Comparison between endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection and endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial neoplasia at esophagogastric junction: a case-matched controlled study of a single center from China.

BACKGROUND: So far, little evidence is available for the comprehensive comparison of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection (ESTD) with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for the treatment of superficial neoplasia at esophagogastric junction (EGJ). METHODS: EGJ superficial neoplasia patients with ESTD treatment between January, 2021 and August, 2020 were retrospectively reviewed and individually matched at 1:1 ratio with those with ESD treatment according to lesion size, specimen area and lesion location, forming ESTD and ESD group, respectively. A sample size of 17 patients was collected for each group. Treatment outcomes including resection time, specimen area, and resection speed as well as occurrence of complications were evaluated. RESULTS: Compared with ESD group, ESTD group got shorter resection time (111.00 ± 11.70 min for ESD group vs. 71.59 ± 6.18 min for ESTD group, p = 0.008) and faster section speed (0.23 ± 0.03 cm2/min for ESD group vs. 0.37 ± 0.06 cm2/min for ESTD group, p = 0.012). No complication was found to occur in ESTD group, while 1 patient with MP damage and 1 with delayed bleeding was found in ESD group. CONCLUSION: For the treatment of EGJ superficial neoplasia, ESTD is a safer and more effective and reliable endoscopic technique compared with ESD.

Endoscopic versus surgical resection in the management of gastric schwannomas.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Gastric schwannoma (GS) is not well clinically recognized and surgical resection (SR) remains the mainstay of treatment. Recently, endoscopic resection (ER) appears to be a safe and effective alternative. However, its comparative outcomes with SR is lacking. Our aim was to first compare clinical outcomes and costs between ER and SR in the management of GSs. METHODS: A total of 46 consecutive patients with GSs who underwent ER (n = 16) or SR (n = 30) in our large tertiary center between July 2007 and Oct 2018 were included. Clinicopathologic features, clinical outcomes, medical costs and follow-up were retrospectively reviewed and compared between two groups. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics are comparable except for a smaller tumor size in ER group (22.9 vs 41.0 mm, p = 0.002). Complete resection was achieved in 87.5% of patients with ER and 100% of patients with SR (p = 0.116). The ER group had a significant shorter operative time (91.6 vs 128.2 min), less blood loss (16.9 vs 62.7 mL) and lower operation cost (21,054.4 vs 30,843.4 RMB) than SR group (all p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in adverse events (12.5% vs 10%, p = 0.812) and length of postoperative hospital stay (8.3 vs 8.2 days, p = 0.945). During a long-term follow-up of mean 37.4 months (range 6-140 months), no residue, recurrence or metastasis was observed in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SR, ER has the similar safety and efficacy in the management of GSs, but contributes to a shorter operation time and lower medical costs. ER may be considered as the first-line treatment, especially for patients with GSs smaller than 30 mm.

Endoscopic submucosal excavation and endoscopic full-thickness resection for gastric schwannoma: five-year experience from a large tertiary center in China.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic resection (ER) is an effective and safe method for gastric submucosal tumors, mostly composed of gastrointestinal stromal tumors and leiomyomas. The role of ER in gastric schwannoma (GS) has rarely been described. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ER for GS. METHODS: This is a retrospective study in consecutive patients who underwent ER for GS from March 2013 to October 2018 at our center. Clinicopathological, endoscopic, and follow-up data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 16 consecutive patients (9 females, 56.3%) were included, with a mean age of 50.4 years (range 25-75 years). The mean tumor size was 22.9 ± 15.1 mm (range 10-55 mm). Thirteen tumors (81.3%) were located in the middle third of the stomach and 12 tumors (75%) grew with intraluminal pattern. Endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE) was performed in 7 patients while endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) was done in 9 patients. R0 resection was achieved in 14 patients (87.5%). The mean operative time was 91.6 ± 52.8 min (range 36-203 min) and the mean postoperative length of hospital stays was 8.3 ± 2.7 days (range 6-13 days). No adverse events were encountered except for fevers in 2 patients. No patients required surgical resection or intervention. During long-term follow-up of mean 21.8 months (range 6-62 months), no residue, recurrence, or metastasis was observed. CONCLUSIONS: ER is effective and safe for patients with GS with favorable long-term outcomes.

Prospective single-center feasible study of innovative autorelease bile duct supporter to delay adverse events after endoscopic papillectomy.

BACKGROUND: Conventional endoscopic papillectomy (EP) is safe and effective for the treatment of small papilla adenoma to even large laterally spreading tumors of duodenum lesions. As reported by some existing studies, temporarily placing a prophylactic stent in the pancreatic and bile duct can lower the risk of this perioperative complication. AIM: To evaluate the usefulness, convenience, safety, and short-term results of a novel autorelease bile duct supporter after EP procedure, especially the effectiveness in preventing EP. METHODS: A single-center comparison study was conducted to verify the feasibility of the novel method. After EP, a metallic endoclip and human fibrin sealant kit were applied for protection. The autorelease bile duct supporter fell into the duct segment and the intestinal segment. Specifically, the intestinal segment was extended by nearly 5 cm as a bent coil. The bile was isolated from the pancreatic juice using an autorelease bile duct supporter, which protected the wound surface. The autorelease bile duct supporter fell off naturally and arrived in colon nearly 10 d after the operation. RESULTS: En bloc endoscopic resection was performed in 6/8 patients (75%), and piecemeal resection was performed in 2/8 of patients (25%). None of the above patients were positive for neoplastic lymph nodes or distant metastasis. No cases of mortality, hemorrhage, delayed perforation, pancreatitis, cholangitis or duct stenosis with the conventional medical treatment were reported. The autorelease bile duct supporter in 7 of 8 patients fell off naturally and arrived in colon 10 d after the operation. One autorelease bile duct supporter was successfully removed using forceps or snare under endoscopy. No recurrence was identified during the 8-mo (ranging from 6-9 mo) follow-up period. CONCLUSION: In brief, it was found that the autorelease bile duct supporter could decrease the frequency of procedure-associated complications without second endoscopic retraction. Secure closure of the resection wound with clips and fibrin glue were indicated to be promising and important for the use of autorelease bile duct supporters. Well-designed larger-scale comparative studies are required to confirm the findings of this study.

A predictive risk-scoring model for multiple synchronous early gastric cancers or gastric dysplasia before initial endoscopic resection.

OBJECTIVE: To establish a new and easy-to-use risk-scoring predictive model to help identify high-risk patients with multiple synchronous gastric neoplasms (MSGN), including early gastric cancer (EGC) and gastric dysplasia (GD), before initial endoscopic resection (ER). METHODS: We retrospectively enrolled 1361 patients with EGC or GD who had undergone ER from November 2006 to September 2019. The patients were randomly divided into the training (n = 681) and validation cohorts (n = 680). In the training phase a prediction score was constructed to assess the independent predictors of MSGN based on multivariate logistic regression analysis. The performance of the prediction model was evaluated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. RESULTS: Of the 1361 patients, 122 (9.0%) had MSGN. Three predictors for MSGN were scored and weighted, as follows: elderly male (≥65 y; three points), a family history of gastric cancer (two points) and surface redness (two points). Accordingly, patients were divided into the low (risk score, 0-3 points) or high-risk groups (risk score, 4-7 points). In the validation cohort, the incidence of MSGN in the low-risk and high-risk groups were 6.1% and 32.0%, respectively (P < 0.001). Our predictive risk-scoring model showed good discrimination (the area under the ROC curve [AUROC] 0.719, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.634-0.794, P < 0.001) and calibration ability (Hosmer-Lemeshow test, χ2  = 6.539, P = 0.587) in the validation group. CONCLUSION: This risk-scoring model has a good performance in predicting MSGN before the initial ER.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided injective ablative treatment of pancreatic cystic neoplasms.

With the development of cross-sectional imaging modalities and the increasing attention being paid to physical examinations, the prevalence of pancreatic cystic neoplasms (PCNs) has increased. PCNs comprise a broad differential spectrum with some PCNs having low or no malignant potential and others having high malignant potential. The morbidity and mortality rates related to major pancreatic surgical resection are high. Long-term surveillance may not only increase the financial burden and psychological stress for patients but also result in a missed malignancy. Minimally invasive endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided ethanol ablation was first reported in 2005. Several other agents, such as paclitaxel, lauromacrogol, and gemcitabine, were reported to be effective and safe for the treatment of PCNs. These ablative agents are injected through a needle inserted into the cyst via transgastric or transduodenal puncture. This treatment method has been substantially developed in the last 15 years and is regarded as a promising treatment to replace surgical resection for PCNs. While several reviews of EUS-guided ablation have been published, no systematic review has evaluated this method from patient preparation to follow-up in detail. In the present review, we systematically describe EUS-guided injective ablation with regard to the indications, contraindications, preoperative treatment, endoscopic procedure, postoperative care and follow-up, evaluation method, treatment efficiency, safety profile, tips and tricks, and current controversies and perspectives.

Efficacy and safety of hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors and risk factors associated with incomplete endoscopic resection.

BACKGROUND: Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are rising in prevalence, particularly with the rectal area. This study evaluated and compared the safety and effectiveness of hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with those of ESD for rectal NETs and risk factors associated with incomplete endoscopic resection. METHODS: A total of 272 consecutive patients who underwent ESD or hybrid ESD for rectal NETs at the Chinese PLA General Hospital in the period from February 2011 to September 2018 were involved in this study. Data were collected from clinical and endoscopic databases. The procedure time, en bloc resection, complete resection, complication, and recurrence rates were evaluated. RESULTS: In the hybrid ESD group were 111 patients (who had 119 lesions between them), with a further 161 patients (164 lesions) in the ESD group. No significance was found in baseline characteristics between the two groups. Hybrid ESD had a significantly shorter mean procedure time than ESD (13.2±8.3 vs. 18.1±9.7 min, P=0.000). Hybrid ESD showed similar en bloc resection (99.2% vs. 98.2%; P=0.373), complete resection (94.1% vs. 90.9%, P=0.641), and postprocedural bleeding (2.5% vs. 0.6%, P=0.313) rates to ESD. Univariate and multivariate analysis showed that higher histopathological grade was associated with incomplete resection. CONCLUSIONS: For rectal NET, both ESD and hybrid ESD are effective and safe forms of treatment. Hybrid ESD provides an alternative option in the treatment of rectal NETs. Further developments are needed to improve the complete resection rate, especially concerning tumors with higher histopathological grade.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the essentiality of acid inhibitors for abdominal pain after gastroscopic mucosal biopsy.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Gastroscopy and gastroscopic mucosal biopsy techniques have become increasingly used as of late for evaluating symptoms presumed to be originated in the upper gastrointestinal tract. Patients often complain however of abdominal pain post-gastroscopic mucosal biopsy, and this study aimed to explore the necessity of acid inhibitors when abdominal pain worsened. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study, we screened 272 participants, and ultimately enrolled 200 into the study. These 200 participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive acid inhibitors (esomeprazole, treatment group, n=100; dose,20 mg/d) or matched placebo (control group, n=100) for 3 days post-gastroscopic mucosal biopsy. The presence of abdominal pain was observed pre-and post-gastroscopy, and the therapeutic effect of esomeprazole was assessed. This study was registered at the Chinese clinical trial registry as ChiCTR-TRC-00000500. RESULTS: Ten subjects were lost to followup (4 in treatment group; 6 in the control group). There was no significant difference in the number of subjects with aggravating abdominal pain (treatment 29.2% vs. control 22.3%; p>0.05) between the two groups. Esomeprazole did not significantly (p>0.05) affect the rate of abdominal pain within 24 h (treatment 27.1% vs. control 19.1%), 48 h (treatment 40.6% vs. control 27.7%), and 96 h (treatment 43.8% vs. control 34.0%) on abdominal pain in all in the evaluated subjects. Between the two groups however, a statistically significant difference (p<0.05) was found on overall effective treatment rates at 48 h (treatment 92.9% vs. control 66.7%) and at 96 h (treatment 100% vs. control 81%) in the subjects with worsened abdominal pain. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that routine prophylaxis with acid inhibitors is not recommended for all patients post-gastroscopic mucosal biopsy, however acid inhibitors should be administered for patients with aggravating abdominal pain.