Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation with sphincterotomy for difficult common bile duct stones ≤12 mm: a prospective study.

Background: Stone recurrence is a significant complication following endoscopic bile duct clearance. Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation (EPLBD) with biliary sphincterotomy (EBS) has shown satisfactory results in preventing recurrence of "large" common bile duct stones (CBDS). However, data on outcomes after EPLBD+EBS for CBDS ≤12 mm remain scarce. The present study prospectively evaluated the mid- and long-term efficacy of EPLBD+EBS for CBDS recurrence among this group of patients. Methods: Consecutive patients with CBDS ranging from 8-12 mm, treated with EPLBD+EBS from June 2018 through June 2020, were prospectively followed-up for at least 36 months. CBDS recurrence was defined as recurrent stones confirmed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) during the follow-up period. Results: Overall, 72 patients (mean age: 67 years, 52.8% male) were included, of whom 22 (30.5%) had multiple (≥3) CBDS, 23 (31.9%) had a history of cholecystectomy, 13 (18.1%) had a periampullary diverticulum and 22 (30.5%) had a previous EBS. The mean CBD diameter was 11.6±1 mm, while a tapered duct was noted in 7 (9.7%). Post-procedural bleeding and cholangitis occurred in 1 and 2 cases respectively. No cases of perforation and post-ERCP pancreatitis were observed. During a mean follow up of 46.4±6.2 months (range 37-60), no mid-term recurrence was observed, whereas CBDS recurred in 2/72 (2.7%) in the long term. Conclusions: EPLBD+EBS in patients with CBDS ≤12 mm was associated with a very low rate of mid- and long-term CBDS recurrence. Our results need to be further investigated with randomized controlled trials.

Hybrid endoscopic approaches for complex colorectal polyps with a non-lifting sign: the Greek experience.

Background: Hybrid approaches combining endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) with conventional techniques (endoscopic mucosal resection [EMR], endoscopic submucosal dissection [ESD]) have enabled the resection of difficult fibrotic colorectal adenomas exhibiting a "non-lifting" sign, and polyps in difficult positions. We present our cohort treated with either EMR+EFTR or ESD+EFTR as salvage hybrid endoscopic approaches for complex colorectal polyps not amenable to conventional techniques. Methods: Retrospective analysis included technical success, histological confirmation of margin-free resection, assessment of adverse events and follow up with histological assessment. All patients underwent follow-up endoscopy at least 6 and 12 months post-resection. Results: Fourteen patients underwent hybrid EFTR procedures (11 EMR+EFTR and 3 ESD+EFTR). Technical success was achieved in all cases where the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) was advanced to the site of the resection (100%). In 2 cases, the FTRD system could not be passed through the sigmoid colon because of severe chronic diverticulitis, subsequent fibrosis and stiffness. The mean lesion size in the EMR+EFTR group (41.7 mm; range 20-50 mm) was larger than the ESD+EFTR group (31.7 mm; range 30-35 mm). Six patients (42.9%) were histologically diagnosed with T1 carcinoma. The mean duration of hospitalization was 1.4 days. Follow-up endoscopy was available in all patients and no recurrence was observed with histological confirmation during a mean follow-up period of 15.4 months. Conclusion: Hybrid procedures appear to be safe and effective treatments for complex colorectal lesions not amenable to EMR, ESD or EFTR alone, because of the lesion size, positive non-lifting sign, and difficult positions.

Long-term adenoma recurrence and development of colorectal cancer following endoscopic mucosal resection in large non-pedunculated colonic polyps ≥4 cm.

OBJECTIVES: Data of long-term follow up for large non pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) ≥4 cm removed with piecemeal wide field endoscopic mucosal resection (PWF-EMR) are limited. We primarily evaluated the recurrence rates and secondarily the rates of post colonoscopic polypectomy colorectal cancer (PCPCRC) on a long-term basis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively-stored electronic database of all patients who underwent PWF-EMR for LNPCPs at the Venizeleion General Hospital, between 2009 and 2020. Eligible patients were those with LNPCPs ≥4 cm, deemed completely removed by endoscopic means and followed-up for a minimum of 36 months with at least two surveillance colonoscopies, the first one (SC1) (4-6) months after the initial PWF-EMR procedure and the second one (SC2) after (12-18) months. In 2023, all cases were checked for PCPCRC development. RESULTS: Residual/early recurrent tissue was detected in 44 (31 %) cases among the 142 (82 males, 60 females) assessed during SC1. Late recurrent tissue was detected in 9 (6.6 %) cases among the 137 surveyed during SC2. Investigation did not reveal any case of PCPCRC . CONCLUSIONS: This historical cohort shows that the PWF-EMR for LNPCPs ≥4 cm is a safe and definitive removal method while it is not associated with the appearance of PCPCRC.

Comparison between tofacitinib and ustekinumab as a third-line therapy in refractory ulcerative colitis: A multicenter international study.

BACKGROUND: Ustekinumab and tofacitinib have recently been approved for the management of moderate to severe ulcerative colitis (UC). However, there is no evidence on how they should be positioned in the therapeutic algorithm. The aim of this study was to compare tofacitinib and ustekinumab as third-line therapies in UC patients in whom anti-TNF and vedolizumab had failed. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective observational study. The primary outcome was disease progression, defined as the need for steroids, therapy escalation, UC-related hospitalization and/or surgery. Secondary outcomes were clinical remission, normalization of C-reactive protein, endoscopic remission, treatment withdrawal, and adverse events. RESULTS: One-hundred seventeen UC patients were included in the study and followed for a median time of 11.6 months (q1-q3, 5.5-18.7). Overall, 65% of patients were treated with tofacitinib and 35% with ustekinumab. In the entire study cohort, 63 patients (54%) had disease progression during the follow-up period. Treatment with ustekinumab predicted increased risk of disease progression compared to treatment with tofacitinib in Cox regression analysis (HR: 1.93 [95% CI: 1.06-3.50] p = 0.030). Twenty-eight (68%) patients in the ustekinumab group and 35 (46%) in the tofacitinib group had disease progression over the follow-up period (log-rank test, p < 0.054). No significant differences were observed for the secondary outcomes. Six and 22 adverse events occurred in the ustekinumab and tofacitinib groups, respectively (15% vs. 31%, p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib was more efficacious in reducing disease progression than ustekinumab in this cohort of refractory UC patients. However, prospective head-to-head clinical trials are needed as to confirm these data.