Periprocedural adverse events after endoscopic resection of T1 colorectal carcinomas.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In contrast to the adverse event (AE) risk of endoscopic resection (ER) of adenomas, the intra- and postprocedural AE risks of ER of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) are scarcely reported in the literature. It is unclear whether ER of early CRCs, which grow into the submucosal layer and sometimes show incomplete lifting, is associated with an increased AE risk. We aimed to identify the AE rate after ER of T1 CRCs and to identify the risk factors associated with these AEs. METHODS: Medical records of patients with T1 CRCs diagnosed between 2000 and 2014 in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands were reviewed. Patients who underwent primary ER were selected. The primary outcome was the occurrence of endoscopy-related AEs. The secondary outcome was the identification of risk factors. Multivariate logistic regression was performed. RESULTS: Endoscopic AEs occurred in 59 of 1069 (5.5%) patients, among which 37.3% were classified as mild, 59.3% as moderate, and 3.4% as severe. AEs were postprocedural bleeding (n = 40, 3.7%), perforation (n = 13, 1.2%), and postpolypectomy electrocoagulation syndrome (n = 6, 0.6%). No fatal AEs were observed. Independent predictors for AEs were age >70 years (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-3.96) and tumor size >20 mm (odds ratio, 2.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-4.69). CONCLUSIONS: In this large multicenter retrospective cohort study, AE rates of ER of T1 CRC (5.5%) are comparable with reported AE rates for adenomas. Larger tumor size and age >70 years are independent predictors for AEs. This study suggests that endoscopic treatment of T1 CRCs is not associated with an increased periprocedural AE risk.

Endoscopic resection of high-risk T1 colorectal carcinoma prior to surgical resection has no adverse effect on long-term outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: It is difficult to predict the presence of histological risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) before endoscopic treatment of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC). Therefore, endoscopic therapy is propagated to obtain adequate histological staging. We examined whether secondary surgery following endoscopic resection of high-risk T1 CRC does not have a negative effect on patients' outcomes compared with primary surgery. DESIGN: Patients with T1 CRC with one or more histological risk factors for LNM (high risk) and treated with primary or secondary surgery between 2000 and 2014 in 13 hospitals were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Additional data were collected from hospital records, endoscopy, radiology and pathology reports. A propensity score analysis was performed using inverse probability weighting (IPW) to correct for confounding by indication. RESULTS: 602 patients were eligible for analysis (263 primary; 339 secondary surgery). Overall, 34 recurrences were observed (5.6%). After adjusting with IPW, no differences were observed between primary and secondary surgery for the presence of LNM (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.49 to 1.93; p=0.940) and recurrence during follow-up (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.41 to 2.34; p=0.954). Further adjusting for lymphovascular invasion, depth of invasion and number of retrieved lymph nodes did not alter this outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Our data do not support an increased risk of LNM or recurrence after secondary surgery compared with primary surgery. Therefore, an attempt for an en-bloc resection of a possible T1 CRC without evident signs of deep invasion seems justified in order to prevent surgery of low-risk T1 CRC in a significant proportion of patients.

Rapid on-site evaluation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of lymph nodes does not increase diagnostic yield: A randomized, multicenter trial.

OBJECTIVES: Studies on the impact of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of lymph nodes are retrospective and have shown conflicting results. We aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA of lymph nodes with ROSE (ROSE+) and without ROSE (ROSE-). METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Consecutive patients who were scheduled to undergo EUS-FNA of mediastinal or abdominal lymph nodes were randomized to ROSE+ or ROSE-. In the ROSE+ group, the number of passes was dictated by the on-site cytotechnician. In the ROSE- group, five passes were performed without interference from the cytotechnician. All samples were reviewed by a single-expert cytopathologist, blinded to group allocation. Primary endpoint was diagnostic yield with and without ROSE. RESULTS: After inclusion of 90 patients, interim analysis showed futility of study continuation since diagnostic yield of ROSE+ and ROSE- were comparable. A total of 91 patients were randomized to ROSE+ (N = 45) or ROSE- (N = 46). Diagnostic yield of ROSE+ and ROSE- and diagnostic accuracy were comparable: 93.3% vs. 95.7% (P = 0.68) and 97.6% vs. 93.2% (P = 0.62), respectively. Two major complications (one per group) occurred (p = 0.99). ROSE- patients more often reported self-limiting post-procedural pain (p < 0.001). Median procedure time for ROSE+ (20 min) and ROSE- (23 min) was comparable (P = 0.06). Median time to review slides in the ROSE- group (12:47 min) was longer than with ROSE+ (7:52 min) (P < 0.001). Mean costs of ROSE- and ROSE+ were comparable: €938.29 (±172.70) vs. €945.98 (±223.38) (P = 0.91), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic yield and accuracy of EUS-FNA of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes with and without ROSE are comparable. Time needed to review slides was shorter and post-procedural pain was less often reported in the ROSE+ group. Based on the primary outcome, the implementation of ROSE during EUS-FNA of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes cannot be advised. (Dutch Trial Register: NTR4876).

Management of eosinophilic esophagitis in daily clinical practice.

In recent years, new guidelines and recommendations have been published regarding the diagnostic criteria and therapeutic management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). The aim of this study is to assess the diagnostic and therapeutic management of patients diagnosed with EoE in daily clinical practice and whether this was performed according to current guidelines and recommendations. A population-based, multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the national pathology registry (PALGA), medical records, and telephone interviews of patients diagnosed with EoE in two academic and two nonacademic hospitals in the period 2004 to 2014. The study was approved by all involved ethical committees. Data regarding demographics, clinical manifestations, endoscopic results, histologic samples, and therapeutic strategies were collected. Standard statistical analyses were performed to summarize patient characteristics. We included 119 patients diagnosed with EoE in this study. The median age at onset of symptoms was 29 years (IQR: 15-42) and the median age at diagnosis was 38 years (IQR: 23-51 years), leading to a median diagnostic patients' delay of 6.5 years (IQR: 2-14 years). The median physicians' delay in diagnosis between first contact in the hospital and diagnosis was 1.0 year (IQR: 1-7 years). The incidence of newly diagnosed patients with EoE increased steadily over a period of 11 years. Criteria for the microscopic diagnosis of EoE varied between pathologists in each hospital. Initial treatment included topical corticosteroids (TCS) (30.3%), proton pump inhibitors (PPI) (29.4%), or a combination (10.1%). A follow-up endoscopy was performed in 40.3% of patients. During follow-up, treatment included PPIs (76.0%), TCS (59.6%), a combination of PPIs and TCS (45.4%), and endoscopic dilations (6.7%). Diagnostic and therapeutic discrepancies between daily clinical practice and recommendations from current and past guidelines were observed. Apart from developing guidelines, efforts should be undertaken to implement these in daily clinical practice.

Adherence to guideline recommendations for Barrett's esophagus (BE) surveillance endoscopies: Effects of dedicated BE endoscopy lists.

Background and study aims For non-dysplastic Barrett's Esophagus (BE) patients, guidelines recommend endoscopic surveillance every 3 to 5 years with four-quadrant random biopsies every 2 cm of BE length. Adherence to these guidelines is low in clinical practice. Pooling BE surveillance endoscopies on dedicated endoscopy lists performed by dedicated endoscopists could possibly enhance guideline adherence, detection of visible lesions, and dysplasia detection rates (DDRs). Patients and methods Data were used from the ACID-study (Netherlands Trial Registry NL8214), a prospective trial of BE surveillance in the Netherlands. BE patients with known or previously treated dysplasia were excluded. Guideline adherence, detection of visible lesions, and DDRs were compared for patients on dedicated and general endoscopy lists. Results A total of 1,244 patients were included, 318 on dedicated lists and 926 on general lists. Endoscopies on dedicated lists showed significantly higher adherence to the random biopsy protocol (85% vs. 66%, P <0.01) and recommended surveillance intervals (60% vs. 47%, P <0.01) compared to general lists. Detection of visible lesions (8.8% vs. 8.1%, P =0.79) and DDRs were not significantly different (6.9% and 6.6%, P =0.94). None (0.0%) of the patients scheduled on dedicated lists and 10 (1.1%) on general lists were diagnosed with esophageal adenocarcinoma ( P =0.07). In multivariable analysis, dedicated lists were significantly associated with biopsy protocol adherence and adherence to surveillance interval recommendations with odds ratios of 4.45 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.07-9.57) and 1.64 (95% CI 1.03-2.61), respectively. Conclusions Dedicated endoscopy lists are associated with better adherence to the random biopsy protocol and surveillance interval recommendations.

Feasibility of automated target centralization in colonoscopy.

PURPOSE: Early detection of colorectal cancer is key to full recovery. This urged governments to start population screening programs for colorectal cancer, often using flexible endoscopes. Flexible endoscopy is difficult to learn and time-consuming. Automation of flexible endoscopes may increase the capacity for the screening programs. The goal of this pilot study is to investigate the clinical and technical feasibility of an assisting automated navigation algorithm for a colonoscopy procedure. METHODS: Automated navigation (lumen centralization) was implemented in a robotized system designed for conventional flexible endoscopes. Ten novice and eight expert users were asked to perform a diagnostic colonoscopy on a colon model twice: once using the conventional and once using the robotic system. Feasibility was evaluated using time and location data as measures of the system's added value. RESULTS: Automated target centralization (ATC) was turned on by the novices for a median of 4.2% of the time during insertion and 0.3% during retraction. Experts turned ATC on for 4.0% of the time during insertion and 11.6% during retraction. Novices and experts showed comparable times to reach the cecum with the conventional or the robotic setup with ATC. CONCLUSION: The ATC algorithm combined with the robotized endoscope setup works in an experimental setup that closely resembles the clinical environment and is considered feasible, although ATC use was lower than expected. For novices, it was unclear whether the low usage was due to unfamiliarity with the system or because they did not need ATC. Experts used ATC also during the retraction phase of the procedure. This was an unexpected finding and may indicate an added value of the system.