Endoscopic ultrasound-guided versus percutaneous liver biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous liver biopsy (PC-LB) has long been the usual method for acquisition of liver tissue. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) has gained popularity as an alternative modality. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of EUS-LB versus PC-LB. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EUS-LB with PC-LB published until October 20, 2023. The primary outcome was diagnostic adequacy. Secondary outcomes were: the number of complete portal tracts (CPTs), longest sample length (LSL), total sample length (TSL), post-procedure pain scores, and adverse events (AEs), including overall AEs and AEs excluding minor post-procedure symptoms. We compared binary outcomes using risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcomes using the mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD), with 95%CIs. RESULTS: Four RCTs (258 patients) were included. The EUS-LB group presented lower post-procedure pain scores (SMD -0.58, 95%CI -0.95 to -0.22) than the PC-LB group. Both groups performed similarly in terms of diagnostic adequacy (RR 1.0, 95%CI 0.96 to 1.04), number of CPTs (MD 2.57, 95%CI -4.09 to 9.22), LSL (MD -2.91 mm, 95%CI -5.86 to 0.03), TSL (MD 4.16 mm, 95%CI -10.12 to 18.45), overall AEs (RR 0.54, 95%CI 0.20 to 1.46), and AEs excluding minor post-procedure symptoms (RR 1.65, 95%CI 0.21 to 13.02). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis suggests that EUS-LB is as safe and effective as PC-LB and is associated with lower post-procedure pain scores.Registration on PROSPERO: CRD42023469469.

Underwater versus conventional EMR for nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) is the standard modality for removing nonpedunculated colorectal lesions. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has emerged as an alternative method. There are few comparative studies between these techniques, especially evaluating recurrence. Therefore, the purpose of this trial was to compare CEMR and UEMR for the resection of colorectal lesions with respect to efficacy, safety, and recurrence rate. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial of UEMR versus CEMR for naïve and nonpedunculated lesions measuring between 10 and 40 mm. The primary outcome was adenoma recurrence at 6 months after the resection. Secondary outcomes were rates of technical success, en bloc resection, and adverse events. Block randomization was used to assign patients. Tattooing was performed to facilitate localization of the scars and eventual recurrences. Endoscopic follow-up was scheduled at 6 months after the procedure. The sites of resections were examined with white-light imaging, narrow-band imaging (NBI), and conventional chromoscopy with indigo carmine followed by biopsies. RESULTS: One hundred five patients with 120 lesions were included, with a mean size of 17.5 ± 7.1 (SD) mm. Sixty-one lesions were resected by UEMR and 59 by CEMR. The groups were similar at baseline regarding age, sex, average size, and histologic type. Lesions in the proximal colon in the CEMR group corresponded to 83% and in the UEMR group to 67.8% (P = .073). There was no difference between groups regarding success rate (1 failure in each group) and en bloc resection rate (60.6% UEMR vs 54.2% CEMR, P = .48). Intraprocedural bleeding was observed in 5 CEMRs (8.5%) and 2 UEMRs (3.3%) (P = .27). There was no perforation or delayed hemorrhage in either groups. Recurrence rate was higher in the CEMR arm (15%) than in the UEMR arm (2%) (P = .031). Therefore, the relative risk of 6-month recurrence rate in the CEMR group was 7.5-fold higher (95% CI, 0.98-58.20), with a number needed to treat of 7.7 (95% CI, 40.33-4.22). The higher recurrence rate in the CEMR group persisted only for lesions measuring 21 to 40 mm (35.7% vs 0%; P = .04). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that UEMR was associated with a lower adenoma recurrence rate than was CEMR. Both endoscopic techniques were effective and had similar rates of adverse events for the treatment of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions.

Underwater versus conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) is the established method for the resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions (NPCRL) ≥ 10 mm. In the last decade, underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has been introduced as a potential alternative. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to compare the recurrence and safety of UEMR and CEMR by analyzing only randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE until April 2023. Studies met the following inclusion criteria: (1) RCTs, (2) comparing UEMR with CEMR, (3) NPCRL ≥ 10 mm, and (4) reporting the outcomes of interest. Primary outcomes were recurrence and safety. Secondary outcomes were en bloc, R0, complete resection, clipping and adverse events per type. RESULTS: Five RCTs were included. UEMR was associated with a lower recurrence rate (OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.32-0.97). Thus, the RR of recurrence was 1.7 times higher in the CEMR group (95% CI, 1.04-2.77). There was no significant difference in the pooled safety analysis. UEMR showed better en bloc resection rates (OR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.15-2.07), but subgroup analysis showed comparable rates in lesions ≥ 20 mm. R0 resection was higher in UEMR (OR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.23-2.41). Other outcomes were not different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: UEMR is as safe as CEMR, with a higher overall R0 rate and a higher en bloc resection rate for lesions < 20 mm, leading to a lower overall recurrence rate. The results of this meta-analysis support the widespread use of UEMR.

Impact of radiotherapy on adverse events of self-expanding metallic stents in patients with esophageal cancer.

Self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) are considered the treatment of choice for the palliation of dysphagia and fistulas in inoperable esophageal neoplasms. However, the safety of SEMSs in patients who received or who will be submitted to radiotherapy (RT) is uncertain. The study aimed to evaluate the impact of RT on adverse events (AEs) in patients with esophageal cancer with SEMSs. This is a retrospective study conducted at a tertiary cancer hospital from 2009 to 2018. We collected information regarding RT, the histological type of the tumor, the model of SEMSs and AEs after stent placement. Three hundred twenty-three patients with malignant stenosis or fistula were treated with SEMSs. The predominant histological type was squamous cell carcinoma (79.6%). A total of 282 partially covered and 41 fully covered SEMSs were inserted. Of the 323 patients, 182 did not received RT, 118 received RT before SEMS placement and 23 after. Comparing the group that received RT before stent insertion with the group that did not, the first one presented a higher frequency of severe pain (9/118 7.6% vs. 3/182 1.6%; P = 0.02). The group treated with RT after stent placement had a higher risk of global AEs (13/23 56.5% vs. 63/182 34.6%; P = 0.019), ingrowth/overgrowth (6/23 26.1% vs. 21/182 11.5%; P = 0.045) and gastroesophageal reflux (2/23 8.7% vs. 2/182 1.1%; P = 0.034). Treatment with RT before stent placement in patients with inoperable esophageal neoplasm prolongs survival and is associated with an increased risk of severe chest pain. Treatment with RT of patients with an esophageal stent increases the frequency of minor, not life-threatening AEs.

Tube-in-tube endoscopic vacuum therapy for the closure of upper gastrointestinal fistulas, leaks, and perforations.

BACKGROUND : Although endoscopic vacuum therapy (EVT) has been successfully used to treat postoperative upper gastrointestinal (UGI) wall defects, its use demands special materials and several endoscopic treatment sessions. Herein, we propose a technical modification of EVT using a double tube (tube-in-tube drain) without polyurethane sponges for the drainage element. The tube-in-tube drainage device enables irrigation and application of suction. A flowchart for standardizing the management of postoperative UGI wall defects with this device is presented. METHODS : An EVT modification was made to achieve frequent fistula cleansing, with 3 % hydrogen peroxide rinsing, and the application of negative pressure. A tube-in-tube drain without polyurethane sponges can be inserted like a nasogastric tube or passed through a previously positioned surgical drain. This was a retrospective two-center observational study, with data collected from 30 consecutive patients. Technical success, clinical success, adverse events, time under therapy, interval time from procedure to fistula diagnosis and treatment start, size of transmural defect, volume of cavity, number of endoscopic treatment sessions, and mortality were reviewed. RESULTS : 30 patients with UGI wall defects were treated. The technical and clinical success rates were 100 % and 86.7 %, respectively. Three patients (10 %) had adverse events and three patients (10 %) died. The median time under therapy was of 19 days (range 1-70) and the median number of endoscopic sessions was 3 (range 1-9). CONCLUSIONS : This standardized approach and EVT modification using a tube-in-tube drain, with frequent fistula cleansing, were successful and safe in a wide variety of UGI wall defects.

Probe-based confocal endomicroscopy is accurate for differentiating gastric lesions in patients in a Western center.

OBJECTIVE: Probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) technique may improve the diagnosis of gastric mucosal lesions allowing acquisition of high-resolution in vivo images at the cellular and microvascular levels. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of pCLE for the differential diagnosis of non-neoplastic and neoplastic gastric lesions. METHODS: Twenty gastric mucosal lesions from 10 patients were evaluated during endoscopic procedure and were examined by pCLE. Diagnostic pCLE was followed by biopsies or endoscopic resection of suspected lesions. A senior pathologist evaluated the specimens and was blinded to the pCLE results. RESULTS: Patients' mean age was 68.3 (range, 42-83) years and six were men. Thirteen suspicious flat or elevated lesions (classified as 0-Is, 0-IIa or 0-IIa + IIc) and seven pre-malignant lesions (atrophy and intestinal metaplasia) were evaluated. One patient was studied during his long-term follow-up after partial gastrectomy and presented severe atrophy, intestinal metaplasia, and xanthomas at the stump mucosa. The location of gastric lesions was in the body (n=10 lesions), the antrum (n=9) and the incisura angularis (n=1). All neoplastic lesions and all but one benign lesion were properly diagnosed by pCLE. pCLE incorrectly diagnosed one small antrum lesion as adenoma, however the final diagnosis was intestinal metaplasia. The final histological diagnosis was neoplastic in 9 and benign lesions in 11. In this small case series, pCLE accuracy was 95% (19/20 lesions). CONCLUSIONS: pCLE is accurate for real time histology of gastric lesions. pCLE may change the management of patients with gastric mucosal lesions, guiding biopsies and endoscopic resection, and avoiding further diagnostic workup or unnecessary therapy.

Adverse events of self-expandable esophageal metallic stents in patients with long-term survival from advanced malignant disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Self-expandable metallic stents are considered the best palliative treatment of dysphagia for patients with advanced esophageal cancer. Adverse events (AEs) are a major concern, especially in patients with better prognosis and longer survival. The present study aimed to evaluate the AEs of patients who survived longer than 6 months with esophageal stents in place. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database including all patients submitted to esophageal stent placement for the palliation of malignant diseases during the period from February 2009 to February 2014 at a tertiary care academic center who had stents longer than 6 months. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients were included. Mean follow-up was 10.7 months. Clinical success was achieved in all patients, and the median stent patency was 7.1 months. AEs occurred in 40 patients (63.5%), totaling 62 AEs (mean, 1.5 AEs per patient). Endoscopic management of AEs was successful in 84.5% of cases, with a mean of 1.6 reinterventions per patient. The univariate analysis revealed that performance status, age, and post-stent radiotherapy presented a trend to higher risk of AEs. The multivariate analysis revealed that only performance status was associated with AEs (P = .025; hazard ratio, 4.1). CONCLUSIONS: AEs are common in patients with long-term esophageal stenting for malignancy. However, AEs were not related to higher mortality rate, and most AEs could be successfully managed by endoscopy. Only performance status was a risk factor for AEs. Our data suggest that metallic stenting is a valid option for the treatment of malignant esophageal conditions, even when survival longer than 6 months is expected.

The Role of Probe-Based Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy (pCLE) in the Diagnosis of Sustained Clinical Complete Response Under Watch-and-Wait Strategy After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy for Locally Advanced Rectal Adenocarcinoma: a Score Validation.

BACKGROUND: Watch-and-wait strategy has been increasingly accepted for patients with clinical complete response (cCR) after multimodal treatment for locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma. Close follow-up is essential to the early detection of local regrowth. It was previously demonstrated that probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) scoring using the combination of epithelial and vascular features might improve the diagnostic accuracy of cCR. AIM: To validate the pCLE scoring system in the assessment of patients with cCR after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRxt) for advanced rectal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Digital rectal examination, pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and pCLE were performed in 43 patients with cCR, who presented either a scar (N = 33; 76.7%) or a small ulcer with no signs of tumor, and/or biopsy negative for malignancy (N = 10; 23.3%). RESULTS: Twenty-five (58.1%) patients were men, and the mean age was 58.4 years. During the follow-up, 12/43 (27.9%) patients presented local regrowth and underwent salvage surgery. There was an association between pCLE diagnostic scoring and final histological report (for patients who underwent surgical resection) or final diagnosis at the latest follow-up (p = 0.0001), while this association was not observed with MRI (p = 0.49). pCLE sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 66.7%, 93.5%, 80%, 88.9%, and 86%, respectively. MRI sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 66.7%, 48.4%, 66.7%, 78.9%, and 53.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: pCLE scoring system based on epithelial and vascular features improved the diagnosis of sustained cCR and might be recommended during follow-up. pCLE might add some valuable contribution for identifying local regrowth. Trial Registration This protocol was registered at the Clinical Trials (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02284802).