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.

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.

Clinical and endoscopic aspects of metastases to the gastrointestinal tract.

BACKGROUND: Studies that describe metastases to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract are restricted to small case series. An increase in the frequency of this condition is expected, so it would be useful to better characterize the endoscopic aspects of metastasis to the GI tract. The aims of this study were to describe the frequency and endoscopic features of the lesions, and to analyze the survival rate after diagnosis of metastasis. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single-center, observational study, conducted between 2009 and 2017. Patients with metastasis to the GI tract were included. RESULTS: 95 patients were included. Melanoma (25.3 %), lung (15.8 %), and breast (14.7 %) were the most frequent primary tumors. The most common endoscopic presentation was a solitary, ulcerated lesion in the gastric body. Conventional biopsy was diagnostic in 98.9 % of the cases. The mean and median survival rates were 13.3 months (95 % confidence interval [CI] 8.2 - 18.3) and 4.7 months (95 %CI 3.7 - 5.6), respectively. Palliative treatment with chemo- and/or radiotherapy after the diagnosis of the metastasis was related to a higher survival rate. CONCLUSIONS: Melanoma, lung, and breast cancer were the most common primary tumors to metastasize to the GI tract. The endoscopic features could not predict the primary site of the tumor. The finding of metastasis in the GI tract is related to the final stage of the cancer disease but patients who received palliative treatment with chemo- and/or radiotherapy after diagnosis of GI metastasis had higher survival rates.

Self-expandable metal stent for malignant esophagorespiratory fistula: predictive factors associated with clinical failure.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Malignant esophagorespiratory fistulas (MERFs) usually are managed by the placement of self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) but with conflicting results. This study aimed to identify risk factors associated with clinical failure after SEMS placement for the treatment of MERFs. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database used at a tertiary-care cancer hospital, with patients treated with SEMS placement for MERFs between January 2009 and February 2016. Logistic regression was used to identify predictive factors for clinical outcomes and to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and the 95% confidence interval (CI). The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis, and comparisons were made by using the log-rank test. RESULTS: A total of 71 patients (55 male, mean age 59 years) were included in the study, and 70 were considered for the final analysis (1 failed stent insertion). Clinical failure occurred in 44% of patients. An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 3 or 4 and fistula development during esophageal cancer treatment were associated with an increased risk of clinical failure. ECOG status of 3 or 4, pulmonary infection at the time of SEMS placement, and prior radiation therapy were predictive factors associated with lower overall survival. Dysphagia scores improved significantly 15 days after stent insertion. The overall stent-related adverse event rate was 30%. Stent migration and occlusion caused by tumor overgrowth were the most common adverse events. CONCLUSION: SEMS placement is a reasonable treatment option for MERFs; however, ECOG status of 3 or 4 and fistula development during esophageal cancer treatment may be independent predictors of clinical failure after stent placement.

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.