Closure of gastrointestinal perforations using an endoloop system and a single-channel endoscope: description of a simple, reproducible, and standardized method.

BACKGROUND: Several endoscopic treatments for iatrogenic perforations are currently available, with some limitations in terms of size, location, complexity, or cost. Our aims were to introduce a novel technique for closure, using an endoloop and clips, to assess its rate of technical success and post-resection complications. METHODS: For closure of large perforations (diameter ≥ 10 mm), two similar techniques were implemented, using a single-channel endoscope. An endoloop was deployed through the operating channel or towed by an endoclip alongside the endoscope. Several clips were utilized to fix it on the muscular layer of defect's margins. The defect was closed, by fastening the loop either directly or after being reattached to the mobile hook. RESULTS: This analysis included eleven patients (72% women, median age 68 years). Eight colorectal, one appendiceal, and two gastric lesions were resected, with a median perforation size of 15 mm. As confirmed by computed tomography, closure of wall defects was achieved successfully in all cases, using a median of 6 clips. Pneumoperitoneum was evacuated in 4 cases. The median hospitalization duration was 4 days, prophylactic antibiotics being prescribed for a median of 7 days. One patient had a small abdominal collection, without requiring drainage, while another presented post-resection bleeding from the mucosal defect. CONCLUSION: The novel techniques, utilizing a single-channel endoscope, clips, and an endoloop, ensuring an edge-to-edge suture of muscular layer, proved to be safe, reproducible, and easy to implement. They exhibit an excellent technical success rate and a minimal incidence of non-severe complications.

Preoperative Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy for Definite Biliary Drainage in Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma Laparoscopic Resection: A Hybrid Minimal-Invasive Technique.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Laparoscopic approach of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) is still challenging. We report the original use of a endoscopic hepaticogastrostomy (EHG) for definite biliary drainage in order to avoid biliary reconstruction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A 70-year-old man presenting with jaundice was referred for resection of a Bismuth type IIIa PHC. Repeated endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography failed to drain the future liver remnant, enabling only right anterior liver section drainage. EHG was performed three weeks before surgery. A hepatogastric anastomosis was created, placing a half-coated self-expanding endoprosthesis between biliary duct of segment 2 and the lesser gastric curvature. RESULTS: A laparoscopic right hepatectomy extended to segment 1, common bile duct, and hepatic pedicle lymphadenectomy was performed. The left hepatic duct was sectioned and ligated downstream to the biliary confluence of segment 2-3 and 4 allowing exclusive biliary flow through the EHG. The patient was disease free at 12 months, postoperative outcomes were uneventful except three readmissions for acute cholangitis due to prosthesis obstruction. CONCLUSIONS: EHG may be used as definite biliary drainage technique in laparoscopic PHC resection, at the expense of prosthesis obstruction and cholangitis.

Clinical care pathways of patients with biliary tract cancer: A French nationwide longitudinal cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Although the incidence of BTC is raising, national healthcare strategies to improve care lack. We aimed to explore patient clinical care pathways and strategies to improve biliary tract cancer (BTC) care. METHODS: We analysed the French National Healthcare database of all BTC inpatients between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2021. Multinomial logistic regression adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were used to identify healthcare organisation factors that influenced access to curative care both overall and in a longitudinal sensibility analysis using optimal matching and hierarchical ascending classification to detect a subgroup of curative-care patients with a high survival over a two-year period. RESULTS: A total of 19,825 new BTC patients and three clinical care pathways (CCP) were identified: 'Palliative care' (PC-CCP), 'Non-curative Care' (NCC-CCP) and 'Curative Care' (CC-CCP) involving 7669 (38.7%), 7721 (38.9%) and 4435 (22.4%) patients respectively. Out of 1200 centers involved in BTC treatment, 84%, 11% and 5% were of low- (<15 patients/year), medium- (15-30 patients/year) and high-volume (>30 patients/year) respectively. Among patient, tumor and hospital factors, BTC management in academic (aOR: 2.32; 95%CI: 1.98-2.71), private (2.51; 2.22-2.83), semi-private (2.25; 1.91-2.65) and in high- (2.09; 1.81-2.42) or medium-volume (1.49; 1.33-1.68) centers increased probability to CC-CCP. These results were maintained in a longitudinal cluster of 2363 (53%) CC-CCP patients presenting a higher two-year survival compared with the rest [96.4% (95.1; 97.6) vs. 38.8% (36.3; 41.4), log-rank p < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: Among factors subject to healthcare policy improvement, the volume and type of centers managing BTC strongly influenced access to curative care.

Diagnosis and treatment of bacterial peritonitis in patients with gastrointestinal cancer: an observational multicenter study.

Background: Bacterial peritonitis (BP) in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancer has been poorly described, and its prevalence is unknown. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate in patients with both GI cancer and ascites the prevalence of BP, associated features, mechanisms, prognosis, and the diagnostic performance of neutrophil count in ascites. Design: A retrospective, multicenter, observational study. Methods: All patients with GI cancer and ascites who underwent at least one paracentesis sample analyzed for bacteriology over a 1-year period were included. BP was defined by a positive ascites culture combined with clinical and/or biological signs compatible with infection. Secondary BP was defined as BP related to a direct intra-abdominal infectious source. Results: Five hundred fifty-seven ascites from 208 patients included were analyzed. Twenty-eight patients had at least one episode of BP and the annual prevalence rate of BP was 14%. Among the 28 patients with BP, 19 (65%) patients had proven secondary BP and 17 (59%) patients had multi-microbial BP, mainly due to Enterobacterales. A neutrophil count greater than 110/mm3 in ascites had negative and positive predictive values of 96% and 39%, respectively, for the diagnosis of BP. The median survival of patients with BP was 10 days (interquartile range 6-40) after the diagnosis. Conclusion: BP is not rare in patients with GI cancer and is associated with a poor short-term prognosis. When a patient with GI cancer is diagnosed with BP, a secondary cause should be sought. Further studies are needed to better define the best management of these patients.

Ampullary tumors: French Intergroup Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatments and follow-up (TNCD, SNFGE, FFCD, UNICANCER, GERCOR, SFCD, SFED, ACHBT, AFC, SFRO, RENAPE, SNFCP, AFEF, SFP, SFR).

BACKGROUND: Management of ampullary tumors (AT) is challenging because of a low level of scientific evidence. This document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of AT, either adenoma (AA) or carcinoma (AC), published in July 2023, available on the website of the French Society of Gastroenterology (SNFGE) (www.tncd.org). METHODS: A collaborative work was conducted under the auspices of French medical, endoscopic, oncological and surgical societies involved in the management of AT. Recommendations are based on recent literature review and expert opinions and graded in three categories (A, B, C), according to quality of evidence. RESULTS: Accurate diagnosis of AT requires at least duodenoscopy and EUS. All patients should be discussed in multidisciplinary tumor board before treatment. Surveillance may only be proposed for small AA in familial adenomatous polyposis. For AA, endoscopic papillectomy is the preferred option only if R0 resection can be achieved. When not possible, surgical papillectomy should be considered. For AC beyond pT1a N0, pancreaticoduodenectomy is the procedure of choice. Adjuvant monochemotherapy (gemcitabine, 5FU) may be proposed. For aggressive tumors (pT3/T4, pN+, R1, poorly differentiated AC, pancreatobiliary differentiation) with high risk of recurrence, 6 months polychemotherapy (CAPOX/FOLFOX for the intestinal subtype and mFOLFIRINOX for the pancreatobiliary or the mixed subtype) may be a valid alternative. Clinical and radiological follow up is recommended for 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines help to homogenize and highlight unmet needs in the management of AA and AC. Each individual case should be discussed by a multidisciplinary team.

Biliary tract cancers: French national clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatments and follow-up (TNCD, SNFGE, FFCD, UNICANCER, GERCOR, SFCD, SFED, AFEF, SFRO, SFP, SFR, ACABi, ACHBPT).

INTRODUCTION: This document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines of the management of biliary tract cancers (BTC) (intrahepatic, perihilar and distal cholangiocarcinomas, and gallbladder carcinomas) published in September 2023, available on the website of the French Society of Gastroenterology (SNFGE) (www.tncd.org). METHODS: This collaborative work was conducted under the auspices of French medical and surgical societies involved in the management of BTC. Recommendations were graded in three categories (A, B and C) according to the level of scientific evidence until August 2023. RESULTS: BTC diagnosis and staging is mainly based on enhanced computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and (endoscopic) ultrasound-guided biopsy. Treatment strategy depends on BTC subtype and disease stage. Surgery followed by adjuvant capecitabine is recommended for localised disease. No neoadjuvant treatment is validated to date. Cisplatin-gemcitabine chemotherapy combined to the anti-PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab is the first-line standard of care for advanced disease. Early systematic tumour molecular profiling is recommended to screen for actionable alterations (IDH1 mutations, FGFR2 rearrangements, HER2 amplification, BRAFV600E mutation, MSI/dMMR status, etc.) and guide subsequent lines of treatment. In the absence of actionable alterations, FOLFOX chemotherapy is the only second-line standard-of-care. No third-line chemotherapy standard is validated to date. CONCLUSION: These guidelines are intended to provide a personalised therapeutic strategy for daily clinical practice. Each individual BTC case should be discussed by a multidisciplinary team.