Subepithelial tumors: How does endoscopic full-thickness resection & submucosal tunneling with endoscopic resection compare with laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery?

Background and study aims Endoscopic techniques are rapidly emerging for resection of subepithelial tumors (SETs). Submucosal tunneling for endoscopic resection (STER), endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) and laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) are current alternatives to open surgery. In this study, we aimed to compare the three endoscopic techniques. Patients and methods Consecutive patients who underwent resection of a submucosal esophageal or gastric lesion at several tertiary care centers were included in a dedicated registry over 3 years. Demographics, size and location of resected lesion, histology of specimen, length of procedure, adverse events (AEs), duration of hospital stay, and follow-up data were collected. Results Ninety-six patients were included (47.7 % male, mean age 62): STER n = 34, EFTR n = 34, LECS n = 280. The lesions included leiomyoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) and other. The mean lesion size was 28 mm (STD 16, range 20-72 mm). The majority of lesions in the EFTR and laparoscopic-assisted resection group were GISTs. There was no significant difference in clear resection margins, post-procedure complication rates, recurrence rate and total follow-up duration between the groups. However, the LECS group had a procedure time at least 30 minutes longer than STER or EFTR ( P  < 0.01). Total hospital stay for the laparoscopic-assisted resection group was also longer when compared to STER (1.5) and EFTR (1.8) ( P  < 0.01). Conclusions STER, EFTR, and laparoscopic-assisted resection are efficacious approaches for resection of SETs with similar R0 resection rates, complication rates, and AE rates. Laparoscopic assisted resection appears more time-consuming and is associated with a longer hospital stay.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease: a US multicenter study.

Background and study aims In patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), endoscopically visible lesions with distinct borders can be considered for endoscopic resection. The role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for these lesions is not well defined because of a paucity of data. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of colorectal ESD of dysplastic lesions in patients with IBD across centers in the United States. Patients and methods This was a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with IBD who were referred for ESD of dysplastic colorectal lesions at nine centers. The primary endpoints were the rates of en bloc resection and complete (R0) resection. The secondary endpoints were the rates of adverse events and lesion recurrence. Results A total of 45 dysplastic lesions (median size 30mm, interquartile range [IQR] 23 to 42 mm) in 41 patients were included. Submucosal fibrosis was observed in 73 %. En bloc resection was achieved in 43 of 45 lesions (96 %) and R0 resection in 34 of 45 lesions (76 %). Intraprocedural perforation occurred in one patient (2.4 %) and was treated successfully with clip placement. Delayed bleeding occurred in four patients (9.8 %). No severe intraprocedural bleeding or delayed perforation occurred. During a median follow-up of 18 months (IQR 13 to 37 months), local recurrence occurred in one case (2.6 %). Metachronous lesions were identified in 11 patients (31 %). Conclusions ESD, when performed by experts, is safe and effective for large, dysplastic colorectal lesions in patients with IBD. Despite the high prevalence of submucosal fibrosis, en bloc resection was achieved in nearly all patients with IBD undergoing ESD. Careful endoscopic surveillance is necessary to monitor for local recurrence and metachronous lesions after ESD.

Limited intestinal inflammation despite diarrhea, fecal viral RNA and SARS-CoV-2-specific IgA in patients with acute COVID-19.

Gastrointestinal symptoms are common in COVID-19 patients but the nature of the gut immune response to SARS-CoV-2 remains poorly characterized, partly due to the difficulty of obtaining biopsy specimens from infected individuals. In lieu of tissue samples, we measured cytokines, inflammatory markers, viral RNA, microbiome composition, and antibody responses in stool samples from a cohort of 44 hospitalized COVID-19 patients. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in stool of 41% of patients and more frequently in patients with diarrhea. Patients who survived had lower fecal viral RNA than those who died. Strains isolated from stool and nasopharynx of an individual were the same. Compared to uninfected controls, COVID-19 patients had higher fecal levels of IL-8 and lower levels of fecal IL-10. Stool IL-23 was higher in patients with more severe COVID-19 disease, and we found evidence of intestinal virus-specific IgA responses associated with more severe disease. We provide evidence for an ongoing humeral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in the gastrointestinal tract, but little evidence of overt inflammation.

Intestinal Host Response to SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 Outcomes in Patients With Gastrointestinal Symptoms.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Given that gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms are a prominent extrapulmonary manifestation of COVID-19, we investigated intestinal infection with SARS-CoV-2, its effect on pathogenesis, and clinical significance. METHODS: Human intestinal biopsy tissues were obtained from patients with COVID-19 (n = 19) and uninfected control individuals (n = 10) for microscopic examination, cytometry by time of flight analyses, and RNA sequencing. Additionally, disease severity and mortality were examined in patients with and without GI symptoms in 2 large, independent cohorts of hospitalized patients in the United States (N = 634) and Europe (N = 287) using multivariate logistic regressions. RESULTS: COVID-19 case patients and control individuals in the biopsy cohort were comparable for age, sex, rates of hospitalization, and relevant comorbid conditions. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in small intestinal epithelial cells by immunofluorescence staining or electron microscopy in 15 of 17 patients studied. High-dimensional analyses of GI tissues showed low levels of inflammation, including down-regulation of key inflammatory genes including IFNG, CXCL8, CXCL2, and IL1B and reduced frequencies of proinflammatory dendritic cells compared with control individuals. Consistent with these findings, we found a significant reduction in disease severity and mortality in patients presenting with GI symptoms that was independent of sex, age, and comorbid illnesses and despite similar nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 viral loads. Furthermore, there was reduced levels of key inflammatory proteins in circulation in patients with GI symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight the absence of a proinflammatory response in the GI tract despite detection of SARS-CoV-2. In parallel, reduced mortality in patients with COVID-19 presenting with GI symptoms was observed. A potential role of the GI tract in attenuating SARS-CoV-2-associated inflammation needs to be further examined.