients unfit for oxaliplatin, fluoropyrimidine monotherapy is recommended. CONCLUSION: French guidelines for non-metastatic CC management help to offer the best personalized therapeutic strategy in daily clinical practice. Each individual case must be discussed within a multidisciplinary tumor board and then the treatment option decided with the patient.

Will Endoscopic-Ultrasound-Guided Choledocoduodenostomy with Electrocautery-Enhanced Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent Placement Replace Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography When Treating Distal Malignant Biliary Obstructions?

Malignant distal biliary obstructions are becoming increasingly common, especially in patients with cancers of the pancreatic head, despite progress in medical oncology research. ERCP is the current gold standard for management of such strictures, but the emergence of EC-LAMS has rendered EUS-CDS both safe and efficient. It is a "game changer"; originally intended for ERCP failure, two randomised clinical trials recently proposed EUS-CDS as a first-intent procedure in palliative settings. For resectable diseases, the absence of iatrogenic pancreatitis associated with a lower rate of postsurgical adverse events (compared with ERCP) leads us to believe that EUS-CDS might be used in first-intent as a pre-operative endoscopic biliary drainage.