A randomised trial of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for early Barrett's neoplasia.

BACKGROUND: For endoscopic resection of early GI neoplasia, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) achieves higher rates of complete resection (R0) than endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). However, ESD is technically more difficult and evidence from randomised trial is missing. OBJECTIVE: We compared the efficacy and safety of ESD and EMR in patients with neoplastic Barrett's oesophagus (BO). DESIGN: BO patients with a focal lesion of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIN) or early adenocarcinoma (EAC) ≤3 cm were randomised to either ESD or EMR. Primary outcome was R0 resection; secondary outcomes were complete remission from neoplasia, recurrences and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in patient and lesion characteristics between the groups randomised to ESD (n=20) or EMR (n=20). Histology of the resected specimen showed HGIN or EAC in all but six cases. Although R0 resection defined as margins free of HGIN/EAC was achieved more frequently with ESD (10/17 vs 2/17, p=0.01), there was no difference in complete remission from neoplasia at 3 months (ESD 15/16 vs EMR 16/17, p=1.0). During a mean follow-up period of 23.1±6.4 months, recurrent EAC was observed in one case in the ESD group. Elective surgery was performed in four and three cases after ESD and EMR, respectively (p=1.0). Two severe AEs were recorded for ESD and none for EMR (p=0.49). CONCLUSIONS: In terms of need for surgery, neoplasia remission and recurrence, ESD and EMR are both highly effective for endoscopic resection of early BO neoplasia. ESD achieves a higher R0 resection rate, but for most BO patients this bears little clinical relevance. ESD is, however, more time consuming and may cause severe AE. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT1871636.

Intraductal biliopancreatic imaging: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) technology review.

This technology review expresses the current view of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) on the available techniques for intraductal biliopancreatic imaging. The three cholangioscopy techniques are described: the "dual-operator" and " single-operator" mother-baby approaches using dedicated instruments, and the "direct" technique using currently available ultrathin gastroscopes. The mother-baby method is standardized and reproducible, while direct cholangioscopy is technically demanding and its safety requires further evaluation. As well as direct visualization of the bile ducts, cholangioscopy has the further advantage of allowing targeted biopsy. Image quality is still suboptimal for single-operator cholangioscopy, while the other techniques have achieved adequately detailed imaging. The costs of mother-baby cholangioscopy are high and its application in clinical practice should be restricted to selected cases (i.e. indeterminate biliary strictures/intraluminal lesions, difficult biliary stones) and to the setting of tertiary care centers. Peroral pancreatoscopy may find an indication in situations where other imaging modalities (mainly EUS) are inconclusive (i.e. delineation of main duct intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasia extension, sampling of indeterminate main pancreatic duct strictures). Intraductal ultrasonography (IDUS) has a poorer performance than EUS in the staging of pancreatic malignancies and can increase the risk of pancreatitis. A promising indication for IDUS could be the evaluation of indeterminate biliary strictures and ampullary tumors. Probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) of the bile ducts is a difficult and expensive technique. Appropriate training needs to be established, since interpretation of images is challenging. pCLE can be an important diagnostic tool in the setting of indeterminate biliary strictures.

Supportive evidence for FOXP1, BARX1, and FOXF1 as genetic risk loci for the development of esophageal adenocarcinoma.

The Barrett's and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Consortium (BEACON) recently performed a genome-wide association study (GWAS) on esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and Barrett's esophagus. They identified genome-wide significant association for variants at three genes, namely CRTC1, FOXP1, and BARX1. Furthermore, they replicated an association at the FOXF1 gene that has been previously found in a GWAS on Barrett's esophagus. We aimed at further replicating the association at these and other loci that showed suggestive association with P < 10(-4) in the BEACON sample. In total, we tested 88 SNPs in an independent sample consisting of 1065 EAC cases and 1019 controls of German descent. We could replicate the association at FOXP1, BARX1, and FOXF1 with nominal significance and thereby confirm that genetic variants at these genes confer EAC risk. In addition, we found association of variants near the genes XRCC2 and GATA6 that were strongly (P < 10(-5) ) although not genome-wide significantly associated with the BEACON GWAS. Therefore, both variants and corresponding genes represent promising candidates for future EAC association studies on independent samples.

Are endoscopic endpoints reliable in therapeutic trials of ulcerative colitis?

BACKGROUND: The consistency of endoscopic and histologic findings in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) has not been elucidated. Choice of assessment may affect study outcomes. METHODS: Post hoc analyses were performed using data from 2 randomized, controlled multicenter trials: (1) SAG-26, mesalazine granules for induction of remission in UC (n = 380), and (2) SAG-27, mesalazine granules for maintenance of UC remission (n = 647). Assessments included Clinical Activity Index, Endoscopic Index, modified Disease Activity Index, and Histology Index. RESULTS: In SAG-26, 52 of 380 patients (13.7%) with clinically (Clinical Activity Index >4) and endoscopically (Endoscopic Index ≥4) active UC showed no histological signs of active inflammation (Histology Index ≤1) at baseline. Among endoscopically and histologically active patients, 246 of 327 (75.2%) reached clinical remission versus 48 of 52 patients (92.3%) with active endoscopy but no inflammation on histology (difference, 17.1%; P = 0.006). The difference in the proportion of patients achieving clinical remission according to endoscopy and histology in clinically inactive (Clinical Activity Index ≤4) patients was 30.8% in SAG-26 (at the study end) and 28.1% in SAG-27 (at baseline). In SAG-27, clinical relapse occurred in 21.2% of patients with endoscopic and histologic remission at baseline and 27.1% of patients with some histological inflammation at baseline (P = 0.111). Using the modified Disease Activity Index ≤1 (mucosal healing) instead of the Endoscopic Index score, the difference was similar (21.2% versus 28.0%, P = 0.073). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic and histologic assessments differ in both active and inactive UC. Overdiagnosis of inflammation using endoscopy versus histology can significantly affect outcomes, at least in studies using induction of clinical remission as an endpoint. The assessment criteria for trials in UC should be reconsidered.

Expandable metal stents for malignant hilar biliary obstruction.

Most patients with malignant hilar stenoses are candidates for palliation. For this purpose, biliary drainage plays a major role in improving liver function and managing or avoiding cholangitis. Endoscopic interventions are less invasive than the percutaneous approach and should be considered as the first-line drainage procedures in most cases. Transhepatic interventions should be reserved for endoscopic failures or performed as a complementary approach in a combined procedure. After successful endoscopic access to biliary obstruction, implantation of self-expandable metal stents offers advantages over plastic endoprostheses in terms of stent patency and number of reinterventions.

New options of cholangioscopy.

In the evaluation of biliary diseases, cholangioscopy is considered as complementary procedure to radiographic imaging. Direct visualization of the bile duct is the premier advantage of cholangioscopy over indirect imaging techniques. However, cholangioscopy has not gained wide acceptance because of several technical limitations such as scope fragility, impaired steerability, limited irrigation, and suction capabilities, as well as the need for two experienced endoscopists. Recent innovations such as the implementation of electronic video cholangioscopes and the development of single-operator systems facilitate the procedure, and promise to increase the diagnostic and therapeutic yield of cholangioscopy.