Long-term Oncologic Results After Stenting as a Bridge to Surgery Versus Emergency Surgery for Malignant Left-sided Colonic Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (ESCO Trial).

OBJECTIVE: To assess overall (OS), time to progression (TTP), and disease-free survival (DFS) at 3 years after treatment, comparing stenting as bridge-to-surgery (SBTS) versus emergency surgery (ES) in neoplastic left colon obstruction, secondary endpoints of the previously published randomized controlled trial. BACKGROUND: While SBTS in neoplastic colon obstruction may reduce morbidity and need for a stoma compared with ES, concern has been raised, about long-term survival. METHODS: Individuals affected by left-sided malignant large-bowel obstruction were enrolled from 5 European hospitals and randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive SBTS or ES. The computer-generated randomization sequence was stratified by center on cT and concealed by the use of a web-based application. Investigators and participants were unmasked to treatment assignment. The secondary outcomes analyzed here were OS, TTP, and DFS. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, ID-code NCT00591695. RESULTS: Between March 2008 and November 2015, 144 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either SBTS or ES; 115 (SBTS n = 56, ES n = 59) were eligible for analysis, while 20 participants were excluded for a benign disease, 1 for unavailability of the endoscopist while 8 withdrew from the trial. With a median follow-up of 37 months (range 1-62), no difference was observed in the SBTS group compared with ES in terms of OS (HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.49-1.76), P = 0.822), TTP (HR 0.81 (95% CI 0.42-1.54), P = 0.512), and DFS (HR 1.01 (95% CI 0.56-1.81), P = 0.972). Planned subgroup analysis showed no difference in respect to age, sex, American Society for Anesthesiology score, body mass index, and pT between SBTS and ES groups. Those participants randomized for the SBTS group whose obstruction was located in the descending colon had a better TTP compared with ES group (HR 0.44 (95% CI 0.20-0.97), P = 0.042), but no difference was observed in terms of OS (HR 0.73 (95% CI 0.33-1.63), P = 0.442) and DFS (HR 0.68 (95% CI 0.34-1.34), P = 0.261) in the same individuals. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized controlled trial shows that, although not powered for these seconday outcomes, OS, TTP, and DFS did not differ between groups at a minimum follow-up of 36 months.

Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery versus emergency surgery for malignant colonic obstruction: results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (ESCO trial).

BACKGROUND: The aim of colonic stenting with self-expandable metallic stents in neoplastic colon obstruction is to avoid emergency surgery and thus potentially reduce morbidity, mortality, and need for a stoma. Concern has been raised, however, about the effect of colonic stenting on short-term complications and long-term survival. We compared morbidity rates after colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery (SBTS) versus emergency surgery (ES) in the management of left-sided malignant large-bowel obstruction. METHODS: This multicentre randomised controlled trial was designed with the endorsement of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery. The study population was consecutive patients with acute, symptomatic malignant left-sided large-bowel obstruction localised between the splenic flexure and 15 cm from the anal margin. The primary outcome was overall morbidity within 60 days after surgery. RESULTS: Between March 2008 and November 2015, 144 patients were randomly assigned to undergo either SBTS or ES; 29/144 (13.9%) were excluded post-randomisation mainly because of wrong diagnosis at computed tomography examination. The remaining 115 patients (SBTS n = 56, ES n = 59) were deemed eligible for analysis. The complications rate within 60 days was 51.8% in the SBTS group and 57.6% in the ES group (p = 0.529). Although long-term follow-up is still ongoing, no statistically significant difference in 3-year overall survival (p = 0.998) and progression-free survival rates between the groups has been observed (p = 0.893). Eleven patients in the SBTS group and 23 in the ES group received a stoma (p = 0.031), with a reversal rate of 30% so far. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the two treatment strategies are equivalent. No difference in oncologic outcome was found at a median follow-up of 36 months. The significantly lower stoma rate noted in the SBTS group argues in favour of the SBTS procedure when performed in expert hands.

Italian consensus guidelines for chronic pancreatitis.

This paper gives practical guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis. Statements have been elaborated by working teams of experts, by searching for and analysing the literature, and submitted to a consensus process by using a Delphi modified procedure. The statements report recommendations on clinical and nutritional approach, assessment of pancreatic function, treatment of exocrine pancreatic failure and of secondary diabetes, treatment of pain and prevention of painful relapses. Moreover, the role of endoscopy in approaching pancreatic pain, pancreatic stones, duct narrowing and dilation, and complications was considered. Recommendations for most appropriate use of various imaging techniques and of ultrasound endoscopy are reported. Finally, a group of recommendations are addressed to the surgical treatment, with definition of right indications, timing, most appropriate procedures and techniques in different clinical conditions and targets, and clinical and functional outcomes following surgery.

A shift from distal to proximal neoplasia in the colon: a decade of polyps and CRC in Italy.

BACKGROUND: In the last years a trend towards proximalization of colorectal carcinomas (CRC) has been reported. This study aims to evaluate the distribution of CRC and adenomatous polyps (ADP) to establish the presence of proximalization and to assess the potential predictors. METHODS: We retrieved histology reports of colonic specimens excised during colonoscopy, considering the exams performed between 1997 and 2006 at Cuneo Hospital, Italy. We compared the proportion of proximal lesions in the period 1997-2001 and in the period 2002-2006. RESULTS: Neoplastic lesions were detected in 3087 people. Proximal CRC moved from 25.9% (1997-2001) to 30.0% (2002-2006). Adjusting for sex and age, the difference was not significant (OR 1.23; 95% CI: 0,95-1,58). The proximal ADP proportion increased from 19.2% (1997-2001) to 26.0% (2002-2006) (OR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.17-1.89). The corresponding figures for advanced proximal ADP were 6.6% and 9.5% (OR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.02-2.17). Adjusting for gender, age, diagnostic period, symptoms and number of polyps the prevalence of proximal advanced ADP was increased among people ≥ 70 years compared to those aged 55-69 years (OR 1.49; 95% CI: 1.032.16). The main predictor of proximal advanced neoplasia was the number of polyps detected per exam (> 1 polyp versus 1 polyp: considering all ADP: OR 2.16; 95% CI: 1.59-2.93; considering advanced ADP OR 1.63; 95% CI: 1.08-2.46). Adjusting for these factors, the difference between the two periods was no longer significant. CONCLUSIONS: CRC do not proximalize while a trend towards a proximal shift in adenomas was observed among people ≥ 70 years.

Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis in high- and low-volume centers and among expert and non-expert operators: a prospective multicenter study.

OBJECTIVES: Prospective studies have identified a number of patient- and procedure-related independent risk factors for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis, with different conclusions, so various questions are still open. The endoscopist's expertise, case volume, and case mix can all significantly influence the outcome of ERCP procedures, but have been investigated little to date. METHODS: We identified patient- and procedure-related risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis and the impact of the endoscopist's experience and the center's case volume, using univariate and multivariate analysis, in a multicenter, prospective study involving low- and high-volume centers, over a 6-month period. RESULTS: A total of 3,635 ERCP procedures were included; 2,838 (78%) ERCPs were performed in the 11 high-volume centers (median 257 each) and 797 in the 10 low-volume centers (median 45 each). Overall, 3,331 ERCPs were carried out by expert operators and 304 by less-skilled operators. There were significantly more grade 3 difficulty procedures in high-volume centers than in low-volume ones (P<0.0001). Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 137 patients (3.8%); the rates did not differ between high- and low-volume centers (3.9% vs. 3.1%) and expert and non-expert operators (3.8% vs. 5.5%). However, in high-volume centers, there were 25% more patients with patient- and procedure-related risk factors, and the pancreatitis rate was one-third higher among non-expert operators. Univariate analysis found a significant association with pancreatitis for history of acute pancreatitis, either non-ERCP- or ERCP-related and recurrent, young age, absence of bile duct stones, and biliary pain among patient-related risk factors, and >10 attempts to cannulate the Vater's papilla, pancreatic duct cannulation, contrast injection of the pancreatic ductal system, pre-cut technique, and pancreatic sphincterotomy, among procedure-related risk factors. Multivariate analysis also showed that a history of post-ERCP pancreatitis, biliary pain, >10 attempts to cannulate the Vater's papilla, main pancreatic duct cannulation, and pre-cut technique were significantly associated with the complication. CONCLUSIONS: A history of pancreatitis among patient-related factors, and multiple attempts at cannulation among procedure-related factors, were associated with the highest rates of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Pre-cut sphincterotomy, although identified as another significant risk factor, appeared safer when done early (fewer than 10 attempts at cannulating), compared with repeated multiple cannulation. The risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis was not associated with the case volume of either the single endoscopist or the center; however, high-volume centers treated a larger proportion of patients at high risk of pancreatitis and did a significantly greater number of difficult procedures.

Perforation of missed double gallbladder after primary laparoscopic cholecystectomy: endoscopic and laparoscopic management.

Gallbladder congenital duplication is a rare disease difficultly diagnosed preoperatively. Eight days after a laparoscopic cholecystectomy a 72-year-old man, complaining of abdominal pain and vomiting, presented to our emergency department. Ultrasound and computer tomography (CT) scans demonstrated a gallbladder-like structure with a 12-mm diameter stone and a subhepatic fluid collection. During an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, a probably second gallbladder with a fistula of the posterior wall was filled with contrast. Laparoscopic exploration confirmed a missed gallbladder, which was successfully removed. Histologic diagnosis of cholecystolithiasis and chronic cholecystitis was made. The postoperative course was uneventful. Symptomatic double gallbladder should be considered also during the complicated postoperative course after the laparoscopic cholecystectomy and laparoscopic reoperation is feasible.

A randomized prospective comparison of self-expandable plastic stents and partially covered self-expandable metal stents in the palliation of malignant esophageal dysphagia.

OBJECTIVES: Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) provide effective palliation in patients with malignant dysphagia, although severe complications and mortality may result. We performed a prospective controlled trial to compare a new self-expanding polyester mesh stent (Polyflex) with SEMS (Ultraflex). METHODS: One hundred one patients with unresectable esophageal carcinoma were randomized to placement of a Polyflex (N=47) or a partially covered Ultraflex (N=54) stent. Patients with esophagogastric junction (EGJ) malignancy were excluded. RESULTS: Placement was successful in 46 (98%) patients with the Polyflex and 54 (100%) patients with the Ultraflex stent. In one patient, the Polyflex stent could not be placed. After 1 wk, dysphagia was improved by at least 1 grade in 100% of the Polyflex group and in 94% of the Ultraflex group. Major complications were observed in 48% of the Polyflex group and 33% of the Ultraflex group. Intraprocedural perforation occurred in 1 Polyflex and 1 Ultraflex patient. Two Polyflex patients had postprocedural hemorrhage. Twenty (44%) patients with a Polyflex stent and 18 (33%) with an Ultraflex stent had recurrent dysphagia because of tumor overgrowth, stent migration, hyperplastic granulomatous reaction, or food bolus impaction. Multivariate analysis showed a significantly higher complication rate with Polyflex than with Ultraflex stents (odds ratio 2.3, 95% CI 1.2-4.4). However, median survival was 134 days with Polyflex and 122 days with Ultraflex stents (P=NS). CONCLUSIONS: No difference was seen in palliation of dysphagia between the two stents. Significantly more complications, especially late stent migration, were observed in the Polyflex group.

Polyflex stents for malignant oesophageal and oesophagogastric stricture: a prospective, multicentric study.

OBJECTIVE: Dysphagia is the most distressing symptom in patients with cancer-related oesophageal obstruction. Endoscopic palliation aims to restore swallowing, avoid reintervention and to reduce hospitalization. This study reports an experience with a new self-expandable plastic stent (Polyflex) in patients with unresectable oesophageal and oesophagogastric junction cancer. METHODS: Sixty patients were prospectively collected. The cause of obstruction was oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (44) and adenocarcinoma (eight), lung cancer (seven) and thyroid tumour (one). RESULTS: The stent was successfully placed in 59 patients. Early minor complications occurred in 19 patients (32%), and major complications in 13 (22%). Death occurred in three patients owing to pulmonary embolism (one) and massive haemorrhage (two). Recurrent dysphagia for early stent migration was observed in seven patients. Delayed stent migration occurred in five patients and tumour overgrowth in eight patients. The mean dysphagia score of 2.8 improved to a mean score of 1.0 after stenting (P<0.001). Overall median survival time was 4.6 months. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that Polyflex stents are competitive with metal stents, with similar efficacy but lower cost. Technical improvements, however, are required to make these stents more user friendly. Large randomized clinical studies are needed to guide in the choice among the different available stents.