Endoscopic full-thickness resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for challenging colorectal lesions: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The optimal endoscopic resection method of challenging colorectal lesions (ie, adenomatous recurrences, nongranular laterally spreading tumors [LST-NGs], lesions without lifting sign <30 mm) is still under debate. The aim of this study was to directly compare endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) for the resection of challenging colorectal lesions in a randomized trial. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, randomized study was performed in 4 Italian referral centers. Consecutive patients referred for endoscopic resection of challenging lesions were randomly assigned to undergo EFTR or ESD. Primary outcomes were complete (R0) resection and en bloc resection of lesions. Technical success, procedure time, procedure speed, area of the resected specimen, adverse event rate, and local recurrence rate at 6 months were also compared. RESULTS: Overall, 90 patients were included in the study, equally representing the 3 challenging lesion types. Age and sex were comparable in the 2 groups. En bloc resection was obtained in 95.5% of the EFTR group and in 93.3% of the ESD group. R0 resection rate was comparable in the 2 groups (EFTR vs ESD, 42 [93.3%] vs 36 [80%]; P = .06). The EFTR group exhibited a significantly shorter total procedure time (25.6 ± 10.6 minutes vs 76.7 ± 26.4 minutes, P ≤ .01), as well as overall procedure speed (16.8 ± 11.8 mm2/min vs 11.9 ± 9.2 mm2/min, P = .03). The EFTR group had a significantly smaller mean lesion size (21.6 ± 8.3 mm vs 28.7 ± 7.7 mm, P ≤ .01). Adverse events were reported less frequently in patients in the EFTR group (4.44% vs 15.5%, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: EFTR is comparable to ESD in the treatment of challenging colorectal lesions in terms of safety and efficacy. EFTR is considerably faster than ESD in the treatment of nonlifting lesions and adenoma recurrences. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT05502276.).

Underwater endoscopic submucosal dissection and hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection as rescue therapy in difficult colorectal cases.

Background and study aims Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is still not widely used due to its technical difficulty and the risk of complications. Rescue therapies such as hybrid ESD (H-ESD) have been proposed for very difficult cases, as has underwater ESD (U-ESD). This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of H-ESD and U-ESD in difficult cases. Patients and methods The hospital charts of consecutive patients referred for colorectal ESD between January 2014 and February 2021 because they were considered difficult cases were retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome of the study was en bloc resection rate; secondary outcomes were the rate of complete resection, procedure speed, and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Results Fifty-nine colorectal neoplasms were considered, 22 of which were removed by U-ESD and 37 by H-ESD. The en bloc resection rate in the U-ESD group was 100 %, while it was 59.5 % in the H-ESD group. Dissection speed was 17.7mm 2 /min in the U-ESD group and 8.3 mm 2 /min in the H-ESD group. The AE rate was low in the U-ESD group and moderately high during H-ESD (5 % and 21.6 %, respectively; and perforation rate 0 % and 10.8 %, respectively). Larger lesions were treated with U-ESD, while more fibrotic ones were treated with H-ESD. Conclusions U-ESD and H-ESD are both effective and safe techniques in difficult colorectal situations. U-ESD is particularly effective and fast for large lesions when it is not possible to obtain comfortable knife position, while H-ESD is more suitable for very fibrotic lesions.

Full-spectrum (FUSE) versus standard forward-viewing colonoscopy in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme.

OBJECTIVE: Miss rate of polyps has been shown to be substantially lower with full-spectrum endoscopy (FUSE) compared with standard forward-viewing (SFV) colonoscopy in a tandem study at per polyp analysis. However, there is uncertainty on whether FUSE is also associated with a higher detection rate of colorectal neoplasia, especially advanced lesions, in per patient analysis. METHODS: Consecutive subjects undergoing colonoscopy following a positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT) by experienced endoscopists and performed in the context of a regional colorectal cancer population-screening programme were randomised between colonoscopy with either FUSE or SFV colonoscopy in seven Italian centres. Randomisation was stratified by gender, age group and screening history. Primary outcomes included detection rates of advanced adenomas (A-ADR), adenomas (ADR) and sessile-serrated polyps (SSPDR). RESULTS: Of 741 eligible subjects, 658 were randomised to either FUSE (n=328) or SFV (n=330) colonoscopy and included in the analysis. Overall, 293/658 and 143/658 subjects had at least one adenoma (ADR 44.5%) and advanced adenoma (A-ADR 21.7%), respectively, while SSP was the most advanced lesion in 18 cases (SSPDR 2.7%). ADR and A-ADR were 43.6% and 19.5% in the FUSE arm, and 45.5% and 23.9% in the SFV arm, with no difference for both ADR (OR for FUSE: 0.96, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.14) and A-ADR (OR for FUSE: 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.09). No difference in SSPDR or multiplicity was detected between the two arms. In the per polyp analysis, the mean number of adenomas and proximal adenomas per patient was 0.81±1.25 and 0.47±0.93 in the FUSE arm, and 0.85±1.33 and 0.48±0.96 in the SFV colonoscopy arm (p=NS for both comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant difference in ADR and A-ADR between FUSE and SFV colonoscopy was detected in a per patient analysis in FIT-positive patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10357435.

Portal vein thrombosis: insight into physiopathology, diagnosis, and treatment.

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a relatively common complication in patients with liver cirrhosis, but might also occur in absence of an overt liver disease. Several causes, either local or systemic, might play an important role in PVT pathogenesis. Frequently, more than one risk factor could be identified; however, occasionally no single factor is discernable. Clinical examination, laboratory investigations, and imaging are helpful to provide a quick diagnosis, as prompt treatment might greatly affect a patient's outcome. In this review, we analyze the physiopathological mechanisms of PVT development, together with the hemodynamic and functional alterations related to this condition. Moreover, we describe the principal factors most frequently involved in PVT development and the recent knowledge concerning diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Finally, we analyze the implications of PVT in the setting of liver transplantation and its possible influence on patients' future prognoses.