Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Vs Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Superficial Nonampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors in the Western Setting.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) is established as the primary treatment modality for superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs), but recently underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) has emerged as a potential alternative. The majority of previous studies focused on Asian populations and small lesions (≤20 mm). We aimed to compare the efficacy and outcomes of U-EMR vs C-EMR for SNADETs in a Western setting. METHODS: This was a retrospective multinational study from 10 European centers that performed both C-EMR and U-EMR between January 2013 and July 2023. The main outcomes were the technical success, procedure-related adverse events (AEs), and the residual/recurrent adenoma (RRA) rate, evaluated on a per-lesion basis. We assessed the association between the type of endoscopic mucosal resection and the occurrence of AEs or RRAs using mixed-effects logistic regression models (propensity scores). Sensitivity analyses were performed for lesions ≤20 mm or >20 mm. RESULTS: A total of 290 SNADETs submitted to endoscopic resection during the study period met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed (C-EMR: n = 201, 69.3%; U-EMR: n = 89, 30.7%). The overall technical success rate was 95.5% and comparable between groups. In logistic regression models, compared with U-EMR, C-EMR was associated with a significantly higher frequency of overall delayed AEs (odds ratio [OR], 4.95; 95% CI, 2.87-8.53), postprocedural bleeding (OR, 7.92; 95% CI, 3.95-15.89), and RRAs (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.49-5.37). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results when solely considering either small (≤20 mm) or large (>20 mm) lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with C-EMR, U-EMR was associated with a lower rate of overall AEs and RRAs, regardless of lesion size. Our results confirm the possible role of U-EMR as an effective and safe technique in the management of SNADETs.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Superficial Colorectal Neoplasms at "Challenging Sites" Using a Double-Balloon Endoluminal Interventional Platform: A Single-Center Study.

BACKGROUND: Colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) at "challenging sites" such as the cecum, ascending colon, and colonic flexures could be difficult even for expert endoscopists due to poor endoscope stability/maneuverability, steep angles, and thinner wall thickness. A double-balloon endoluminal intervention platform (EIP) has been introduced in the market to fasten and facilitate ESD, particularly when located at difficult sites. Here, we report our initial experience with an EIP comparing the outcomes of an EIP versus standard ESD (S-ESD) at "challenging sites". MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively collected data on consecutive patients with colonic lesions located in the right colon and at flexures who underwent ESD in our tertiary referral center between March 2019 and May 2023. Endoscopic and clinical outcomes (technical success, en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, procedure time, time to reach the lesion, and adverse events) and 6-month follow-up outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 139 consecutive patients with lesions located at these challenging sites were enrolled (EIP: 31 and S-ESD: 108). Demographic characteristics did not differ between groups. En bloc resection was achieved in 92.3% and 93.5% of patients, respectively, in the EIP and S-ESD groups. Both groups showed a comparable R0 resection rate (EIP vs. S-ESD: 92.3% vs. 97.2%). In patients undergoing EIP-assisted ESD, the total procedure time was shorter (96.1 [30.6] vs. 113.6 [42.3] minutes, p = 0.01), and the mean size of the resected lesions was smaller (46.2 ± 12.7 vs. 55.7 ± 17.6 mm, p = 0.003). The time to reach the lesion was significantly shorter in the EIP group (1.9 ± 0.3 vs. 8.2 ± 2.7 min, p ≤ 0.01). Procedure speed was comparable between groups (14.9 vs. 16.6 mm2/min, p = 0.29). Lower adverse events were observed in the EIP patients (3.8 vs. 10.2%, p = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: EIP allows results that do not differ from S-ESD in the resection of colorectal superficial neoplasms localized in "challenging sites" in terms of efficacy and safety. EIP reduces the time to reach the lesions and may more safely facilitate endoscopic resection.

Endocuff Vision-Assisted Resection for Difficult Colonic Lesions-Preliminary Results of a Multicenter, Prospective Randomized Pilot Study.

Background-Screening programs for colorectal cancer are implemented due to their ability to reduce mortality. The Endocuff Vision is a new endoscopic device that significantly improves the adenoma detection rate. The primary outcome was to assess the efficacy of ECV in improving stability and reducing operation time during difficult colon polypectomies in a multicenter randomized prospective study. Methods-In a randomized multicenter pilot study, two groups of patients who underwent difficult polypectomies with and without the assistance of Endocuff Vision were compared. Demographics and clinical characteristics of patients were obtained, and polyps' size, morphology, site, and access (SMSA); polypectomy time; and endoscope stability were evaluated. Results-From October 2016 to April 2020, 32 patients were enrolled. In total, 12 patients underwent Endocuff Vision polypectomy, and 20 patients underwent standard polypectomy by using a computer-generated random number table. No statistical differences were found in clinical characteristics, SMSA, and polypectomy time. The most interesting findings were the positive correlations between shaking and SMSA (r = 0.55, p = 0.005) and shaking and polypectomy time (r = 0.745, p < 0.0001). Conclusion-Endocuff Vision seems to be adequately stable during difficult endoscopic resection procedures. The new parameter proposed that shaking is strongly correlated to the stability of the endoscope, the difficulty of the resection (SMSA), and the polypectomy time.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for challenging colorectal lesions: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The optimal endoscopic resection method of challenging colorectal lesions (ie, adenomatous recurrences, nongranular laterally spreading tumors [LST-NGs], lesions without lifting sign <30 mm) is still under debate. The aim of this study was to directly compare endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) for the resection of challenging colorectal lesions in a randomized trial. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, randomized study was performed in 4 Italian referral centers. Consecutive patients referred for endoscopic resection of challenging lesions were randomly assigned to undergo EFTR or ESD. Primary outcomes were complete (R0) resection and en bloc resection of lesions. Technical success, procedure time, procedure speed, area of the resected specimen, adverse event rate, and local recurrence rate at 6 months were also compared. RESULTS: Overall, 90 patients were included in the study, equally representing the 3 challenging lesion types. Age and sex were comparable in the 2 groups. En bloc resection was obtained in 95.5% of the EFTR group and in 93.3% of the ESD group. R0 resection rate was comparable in the 2 groups (EFTR vs ESD, 42 [93.3%] vs 36 [80%]; P = .06). The EFTR group exhibited a significantly shorter total procedure time (25.6 ± 10.6 minutes vs 76.7 ± 26.4 minutes, P ≤ .01), as well as overall procedure speed (16.8 ± 11.8 mm2/min vs 11.9 ± 9.2 mm2/min, P = .03). The EFTR group had a significantly smaller mean lesion size (21.6 ± 8.3 mm vs 28.7 ± 7.7 mm, P ≤ .01). Adverse events were reported less frequently in patients in the EFTR group (4.44% vs 15.5%, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: EFTR is comparable to ESD in the treatment of challenging colorectal lesions in terms of safety and efficacy. EFTR is considerably faster than ESD in the treatment of nonlifting lesions and adenoma recurrences. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT05502276.).

Combination of Mucosa-Exposure Device and Computer-Aided Detection for Adenoma Detection During Colonoscopy: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Both computer-aided detection (CADe)-assisted and Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy have been found to increase adenoma detection. We investigated the performance of the combination of the 2 tools compared with CADe-assisted colonoscopy alone to detect colorectal neoplasias during colonoscopy in a multicenter randomized trial. METHODS: Men and women undergoing colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening, polyp surveillance, or clincial indications at 6 centers in Italy and Switzerland were enrolled. Patients were assigned (1:1) to colonoscopy with the combinations of CADe (GI-Genius; Medtronic) and a mucosal exposure device (Endocuff Vision [ECV]; Olympus) or to CADe-assisted colonoscopy alone (control group). All detected lesions were removed and sent to histopathology for diagnosis. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (percentage of patients with at least 1 histologically proven adenoma or carcinoma). Secondary outcomes were adenomas detected per colonoscopy, advanced adenomas and serrated lesions detection rate, the rate of unnecessary polypectomies (polyp resection without histologically proven adenomas), and withdrawal time. RESULTS: From July 1, 2021 to May 31, 2022, there were 1316 subjects randomized and eligible for analysis; 660 to the ECV group, 656 to the control group). The adenoma detection rate was significantly higher in the ECV group (49.6%) than in the control group (44.0%) (relative risk, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.00-1.26; P = .04). Adenomas detected per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the ECV group (mean ± SD, 0.94 ± 0.54) than in the control group (0.74 ± 0.21) (incidence rate ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.54; P = .02). The 2 groups did not differ in term of detection of advanced adenomas and serrated lesions. There was no significant difference between groups in mean ± SD withdrawal time (9.01 ± 2.48 seconds for the ECV group vs 8.96 ± 2.24 seconds for controls; P = .69) or proportion of subjects undergoing unnecessary polypectomies (relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.69-1.14; P = .38). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of CADe and ECV during colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate and adenomas detected per colonoscopy without increasing withdrawal time compared with CADe alone. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Number: NCT04676308.

Artificial intelligence-assisted optical diagnosis for the resect-and-discard strategy in clinical practice: the Artificial intelligence BLI Characterization (ABC) study.

BACKGROUND: Optical diagnosis of colonic polyps is poorly reproducible outside of high volume referral centers. The present study aimed to assess whether real-time artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted optical diagnosis is accurate enough to implement the leave-in-situ strategy for diminutive (≤ 5 mm) rectosigmoid polyps (DRSPs). METHODS: Consecutive colonoscopy outpatients with ≥ 1 DRSP were included. DRSPs were categorized as adenomas or nonadenomas by the endoscopists, who had differing expertise in optical diagnosis, with the assistance of a real-time AI system (CAD-EYE). The primary end point was ≥ 90 % negative predictive value (NPV) for adenomatous histology in high confidence AI-assisted optical diagnosis of DRSPs (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable endoscopic Innovations [PIVI-1] threshold), with histopathology as the reference standard. The agreement between optical- and histology-based post-polypectomy surveillance intervals (≥ 90 %; PIVI-2 threshold) was also calculated according to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United States Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) guidelines. RESULTS: Overall 596 DRSPs were retrieved for histology in 389 patients; an AI-assisted high confidence optical diagnosis was made in 92.3 %. The NPV of AI-assisted optical diagnosis for DRSPs (PIVI-1) was 91.0 % (95 %CI 87.1 %-93.9 %). The PIVI-2 threshold was met with 97.4 % (95 %CI 95.7 %-98.9 %) and 92.6 % (95 %CI 90.0 %-95.2 %) of patients according to ESGE and USMSTF, respectively. AI-assisted optical diagnosis accuracy was significantly lower for nonexperts (82.3 %, 95 %CI 76.4 %-87.3 %) than for experts (91.9 %, 95 %CI 88.5 %-94.5 %); however, nonexperts quickly approached the performance levels of experts over time. CONCLUSION: AI-assisted optical diagnosis matches the required PIVI thresholds. This does not however offset the need for endoscopists' high level confidence and expertise. The AI system seems to be useful, especially for nonexperts.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of polyps involving the appendiceal orifice: a multicenter international experience.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic resection of lesions involving the appendiceal orifice remains a challenge. We aimed to report outcomes with the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) for the resection of appendiceal lesions and identify factors associated with the occurrence of appendicitis. METHODS: This was a retrospective study at 18 tertiary-care centers (USA 12, Canada 1, Europe 5) between November 2016 and August 2020. Consecutive patients who underwent resection of an appendiceal orifice lesion using the FTRD were included. The primary outcome was the rate of R0 resection in neoplastic lesions, defined as negative lateral and deep margins on post-resection histologic evaluation. Secondary outcomes included the rates of: technical success (en bloc resection), clinical success (technical success without need for further surgical intervention), post-resection appendicitis, and polyp recurrence. RESULTS: 66 patients (32 women; mean age 64) underwent resection of colonic lesions involving the appendiceal orifice (mean [standard deviation] size, 14.5 (6.2) mm), with 40 (61 %) being deep, extending into the appendiceal lumen. Technical success was achieved in 59/66 patients (89 %), of which, 56 were found to be neoplastic lesions on post-resection pathology. Clinical success was achieved in 53/66 (80 %). R0 resection was achieved in 52/56 (93 %). Of the 58 patients in whom EFTR was completed who had no prior history of appendectomy, appendicitis was reported in 10 (17 %), with six (60 %) requiring surgical appendectomy. Follow-up colonoscopy was completed in 41 patients, with evidence of recurrence in five (12 %). CONCLUSIONS: The FTRD is a promising non-surgical alternative for resecting appendiceal lesions, but appendicitis occurs in 1/6 cases.

Superficial neoplasia involving the Ileocecal valve: Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the treatment of choice for colorectal superficial neoplasia, but certain anatomical locations are challenging even for skilled endoscopists. Ileocecal valve (ICV) is considered a technically challenging site for ESD. OBJECTIVE: Aim of this study was to analyze efficacy and safety of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the treatment of colorectal neoplasia involving the ileocecal valve (ICV) DESIGN: Retrospective study. PATIENTS: We retrospectively evaluated 1507 consecutive patients undergoing ESD at two tertiary referral centres for ESD (Italy and Japan) from January 2008 to March 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic, clinical, procedural, and follow-up data was collected, analysed, and compared between patients with ileocecal valve lesions (ICVL) and patients with non-ICVL. RESULTS: Overall, 1507 patients were enrolled (872 M, 57.8%), of these 53 patients had lesions involving the ICV. Mean age was 70.2 years (range, 53-83 years). En-bloc resection was achieved in 52 (98%) patients. The median specimen size of ICVL was 36.4 mm (range, 8-80 mm), significantly smaller than non-ICVL (p = 0.005). Procedure time was significantly longer in the ICVL group, (71.3 vs. 58.9 min; p = 0.03). Non Granular Type Laterally Spreading Tumors (LST-NG) were significantly more frequent in the ICVL group compared to rectum (52.8% vs. 25.7; p = 0.0001). En-bloc resection rate in the ileocecal region did not differ significantly between groups (p = 0.20). Complications such as perforation and postoperative occurred respectively in 3/53 (5.7%) and 1/53 (2%) patient, and were treated conservatively. At first surveillance colonoscopy performed at 6 months, recurrent adenoma was detected in 2/53 patients (3.9%). CONCLUSIONS: ESD is safe and effective for the treatment of colorectal neoplasia involving the ileocecal valve if performed by expert endoscopist in referral centres.

Rectal neoplasia extending to the dentate line: clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection.

BACKGROUND: The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) give no specific recommendations on the best treatment for colorectal neoplasia involving the dental line (DLCN). OBJECTIVE: Aim of this study was to analyse efficacy and safety of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the treatment of colorectal neoplasia involving the dentate line (DLCN) compared to non-DLCN. DESIGN: Retrospective study. PATIENTS: We retrospectively evaluated all consecutive patients undergoing ESD for rectal neoplasia at two endoscopical tertiary referral centers (Italy and Japan) from January 2008 to December 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Anthropometric, clinical, procedural, and follow-up data was collected, analysed, and compared between patients with DLCN and patients with non-DLCN. RESULTS: Overall, 314 patients were enrolled (163 female, 51.9%). Mean age was 68 years (range, 32-92 years). En-bloc resection was achieved in 311/314 (99%) patients. Lesion size was higher in DLCN group than in the non-DLCN group (46.1 vs 38.9 mm; p = .03). Submucosal invasion rate was also higher in the DLCN group (29.6 vs 18.4%, p = .04). Procedure time was significantly longer in the DLCN group, (89.6 vs. 73.1 min; p = .002). Hospitalization length following ESD was similar in both groups. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study design. CONCLUSIONS: ESD seems to be safe and effective in the treatment of colorectal neoplasia involving the dentate line and can be considered the best therapeutic strategy.

Linked-color imaging versus white-light colonoscopy in an organized colorectal cancer screening program.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Linked-color imaging (LCI), a new image-enhancing technology emphasizing contrast in mucosal color, has been demonstrated to substantially reduce polyp miss rate as compared with standard white-light imaging (WLI) in tandem colonoscopy studies. Whether LCI increases adenoma detection rate (ADR) remains unclear. METHODS: Consecutive subjects undergoing screening colonoscopy after fecal immunochemical test (FIT) positivity were 1:1 randomized to undergo colonoscopy with LCI or WLI, both in high-definition systems. Insertion and withdrawal phases of each colonoscopy were carried out using the same assigned light. Experienced endoscopists from 7 Italian centers participated in the study. Randomization was stratified by gender, age, and screening round. The primary outcome measure was represented by ADR. RESULTS: Of 704 eligible subjects, 649 were included (48.9% men, mean age ± standard deviation, 60.8 ± 7.3 years) and randomized to LCI (n = 326) or WLI (n = 323) colonoscopy. The ADR was higher in the LCI group (51.8%) than in the WLI group (43.7%) (relative risk, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.40). The proportions of patients with advanced adenomas and sessile serrated lesions were, respectively, 21.2% and 8.6% in the LCI arm and 18.9% and 5.9% in the WLI arm (not significant for both comparisons). At multivariate analysis, LCI was independently associated with ADR, along with male gender, increasing age, and adequate (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score ≥6) bowel preparation. At per-polyp analysis, the mean ± standard deviation number of adenomas per colonoscopy was comparable in the LCI and WLI arms, whereas the corresponding figures for proximal adenomas was significantly higher in the LCI group (.72 ± 1.2 vs .55 ± 1.07, P = .05) CONCLUSIONS: In FIT-positive patients undergoing screening colonoscopy, the routine use of LCI significantly increased the ADR. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03690297.).

Endoscopic submucosal dissection: Italian national survey on current practices, training and outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Most of the evidence supporting endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) comes from Asia. European data are primarily reported by specialized referral centers and thus may not be representative of common European ESD practice. The aim of this study is to understand the current state of ESD practice across Italian endoscopy centers. METHODS: All Italian endoscopists who were known to perform ESD were invited to complete a structured questionnaire including: operator features and competencies, ESD training details and clinical outcomes over a 2-year period. RESULTS: Twenty-nine operators from 23 centers (69% response rate) completed the questionnaire: 18 (62%) were <50 years old; 7 (24%) were female; 16 (70%) were located in Northern Italy. Overall ESD volume was <40 cases in 9 (31%) operators, 40-80 in 8 (27.5%), 80-150 in 4 (13.8%) and >150 in 8 (27.5%). Colorectal ESD was predominant for operators with an experience >80 cases. En-bloc resection rates ranged from 77.2 to 97.2% depending on the anatomic location with an R0 resection rate range of 75.3-93.6%. ESD perforation rates in the colon and rectum were significantly lower when experience was >150 compared to 80-150 cases (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.006 for colon and rectum, respectively). CONCLUSION: ESD in Italy is performed by a significant number of operators. Overall, Italian endoscopists performing ESD have achieved a good competence level. However, there is much variability in training protocols, initial supervision of procedures, practice settings, case mix and procedural volume/year that are likely responsible for some of the suboptimal resectional outcomes and increased perforation risk, mainly in the colon. Standardized training programs, practice parameters and auditing of outcomes are required.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of duodenal lesions (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The endoscopic treatment of non-lifting or submucosal duodenal lesions is associated with a high risk of incomplete resection and adverse events. Clip-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a new approach for en bloc removal of neoplastic lesions in the GI tract. The aim of this study was to investigate its efficacy and safety in the duodenum. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively collected all consecutive patients with duodenal lesions who underwent EFTR with OTSC (Ovesco Endoscopy, Tübingen, Germany) or the new full-thickness resection device (FTRD; Ovesco Endoscopy, Tübingen, Germany). Complete resection rate was defined as histologically-verified R0 resection. Main endoscopic and clinical outcomes (technical success, rate of EFTR, adverse events) were systematically assessed at 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: Between May 2017 and January 2019, 10 patients with duodenal lesions underwent EFTR (5 non-lifting adenomas, 2 adenomas recurrence/relapse and 3 subepithelial tumours). Technical success was overall achieved in 8/10 cases (80%). The two FTRD failed cases were completed with snare resection. The complete full-thickness resection rate was achieved in 8/10 (80%), while in two cases it was limited to mucosal or submucosal layer. R0 resection rate was achieved in 8/10 (80%) patients. The mean procedure time was 75 min (range 53-120 min). There were no major adverse events. At 3 and 6-month follow-up, no recurrence was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Clip-assisted EFTR is a feasible and effective technique for en bloc resection of "difficult" superficial neoplasia and submucosal lesions in the duodenum, representing another technique that must be part of the endoscopist's armamentarium.

EUS-guided trans-esophageal drainage of a mediastinal necrotic fluid collection using the axios electrocautery enhanced delivery system™.

Mediastinal collection secondary to necrotic acute pancreatitis, is an extremely rare event caused by the posterior rupture of the pancreatic duct into the retroperitoneal space with the penetration of the pancreatic fluid through the diaphragmatic orifices. Infection of the necrotic collection may occur with a consequent substantial increase of the mortality rate. Due to the rarity of this severe condition, no consensus is known about the management of infected mediastinal necrotic collections. We reported the case of a 61-year-old male who was critically unwell secondary to a large mediastinal necrotic collections after necrotic acute pancreatitis with no improvement after surgery. The patient was successfully treated by EUS-guided trans-esophageal drainage using the AXIOS Electrocautery Enhanced Delivery System™. This procedure proved in this case to be a safe and effective option for the management of infected necrotic mediastinal collections.

Temporary FC-SEMS for type II ERCP-related perforations: a case series from two referral centers and review of the literature.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Some case reports have shown that fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FC-SEMS) are effective in cases of Stapfer Type II perforation as rescue treatment. The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy and safety of temporary placement of FC-SEMS as primary treatment for Type II perforations and review the literature regarding the use of FC-SEMS in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with Type II perforation treated with immediate placement of FC-SEMS. Primary outcomes were need for surgery and mortality rate. Secondary outcomes were complications, technical and clinical success, time to post-operative feeding, length of the hospitalization and time to stent removal. RESULTS: Overall, 18 consecutive patients were enrolled (median age 71.5). All patients were treated with FC-SEMS (6-10 mm, 4-8 cm long). In all patients, there were no need for surgery, and no patient died. Technical and clinical success were achieved both in 100% of cases. The median time to stent removal was 43 (2-105) days. The median hospital stay was of 10 (4-21) days. Median time to post-operative feeding was 4 days (2-15). CONCLUSION: FC-SEMS placement could be a safe and effective treatment in Type II perforations and represent a valuable development and innovation of conservative treatment.

Impact of 2 generational improvements in colonoscopes on adenoma miss rates: results of a prospective randomized multicenter tandem study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Numerous randomized studies have shown that changing certain features of colonoscopes, usually incorporated when switching from one endoscope generation to the next, mostly do not increase adenoma yield. There is, however, indirect evidence that it may be necessary to skip one instrument generation (ie, changing from one generation to the next but one) to achieve this effect. METHODS: We compared the latest-generation colonoscopes from one company (Olympus Exera III, 190-C) with the next to last one (Olympus 160/5-C) in a prospective multicenter study randomized for the order of colonoscopes in a tandem fashion, involving 2 different examiners. Patients with increased risk for colorectal neoplasia undergoing colonoscopy (positive fecal occult blood test, personal/familial history of colorectal cancer/adenoma, rectal bleeding, recent change in bowel movements) were included. The primary outcome was the adenoma miss rate with the 190 (190-C) colonoscope in comparison with the 160/5 colonoscope (160/5-C). RESULTS: A total of 856 patients (48.8% male; mean age, 58.3 years) with a personal (41%) or family (38%) history of colorectal neoplasia, rectal bleeding (19%), and other indications were included. Of the 429 patients in the 190-C first group, 16.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.0%-20.1%) had at least one adenoma missed during the first procedure, compared with 30.2% (95% CI, 25.9%-34.6%) in the group with 160/5-C first (P < .001). Similarly, the adenoma detection rate during the first colonoscopy was 43.8% versus 36.5% (P = .030) for 190-C versus 160/5-C, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized tandem trial showed lower adenoma miss rates and higher adenoma detection rates for the newer 190 colonoscopes compared with the 160/5 series. These results suggest that it takes multiple improvements, such as those implemented over 2 instrument generations, before an effect on adenoma (miss) rate can be observed. (Study registration number: ISRCTN 2010-A01256-33.).

Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection of Synchronous Adenocarcinomas of the Distal Rectum.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) with an innovative full-thickness resection device (FTRD; Ovesco Endoscopy, Tübingen, Germany) allows a safe and complete full-thickness resection of early colorectal cancer. We present the first case of two EFTR performed at the same time to treat synchronous rectal adenocarcinomas.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of superficial colorectal neoplasms using a new over-the-scope clip system: A single-centre study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) provides complete en-bloc resection with a histopathological evaluation of submucosal, muscular, and serosal layers. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of a novel over-the-scope device for colorectal EFTR. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this retrospective, observational, open-label case study, a total of 20 patients with superficial colorectal neoplasms, underwent EFTR using a new endoscopic full-thickness resection device (FTRD; Ovesco Endoscopy, Tübingen, Germany). Endoscopic treatment outcomes (technical success, rate of EFTR, adverse events) and early follow-up at three months, were analyzed. RESULTS: We reported a 100% of technical success, defined as full-thickness resection. Among the R1 resections, histology was negative for neoplasm. Non-lifting adenomas had histology positive for adenocarcinoma: seven T1/G1/sm1; one T1/G1/sm2; one, who underwent a surgical resection, T1/G1/sm3. Mean size of the resected lesions was 26mm, ranging from 10 to 42mm. One (5%) patient developed abdominal pain, fever and leukocytosis and was treated conservatively with medical therapy. In all specimens, histological complete resection was confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: EFTR is a feasible and effective technique that could become a valid alternative to EMR and ESD in the management of recurrent adenomas, no-lifting lesions and scars of R1 resections. However, prospective studies are needed to further evaluate the device and technique.