The Efficacy of Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy vs Pneumatic Dilation as Treatment for Patients With Achalasia Suffering From Persistent or Recurrent Symptoms After Laparoscopic Heller Myotomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: For patients with achalasia experiencing persistent or recurrent symptoms after laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM), pneumatic dilation (PD) is the most frequently used treatment. Per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is increasingly being investigated as rescue therapy. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of POEM vs PD for patients with persistent or recurrent symptoms after LHM. METHODS: This randomized multicenter controlled trial included patients after LHM with an Eckardt score >3 and substantial stasis (≥2 cm) on timed barium esophagogram and randomized to POEM or PD. The primary outcome was treatment success, defined as an Eckardt score of ≤3 and without unscheduled re-treatment. Secondary outcomes included the presence of reflux esophagitis, high-resolution manometry, and timed barium esophagogram findings. Follow-up duration was 1 year after initial treatment. RESULTS: Ninety patients were included. POEM had a higher success rate (28 of 45 patients [62.2%]) than PD (12 of 45 patients [26.7%]; absolute difference, 35.6%; 95% CI, 16.4%-54.7%; P = .001; odds ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.09-0.54; relative risk for success, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.37-3.99). Reflux esophagitis was not significantly different between POEM (12 of 35 [34.3%]) and PD (6 of 40 [15%]). Basal lower esophageal sphincter pressure and integrated relaxation pressure (IRP-4) were significantly lower in the POEM group (P = .034; P = .002). Barium column height after 2 and 5 minutes was significantly less in patients treated with POEM (P = .005; P = .015). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with achalasia experiencing persistent or recurrent symptoms after LHM, POEM resulted in a significantly higher success rate than PD, with a numerically higher incidence of grade A-B reflux esophagitis. NETHERLANDS TRIAL REGISTRY: NL4361 (NTR4501), https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID = NTR4501.

Development of Desmoid Tumors After Ileorectal Anastomosis Versus Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis in Familial Adenomatous Polyposis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Desmoid tumors (DT) are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). DT development might be related to the type and approach of colectomy. We aimed to compare DT development after colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) and proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA). METHODS: We performed an international historical cohort study in patients with FAP who underwent IRA or IPAA between 1961 and 2020. The primary outcome was the incidence of abdominal DT (either mesenteric, retroperitoneal, or abdominal wall). Patients with a DT diagnosis before or at colectomy were excluded. Time to DT was considered censored at an eventual secondary proctectomy after IRA. We used multivariable Cox regression modelling to adjust for potential confounders. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 852 patients: 514 after IRA and 338 after IPAA (median follow-up, 21 and 16 years, respectively). DTs were diagnosed in 64 IRA patients (12%) and 66 IPAA patients (20%). The cumulative DT incidence at 5 and 10 years was 7.5% and 9.3% after open IRA and 4.7% and 10.9% after laparoscopic IRA. These estimates were 13.6% and 15.4% after open IPAA and 8.4% and 10.0% after laparoscopic IPAA. The postoperative risk was significantly higher after IPAA (P < .01) in multivariable analysis, whereas approach did not significantly influence the risk. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of developing an abdominal DT was found to be significantly higher after IPAA than after IRA. Postoperative DT risk should be taken into account when choosing between IRA and IPAA in FAP.

Focal Distal Esophageal Dilation (Blown-Out Myotomy) After Achalasia Treatment: Prevalence and Associated Symptoms.

INTRODUCTION: Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) may result in a distended distal esophagus, referred to as a blown-out myotomy (BOM), the relevance of which is uncertain. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence, risk factors, and associated symptoms of BOM after achalasia treatment. METHODS: A data set of the locally treated patients in a randomized controlled trial comparing POEM with pneumatic dilation (PD) was analyzed. A BOM is defined as a >50% increase in esophageal diameter at its widest point in the distal esophagus between the lower esophageal sphincter and 5 cm above. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were treated in our center, and 5-year follow-up data were available in 55 patients (32 patients [58%] randomized to POEM, 23 [42%] PD). In the group initially treated with POEM, the incidence of BOM increased from 11.5% (4/38) at 3 months, to 21.1% (8/38) at 1 year, 27.8% (10/36) at 2 years, and 31.3% (10/32) at 5 years. None of the patients treated with PD alone developed a BOM. Patients who developed a BOM had a higher total Eckardt score and Eckardt regurgitation component compared with patients who underwent POEM without BOM development (3 [2.75-3.25] vs 2 [1.75-3], P = 0.032, and 1 [0.75-1] vs 0 [0-1], P = 0.041). POEM patients with a BOM more often report reflux symptoms (85% [11/13] vs 46% [2/16], P = 0.023) and had a higher acid exposure time (24.5% [8-47] vs 6% [1.2-18.7], P = 0.027). DISCUSSION: Thirty percent of the patients treated with POEM develop a BOM, which is associated with a higher acid exposure, more reflux symptoms, and symptoms of regurgitation.

International consensus on the management of large (≥20 mm) colorectal laterally spreading tumors: World Endoscopy Organization Delphi study.

OBJECTIVES: There have been significant advances in the management of large (≥20 mm) laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) or nonpedunculated colorectal polyps; however, there is a lack of clear consensus on the management of these lesions with significant geographic variability especially between Eastern and Western paradigms. We aimed to provide an international consensus to better guide management and attempt to homogenize practices. METHODS: Two experts in interventional endoscopy spearheaded an evidence-based Delphi study on behalf of the World Endoscopy Organization Colorectal Cancer Screening Committee. A steering committee comprising six members devised 51 statements, and 43 experts from 18 countries on six continents participated in a three-round voting process. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations tool was used to assess evidence quality and recommendation strength. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement (strongly agree or agree) on a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Forty-two statements reached consensus after three rounds of voting. Recommendations included: three statements on training and competency; 10 statements on preresection evaluation, including optical diagnosis, classification, and staging of LSTs; 14 statements on endoscopic resection indications and technique, including statements on en bloc and piecemeal resection decision-making; seven statements on postresection evaluation; and eight statements on postresection care. CONCLUSIONS: An international expert consensus based on the current available evidence has been developed to guide the evaluation, resection, and follow-up of LSTs. This may provide guiding principles for the global management of these lesions and standardize current practices.

Deep Submucosal Invasion Is Not an Independent Risk Factor for Lymph Node Metastasis in T1 Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Deep submucosal invasion (DSI) is considered a key risk factor for lymph node metastasis (LNM) and important criterion to recommend surgery in T1 colorectal cancer. However, metastatic risk for DSI is shown to be low in the absence of other histologic risk factors. This meta-analysis determines the independent risk of DSI for LNM. METHODS: Suitable studies were included to establish LNM risk for DSI in univariable analysis. To assess DSI as independent risk factor, studies were eligible if risk factors (eg, DSI, poor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, and high-grade tumor budding) were simultaneously included in multivariable analysis or LNM rate of DSI was described in absence of poor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, and high-grade tumor budding. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% CIs were calculated. RESULTS: Sixty-seven studies (21,238 patients) were included. Overall LNM rate was 11.2% and significantly higher for DSI-positive cancers (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 2.10-3.18). Eight studies (3621 patients) were included in multivariable meta-analysis and did not weigh DSI as a significant predictor for LNM (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 0.96-3.12). As opposed to a significant association between LNM and poor differentiation (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.39-3.28), high-grade tumor budding (OR, 2.83; 95% CI, 2.06-3.88), and lymphovascular invasion (OR, 3.16; 95% CI, 1.88-5.33). Eight studies (1146 patients) analyzed DSI as solitary risk factor; absolute risk of LNM was 2.6% and pooled incidence rate was 2.83 (95% CI, 1.66-4.78). CONCLUSIONS: DSI is not a strong independent predictor for LNM and should be reconsidered as a sole indicator for oncologic surgery. The expanding armamentarium for local excision as first-line treatment prompts serious consideration in amenable cases to tailor T1 colorectal cancer management.

Adverse events of endoscopic full-thickness resection: results from the German and Dutch nationwide colorectal FTRD registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is emerging as a minimally invasive alternative to surgery for complex colorectal lesions. Previous studies have demonstrated favorable safety results; however, large studies representing a generalizable estimation of adverse events (AEs) are lacking. Our aim was to provide further insight in AEs after eFTR. METHODS: Data from all registered eFTR procedures in the German and Dutch colorectal full-thickness resection device registries between July 2015 and March 2021 were collected. Safety outcomes included immediate and late AEs. RESULTS: Of 1892 procedures, the overall AE rate was 11.3% (213/1892). No AE-related mortality occurred. Perforations occurred in 2.5% (47/1892) of all AEs, 57.4% (27/47) of immediate AEs, and 42.6% (20/47) of delayed AEs. Successful endoscopic closure was achieved in 29.8% of cases (13 immediate and 1 delayed), and antibiotic treatment was sufficient in 4.3% (2 delayed). The appendicitis rate for appendiceal lesions was 9.9% (13/131), and 46.2% (6/13) could be treated conservatively. The severe AE rate requiring surgery was 2.2% (42/1892), including delayed perforations in .9% (17/1892) and immediate perforations in .7% (13/1892). Delayed perforations occurred between days 1 and 10 (median, 2) after eFTR, and 58.8% (10/17) were located on the left side. Other severe AEs were appendicitis (.4%, 7/1892), luminal stenosis (.1%, 2/1892), delayed bleeding (.1%, 1/1892), pain after eFTR close to the dentate line (.1%, 1/1892), and grasper entrapment in the clip (.1%, 1/1892). CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal eFTR is a safe procedure with a low risk for severe AEs in everyday practice and without AE-related mortality. These results further support the position of eFTR as an established minimally invasive technique for complex colorectal lesions.

Development of ileal adenomas after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis versus end ileostomy in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) undergo (procto)colectomy to prevent colorectal cancer from developing. Interestingly, after proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA), most patients develop adenomas in the pouch. This is not well described for patients with end ileostomy. We aimed to compare ileal adenoma development in patients with IPAA with those with end ileostomy. METHODS: This historical cohort study included FAP patients with IPAA or end ileostomy who underwent surveillance endoscopies between 2001 and 2021. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with ileal adenomas, location of adenomas, and proportion of patients undergoing surgical excision of pouch/end ileostomy. RESULTS: Overall, 144 patients with IPAA (n = 111) and end ileostomy (n = 33) were included. Five years after surgery, 15% of patients with IPAA had ileal adenomas versus 4% after ileostomy. At 10 years, these estimates were 48% versus 9% and at 20 years were 85% versus 43% (log-rank P < .001). Adenomas developed more often in the pouch body (95%) in the IPAA group and more often at the everted site of the ileostomy (77%) in the ileostomy group. Numbers for surgical excision of the pouch (n = 9) or ileostomy (n = 3) for polyposis or cancer were comparable. Taking into account potential confounders in a multivariable Cox regression analysis, having an IPAA was significantly associated with ileal adenoma development. CONCLUSIONS: After proctocolectomy, FAP patients with IPAA more often developed ileal adenomas than patients with end ileostomy. This could potentially affect long-term management, and patients with end ileostomy might benefit from less-frequent endoscopic surveillance.

Appendiceal lesions in serrated polyposis patients are easily overlooked but only seldomly lead to colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is the most prevalent colonic polyposis syndrome and is associated with an increased colorectal cancer risk. A recent study in resected appendices of SPS patients reported that 6/23 (26.1 %) of identified serrated polyps had histological dysplasia. We evaluated the prevalence and clinical relevance of appendiceal lesions in a large SPS cohort. METHODS: Prospective data from 2007 to 2020 for a cohort of 199 SPS patients were analyzed. Data were retrieved from endoscopy and pathology reports. Patients who underwent (pre)clearance colonoscopies, surveillance colonoscopies, or colorectal surgery including the appendix were separately evaluated for the presence of appendiceal lesions. The primary outcome was the prevalence of adenocarcinomas and serrated polyps/adenomas with advanced histology in the surgery group. RESULTS: 171 patients were included, of whom 110 received endoscopic surveillance and 34 underwent surgery. Appendiceal lesion prevalence in the surgery group was 14 /34 (41.2 %, 95 %CI 24.7 %-59.3 %); none were advanced on histology. Detection rates in the (pre)clearance group were 1 /171 (0.6 %, 95 %CI 0.01 %-3.2 %) for advanced and 3 /171 (1.8 %, 95 %CI 0.04 %-5.0 %) for nonadvanced appendiceal lesions, all of which were sessile serrated lesions. During 522 patient-years of surveillance, no advanced appendiceal lesions were detected at endoscopy, and in 1 /110 patients (0.9 %, 95 %CI 0.02 %-5.0 %) was a nonadvanced lesion detected. CONCLUSION: Appendiceal lesions are common in SPS patients. The discrepancy between the endoscopic detection rate of appendiceal lesions and the reported prevalence in surgically resected appendices suggests a substantial miss-rate of appendiceal lesions during colonoscopy. Advanced appendiceal lesions are however rare and no appendiceal adenocarcinomas occurred, implying limited clinical relevance of these lesions.

Long-term yield of pancreatic cancer surveillance in high-risk individuals.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the long-term yield of pancreatic cancer surveillance in hereditary predisposed high-risk individuals. DESIGN: From 2006 to 2019, we prospectively enrolled asymptomatic individuals with an estimated 10% or greater lifetime risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) after obligatory evaluation by a clinical geneticist and genetic testing, and subjected them to annual surveillance with both endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and MRI/cholangiopancreatography (MRI/MRCP) at each visit. RESULTS: 366 individuals (201 mutation-negative familial pancreatic cancer (FPC) kindreds and 165 PDAC susceptibility gene mutation carriers; mean age 54 years, SD 9.9) were followed for 63 months on average (SD 43.2). Ten individuals developed PDAC, of which four presented with a symptomatic interval carcinoma and six underwent resection. The cumulative PDAC incidence was 9.3% in the mutation carriers and 0% in the FPC kindreds (p<0.001). Median PDAC survival was 18 months (range 1-32). Surgery was performed in 17 individuals (4.6%), whose pathology revealed 6 PDACs (3 T1N0M0), 7 low-grade precursor lesions, 2 neuroendocrine tumours <2 cm, 1 autoimmune pancreatitis and in 1 individual no abnormality. There was no surgery-related mortality. EUS detected more solid lesions than MRI/MRCP (100% vs 22%, p<0.001), but less cystic lesions (42% vs 83%, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The diagnostic yield of PDAC was substantial in established high-risk mutation carriers, but non-existent in the mutation-negative proven FPC kindreds. Nevertheless, timely identification of resectable lesions proved challenging despite the concurrent use of two imaging modalities, with EUS outperforming MRI/MRCP. Overall, surveillance by imaging yields suboptimal results with a clear need for more sensitive diagnostic markers, including biomarkers.

Linked Colour imaging for the detection of polyps in patients with Lynch syndrome: a multicentre, parallel randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Despite regular colonoscopy surveillance, colorectal cancers still occur in patients with Lynch syndrome. Thus, detection of all relevant precancerous lesions remains very important. The present study investigates Linked Colour imaging (LCI), an image-enhancing technique, as compared with high-definition white light endoscopy (HD-WLE) for the detection of polyps in this patient group. DESIGN: This prospective, randomised controlled trial was performed by 22 experienced endoscopists from eight centres in six countries. Consecutive Lynch syndrome patients ≥18 years undergoing surveillance colonoscopy were randomised (1:1) and stratified by centre for inspection with either LCI or HD-WLE. Primary outcome was the polyp detection rate (PDR). RESULTS: Between January 2018 and March 2020, 357 patients were randomised and 332 patients analysed (160 LCI, 172 HD-WLE; 6 excluded due to incomplete colonoscopies and 19 due to insufficient bowel cleanliness). No significant difference was observed in PDR with LCI (44.4%; 95% CI 36.5% to 52.4%) compared with HD-WLE (36.0%; 95% CI 28.9% to 43.7%) (p=0.12). Of the secondary outcome parameters, more adenomas were found on a patient (adenoma detection rate 36.3%; vs 25.6%; p=0.04) and a colonoscopy basis (mean adenomas per colonoscopy 0.65 vs 0.42; p=0.04). The median withdrawal time was not statistically different between LCI and HD-WLE (12 vs 11 min; p=0.16). CONCLUSION: LCI did not improve the PDR compared with HD-WLE in patients with Lynch syndrome undergoing surveillance. The relevance of findings more adenomas by LCI has to be examined further. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03344289.

Setting up a regional expert panel for complex colorectal polyps.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Advanced endoscopic resection techniques for complex colorectal polyps have evolved significantly over the past decade, leading to a management shift from surgical to endoscopic resection as the preferred treatment. However, in practice, interhospital consultation and appropriate referral management remain challenging, leading to unnecessary surgical resections. To support regional care for patients with complex colorectal polyps, facilitate peer consultations, and lower thresholds for referrals, an expert panel consultation platform was initiated in the northwestern region of the Netherlands. METHODS: We initiated a regional expert panel in the northwestern region of the Netherlands for patients with complex colorectal polyps and studied the implementation, adaption, and clinical impact. All panel consultations between June 2019 and May 2021 were retrospectively analyzed, and user satisfaction among panel members was evaluated. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients with complex colorectal polyps from 11 of 15 participating centers (73.3%) were discussed in our panel. The most common reason for panel consultation was suspicion of invasive cancer in 36.4% (n = 32). After panel consultation, 43.2% of the consulting endoscopists (n = 38) changed their initial treatment strategy, and in 63.6% (n = 56) patients were referred to another endoscopy center. Of 26 cases submitted with a primary proposal for surgical treatment, surgery was avoided in 7 (26.9%). User satisfaction was rated high in most participating centers (91.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that implementation of and consultation with a regional expert panel can be a valuable tool for endoscopists to guide and optimize treatment of complex colorectal polyps and facilitate interhospital referrals in a regional network.

Endoscopic intermuscular dissection for deep submucosal invasive cancer in the rectum: a new endoscopic approach.

BACKGROUND: The risk of lymph node metastasis associated with deep submucosal invasion should be balanced against the mortality and morbidity of total mesorectal excision (TME). Dissection through the submucosa hinders radical deep resection, and full-thickness resection may influence the outcome of completion TME. Endoscopic intermuscular dissection (EID) in between the circular and longitudinal part of the muscularis propria could potentially provide an R0 resection while leaving the rectal wall intact. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, the data of patients treated with EID for suspected deep submucosal invasive rectal cancer between 2018 and 2020 were analyzed. Study outcomes were the percentages of technical success, R0 resection, curative resection, and adverse events. RESULTS: 67 patients (median age 67 years; 73 % men) were included. The median lesion size was 25 mm (interquartile range 20-33 mm). The rates of overall technical success, R0 resection, and curative resection were 96 % (95 %CI 89 %-99 %), 81 % (95 %CI 70 %-89 %), and 45 % (95 %CI 33 %-57 %). Only minor adverse events occurred in eight patients (12 %). CONCLUSION: EID for deep invasive T1 rectal cancer appears to be feasible and safe, and the high R0 resection rate creates the potential of rectal preserving therapy in 45 % of patients.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal lesions: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022.

ESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based).ESGE does not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection.ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the treatment of choice for most superficial esophageal squamous cell and superficial gastric lesions.For Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated lesions, ESGE suggests the use of ESD for lesions suspicious of submucosal invasion (Paris type 0-Is, 0-IIc), for malignant lesions > 20 mm, and for lesions in scarred/fibrotic areas.ESGE does not recommend routine use of ESD for duodenal or small-bowel lesions.ESGE suggests that ESD should be considered for en bloc resection of colorectal (but particularly rectal) lesions with suspicion of limited submucosal invasion (demarcated depressed area with irregular surface pattern or a large protruding or bulky component, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm) or for lesions that otherwise cannot be completely removed by snare-based techniques.ESGE recommends that an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with histology no more advanced than intramucosal cancer (no more than m2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma), well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion or ulceration, should be considered a very low risk (curative) resection, and no further staging procedure or treatment is generally recommended.ESGE recommends that the following should be considered to be a low risk (curative) resection and no further treatment is generally recommended: an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with superficial submucosal invasion (sm1), that is well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion, of size ≤ 20 mm for an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma or ≤ 30 mm for a stomach lesion or of any size for a BE-related or colorectal lesion, and with no lymphovascular invasion, and no budding grade 2 or 3 for colorectal lesions.ESGE recommends that, after an endoscopically complete resection, if there is a positive horizontal margin or if resection is piecemeal, but there is no submucosal invasion and no other high risk criteria are met, this should be considered a local-risk resection and endoscopic surveillance or re-treatment is recommended rather than surgery or other additional treatment.ESGE recommends that when there is a diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion, or deeper infiltration than sm1, or positive vertical margins, or undifferentiated tumor, or, for colorectal lesions, budding grade 2 or 3, this should be considered a high risk (noncurative) resection, and complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments should be considered on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE recommends scheduled endoscopic surveillance with high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based) with biopsies of only the suspicious areas after a curative ESD.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of T1 colorectal cancers: a retrospective analysis from a multicenter Dutch eFTR registry.

BACKGROUND: Complete endoscopic resection and accurate histological evaluation for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) are critical in determining subsequent treatment. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a new treatment option for T1 CRC < 2 cm. We aimed to report clinical outcomes and short-term results. METHODS: Consecutive eFTR procedures for T1 CRC, prospectively recorded in our national registry between November 2015 and April 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes were technical success and R0 resection. Secondary outcomes were histological risk assessment, curative resection, adverse events, and short-term outcomes. RESULTS: We included 330 procedures: 132 primary resections and 198 secondary scar resections after incomplete T1 CRC resection. Overall technical success, R0 resection, and curative resection rates were 87.0 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 82.7 %-90.3 %), 85.6 % (95 %CI 81.2 %-89.2 %), and 60.3 % (95 %CI 54.7 %-65.7 %). Curative resection rate was 23.7 % (95 %CI 15.9 %-33.6 %) for primary resection of T1 CRC and 60.8 % (95 %CI 50.4 %-70.4 %) after excluding deep submucosal invasion as a risk factor. Risk stratification was possible in 99.3 %. The severe adverse event rate was 2.2 %. Additional oncological surgery was performed in 49/320 (15.3 %), with residual cancer in 11/49 (22.4 %). Endoscopic follow-up was available in 200/242 (82.6 %), with a median of 4 months and residual cancer in 1 (0.5 %) following an incomplete resection. CONCLUSIONS: eFTR is relatively safe and effective for resection of small T1 CRC, both as primary and secondary treatment. eFTR can expand endoscopic treatment options for T1 CRC and could help to reduce surgical overtreatment. Future studies should focus on long-term outcomes.

Pancreas-preserving total duodenectomy for advanced duodenal polyposis in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis: short and long-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), extensive nonmalignant duodenal polyposis not amenable to endoscopic management demands surgical resection for which pancreas-preserving total duodenectomy (PPTD) offers a pancreatic parenchyma sparing approach. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients who underwent PPTD for FAP. Reconstruction involved a Billroth II anastomosis with a short isolated jejunal limb to facilitate future endoscopic surveillance. Short and long-term outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 30 patients underwent PPTD for Spigelman stage III (n = 6) or IV (n = 24). Sixteen patients experienced a severe complication (Clavien-Dindo grade III/IV) including postoperative pancreatic fistula (ISGPS grade B/C) in twelve. There was no all cause in-hospital and 90-day mortality. During follow-up (median 125 months), five patients developed acute pancreatitis, one new-onset diabetes and one exocrine pancreatic insufficiency. During endoscopic surveillance in 27 patients, jejunal adenomas were detected in 22 and advanced adenomas in 11. An additional surgical resection was required in four patients with extensive jejunal polyposis. None developed jejunal cancer. The 10-year overall survival rate was 93.3%. CONCLUSION: Postoperative morbidity after PPTD is substantial but on the long-term, rates of pancreatic insufficiencies are low. Most patients develop jejunal adenomas at follow-up, highlighting the need for endoscopic surveillance.

Substantial and sustained improvement of serrated polyp detection after a simple educational intervention: results from a prospective controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Serrated polyps (SPs) are an important cause of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs), which is likely the result of suboptimal SP detection during colonoscopy. We assessed the long-term effect of a simple educational intervention focusing on optimising SP detection. DESIGN: An educational intervention, consisting of two 45 min training sessions (held 3 years apart) on serrated polyp detection, was given to endoscopists from 9 Dutch hospitals. Hundred randomly selected and untrained endoscopists from other hospitals were selected as control group. Our primary outcome measure was the proximal SP detection rate (PSPDR) in trained versus untrained endoscopists who participated in our faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population screening programme. RESULTS: Seventeen trained and 100 untrained endoscopists were included, who performed 11 305 and 51 039 colonoscopies, respectively. At baseline, PSPDR was equal between the groups (9.3% vs 9.3%). After training, the PSPDR of trained endoscopists gradually increased to 15.6% in 2018. This was significantly higher than the PSPDR of untrained endoscopists, which remained stable around 10% (p=0.018). All below-average (ie, PSPDR ≤6%) endoscopists at baseline improved their PSPDR after training session 1, as did 57% of endoscopists with average PSPDR (6%-12%) at baseline. The second training session further improved the PSPDR in 44% of endoscopists with average PSPDR after the first training. CONCLUSION: A simple educational intervention was associated with substantial long-term improvement of PSPDR in a prospective controlled trial within FIT-based population screening. Widespread implementation of such interventions might be an easy way to improve SP detection, which may ultimately result in fewer PCCRCs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03902899.

The long-term outcomes and natural disease course of serrated polyposis syndrome: over 10 years of prospective follow-up in a specialized center.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is the most prevalent colonic polyposis syndrome known and is associated with a high risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) if left untreated. Treatment consists of clearance of the initial polyp burden, followed by lifelong stringent endoscopic surveillance. However, the long-term safety and efficacy of surveillance and the natural disease course after initial clearance have not been described in detail. METHODS: We analyzed a single-center cohort of patients with SPS with over 10 years of prospective follow-up. Outcome measures were (1) CRC incidence, (2) postcolonoscopy adverse event rates, and (3) trends in polyp recurrence during endoscopic surveillance. RESULTS: The cohort included 142 patients who underwent a median of 6 colonoscopies with a median of 47 months of prospective follow-up after initial polyp clearance. During surveillance (every 1-2 years), 1 case of CRC occurred (5-year CRC incidence, 1.0%; 95% confidence interval, 0%-2.9%). During 447 surveillance colonoscopies with 1308 polypectomies, 1 episode of postpolypectomy bleeding, 1 postpolypectomy syndrome, and no perforations occurred (adverse event rate, 0.45% per colonoscopy). During up to 9 rounds of surveillance, no upward or downward trend in polyp recurrence was observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective cohort with over 10 years of follow-up, endoscopic surveillance was effective and safe, with a low risk of CRC and colonoscopy-related adverse events. Furthermore, we show that the disease course of SPS is such that the polyp burden remains more or less equal during long-term surveillance, which advocates lifelong adherence to (personalized) surveillance guidelines and discourages de-intensifying surveillance intervals after multiple rounds of surveillance.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) of colorectal lesions: results from the Dutch colorectal eFTR registry.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a minimally invasive resection technique that allows definite diagnosis and treatment for complex colorectal lesions ≤ 30 mm unsuitable for conventional endoscopic resection. This study reports clinical outcomes from the Dutch colorectal eFTR registry. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing eFTR in 20 hospitals were prospectively included. The primary outcome was technical success, defined as macroscopic complete en bloc resection. Secondary outcomes were: clinical success, defined as tumor-free resection margins (R0 resection); full-thickness resection rate; and adverse events. RESULTS : Between July 2015 and October 2018, 367 procedures were included. Indications were difficult polyps (non-lifting sign and/or difficult location; n = 133), primary resection of suspected T1 colorectal cancer (CRC; n = 71), re-resection after incomplete resection of T1 CRC (n = 150), and subepithelial tumors (n = 13). Technical success was achieved in 308 procedures (83.9 %). In 21 procedures (5.7 %), eFTR was not performed because the lesion could not be reached or retracted into the cap. In the remaining 346 procedures, R0 resection was achieved in 285 (82.4 %) and full-thickness resection in 288 (83.2 %). The median diameter of resected specimens was 23 mm. Overall adverse event rate was 9.3 % (n = 34/367): 10 patients (2.7 %) required emergency surgery for five delayed and two immediate perforations and three cases of appendicitis. CONCLUSION : eFTR is an effective and relatively safe en bloc resection technique for complex colorectal lesions with the potential to avoid surgery. Further studies assessing the role of eFTR in early CRC treatment with long-term outcomes are needed.

Outcomes of surgical resections for benign colon polyps: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Not all benign colonic polyps are suitable for endoscopic resection, although criteria for endoscopic non-resectability vary worldwide. Clinical decision-making largely depends on endoscopic treatment options, as well as postoperative risks after surgical resection. This systematic review aimed to determine postoperative outcomes and the characteristics of surgically resected benign colonic polyps. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies investigating the outcomes of surgical resection for benign colonic polyps since 1980. Studies were considered eligible when at least one postoperative outcome (morbidity and/or mortality) was reported. Meta-analyses were conducted for the primary outcome measures (morbidity and mortality) for studies that included patients only after the year 2000. RESULTS: Of the 4210 studies retrieved, 26 studies describing 139 897 patients were included. The most common indications for surgical resection were polyp location in the right-sided colon, non-pedunculated morphology, and large polyp size. The pooled 1-month complication and mortality rates of studies that included patients after the year 2000 were 24 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 15 % - 36 %) and 0.7 % (95 %CI 0.6 % - 0.8 %), respectively. CONCLUSION: The postoperative morbidity and mortality after colonic resection for benign polyps are substantial. Referral to an advanced interventional endoscopist should be considered before referral for surgery to evaluate the possibilities for endoscopic treatment of large, non-pedunculated, and/or colonic polyps in difficult locations without suspicion of submucosal malignant invasion.