Comparison of hemostatic ability between spray coagulation and forced coagulation modes in endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with early gastric neoplasms: a study protocol for multicenter randomized controlled trial (Spray-G trial).

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the standard treatment for early gastric neoplasms (EGN). Controlling intraoperative bleeding is crucial for ensuring safe and reliable procedures. ESD using the spray coagulation mode (SCM-ESD) has been developed to control bleeding more effectively than ESD using the conventional forced coagulation mode (FCM-ESD). This study aims to compare the hemostatic efficacies of SCM-ESD and FCM-ESD. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, parallel, randomized, open-label superiority trial will be conducted in five Japanese institutions. Patients with a preoperative diagnosis of intramucosal EGC will be randomized to undergo either SCM-ESD or FCM-ESD. The primary outcome measure is the completion of ESD with an electrosurgical knife alone, without the use of hemostatic forceps. Secondary outcomes include the number and duration of hemostasis using hemostatic forceps, procedure time, curability, and safety. A total of 130 patients will be enrolled in this study. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence on the hemostatic efficacy of SCM-ESD compared with FCM-ESD in patients with intramucosal EGN, potentially improving the safety and reliability of ESD procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial has been registered at the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registration (UMIN-CTR) as UMIN000040518. The reception number is R000054009.

Diagnostic performance of deep-learning-based virtual chromoendoscopy in gastric neoplasms.

BACKGROUNDS: Cycle-consistent generative adversarial network (CycleGAN) is a deep neural network model that performs image-to-image translations. We generated virtual indigo carmine (IC) chromoendoscopy images of gastric neoplasms using CycleGAN and compared their diagnostic performance with that of white light endoscopy (WLE). METHODS: WLE and IC images of 176 patients with gastric neoplasms who underwent endoscopic resection were obtained. We used 1,633 images (911 WLE and 722 IC) of 146 cases in the training dataset to develop virtual IC images using CycleGAN. The remaining 30 WLE images were translated into 30 virtual IC images using the trained CycleGAN and used for validation. The lesion borders were evaluated by 118 endoscopists from 22 institutions using the 60 paired virtual IC and WLE images. The lesion area concordance rate and successful whole-lesion diagnosis were compared. RESULTS: The lesion area concordance rate based on the pathological diagnosis in virtual IC was lower than in WLE (44.1% vs. 48.5%, p < 0.01). The successful whole-lesion diagnosis was higher in the virtual IC than in WLE images; however, the difference was insignificant (28.2% vs. 26.4%, p = 0.11). Conversely, subgroup analyses revealed a significantly higher diagnosis in virtual IC than in WLE for depressed morphology (41.9% vs. 36.9%, p = 0.02), differentiated histology (27.6% vs. 24.8%, p = 0.02), smaller lesion size (42.3% vs. 38.3%, p = 0.01), and assessed by expert endoscopists (27.3% vs. 23.6%, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic ability of virtual IC was higher for some lesions, but not completely superior to that of WLE. Adjustments are required to improve the imaging system's performance.

Management of colorectal high-grade dysplasia or cancer resected by cold snare polypectomy: a multicenter exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: The clinical course and surveillance strategy for patients who undergo cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or cancer is unclear. We investigated the management of colorectal HGDs and cancers following CSP. METHODS: This Japanese nationwide multicenter exploratory study was retrospectively conducted on patients who had undergone CSP for colorectal HGDs or cancers and follow-up colonoscopy at least once from 2014 to 2020. We investigated the detection rate of CSP scars, local recurrence rate (LRR), risk factors for local recurrence, and follow-up strategy. This study was registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000043670). RESULTS: We included 155 patients with 156 lesions. CSP scars were identified in 22 (31.4%), 41 (54.7%), and 10 (90.9%) patients with curative, borderline, and non-curative resection, respectively. Among them, residual tumors were observed in one (4.5%), six (14.6%), and three (30.0%) cases, respectively. The total LRR was 13.7% (95% confidence interval: 6.8-23.8). R1 resection cases (either horizontal or vertical margins positive for tumors) were associated with local recurrence (p = 0.031). Salvage endoscopic and surgical resections were performed on 21 and 10 patients, respectively. Among them, the proportion of endoscopically suspected residual tumors was significantly higher (p < 0.001) in the residual tumor-positive group (100%) than in the residual tumor-negative group (28.6%). CONCLUSIONS: LRR after CSP for HGDs or cancers was 13.7% based on scar-identified cases. Salvage endoscopic or surgical resection should be performed according to the curability of the lesion and endoscopic findings during colonoscopic surveillance.

Negligible procedure-related dissemination risk of mucosal incision-assisted biopsy for gastrointestinal stromal tumors versus endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy.

BACKGROUND: Mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) is a valuable alternative to endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNAB) for sampling gastric subepithelial lesions (SELs). This study aimed to evaluate the potential risk of dissemination and impact on postoperative prognosis associated with MIAB, which has not yet been investigated. METHODS: Study 1: A prospective observational study was conducted to examine the presence or absence and growth rate of tumor cells in gastric juice before and after the procedure in patients with SELs who underwent MIAB (n = 25) or EUS-FNAB (n = 22) between September 2018 and August 2021. Study 2: A retrospective study was conducted to examine the impact of MIAB on postoperative prognosis in 107 patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors diagnosed using MIAB (n = 39) or EUS-FNAB (n = 68) who underwent surgery between January 2001 and July 2020. RESULTS: In study 1, although no tumor cells were observed in gastric juice in MIAB before the procedure, they were observed in 64% of patients after obtaining samples (P < 0.001). In contrast, no tumor cells were observed in the gastric juice in EUS-FNAB before and after the procedure. In study 2, there was no significant difference in 5-year disease-free survival between MIAB (100%) and EUS-FNAB (97.1%) (P = 0.27). CONCLUSION: MIAB is safe, with little impact on postoperative prognosis, although the procedure releases some tumor cells after damaging the SEL's pseudocapsule.

Auxiliary diagnosis of subepithelial lesions by impedance measurement during EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided FNA/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) is the citerion standard for diagnosing subepithelial lesions (SELs); however, its diagnostic ability for SELs <20 mm is low. We developed a new diagnostic method to differentiate between GI stromal tumor (GIST) and non-GIST by measuring high-frequency impedance (H-impedance) using an EUS-FNB needle. METHODS: The H-impedance of gastric epithelial neoplasms from 16 cases were measured with a conventional impedance probe to confirm whether H-impedance is clinically useful for assessing cell density (study 1). The H-impedance values of exposed SELs from 25 cases with use of the conventional probe (study 2) and nonexposed SELs from 20 cases with use of the EUS-FNB needle probe (study 3) were measured to determine the diagnostic ability of H-impedance for differentiating GISTs from non-GISTs. RESULTS: H-impedance significantly positively correlated with cell density (P = .030) (study 1). The H-impedance of GIST (99.5) measured with a conventional probe was significantly higher than with those of the muscular layer (82.4) and leiomyoma (89.2) (P < .01) (study 2). The H-impedance of GIST measured with the EUS-FNB needle was also significantly higher than that of leiomyoma (GIST: 80.2 vs leiomyoma, 71.8; P = .015). The diagnostic yield of the impedance method for differentiating GISTs from non-GISTs had 94.4% accuracy, 88.9% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and 0.95 area under the curve. Diagnostic ability was not affected by lesion size (P = .86) (study 3). CONCLUSION: Auxiliary differential diagnosis between gastric GISTs and non-GISTs by the H-impedance measurement during EUS-FNB could be a good option, especially when the lesion is <20 mm.

Hybrid and Conventional Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Early Gastric Neoplasms: A Multi-Center Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (H-ESD), which incorporates endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with endoscopic mucosal resection, has been developed to make ESD technically easier. This study aimed to determine if H-ESD is superior to conventional ESD (C-ESD) for small early gastric neoplasms (EGNs). METHODS: We conducted a multi-center, prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial to compare the treatment outcomes of H-ESD and C-ESD (Hybrid-G Trial). Patients with differentiated type intramucosal EGN ≤20 mm in diameter and without ulceration were randomly assigned (1:1) to groups that underwent H-ESD or C-ESD. A single multi-functional snare, SOUTEN (ST1850-20, Kaneka, Medix, Tokyo, Japan), was used for H-ESD. The primary outcome was procedure time. Secondary outcomes included mucosal incision time, time and speed of submucosal dissection, curability, and endoscopic procedural adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 39 and 40 patients underwent H-ESD and C-ESD, respectively. The procedure time of H-ESD was significantly shorter than that of C-ESD (33.16 min vs 62.46 min; H-ESD/C-ESD ratio: 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.69; P < .0001). There was no significant difference in mucosal incision time between the 2 groups; the time and speed of submucosal dissection of H-ESD were significantly shorter than those of C-ESD. No difference was observed between the 2 groups in other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: H-ESD has significantly shorter procedure time than C-ESD, with high and comparable curability and safety for both H-ESD and C-ESD. H-ESD can be a good option for the endoscopic treatment of small EGNs. (UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, Numbers: UMIN000041244).

Comparison of treatment outcomes between endoscopic submucosal dissection with the needle-type knife and insulated-tip knife for superficial esophageal neoplasms.

Our study aimed to compare the treatment outcomes between endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with an insulated-tip knife (ESD-IT) and a needle-type knife (ESD-N) for large superficial esophageal neoplasms, as no study of this kind has been previously reported. We used the dataset of a multicenter, randomized controlled trial that compared conventional ESD (C-ESD) and traction-assisted ESD (TA-ESD) for superficial esophageal neoplasms. We compared the procedural outcomes between ESD-IT and ESD-N in a post hoc analysis and conducted sub-analyses based on traction assistance and electrical knife type. We included 223 (EST-IT, n = 169; ESD-N, n = 54) patients with no significant differences in baseline characteristics. The operator handover rate due to ESD difficulties was significantly higher in ESD-N (ESD-IT = 0.6% vs. ESD-N = 13.0%, P = 0.001), while the injection volume was significantly higher in ESD-IT than in ESD-N (40.0 vs. 20.5 mL, P < 0.001). Other outcomes were comparable between both groups (procedural time: 51.0 vs. 49.5 minute, P = 0.89; complete resection: 90.5% vs. 90.7%, P > 0.99; and complication rate: 1.8% vs. 3.7%, P = 0.60 for ESD-IT and ESD-N, respectively). In the sub-analyses, the handover rate was significantly lower with TA-ESD than with C-ESD for ESD-N (3.2% vs. 26.1%, P = 0.034), and a significantly smaller injection volume was used in TA-ESD than in C-ESD for ESD-IT (31.5 vs. 47.0 mL, P < 0.01). ESD with either endoscopic device achieved favorable treatment outcomes with low complication rates. The handover rate in ESD-N and the injection volume in ESD-IT improved with the traction method.

Randomized controlled trial comparing conventional and traction endoscopic submucosal dissection for early colon tumor (CONNECT-C trial).

OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a widely used treatment for early gastrointestinal cancer. However, colon ESD remains challenging. Previous studies on colon ESD using the traction method used a small sample, single-center design, providing insufficient evidence of this procedure's efficacy. We thus aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of the traction method in colon ESD in this multicenter randomized trial. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized, two-arm controlled trial at 10 facilities in Japan. A 1:1 allocation was conducted for the conventional ESD (C-ESD) and traction ESD (T-ESD) groups. The primary end-point was ESD procedure time. RESULTS: We included 128 C-ESD and 123 T-ESD cases from April 2020 to August 2021. The median procedure times for C-ESD and T-ESD were 61 (40-100) and 53 (40-76) min (P = 0.18), respectively, and no significant differences were observed between the groups. Subgroup analysis showed that the median procedure times for patients with a lesion diameter of ≥30 mm in the C-ESD and T-ESD groups were 89 (57-80) and 69 (50-104) min (P = 0.05), respectively, and for nonexpert operators were 81 (62-120) and 64 (52-109) min (P = 0.07), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The traction method did not contribute to a significantly shortened ESD procedure time. However, this method may be useful when the tumor diameter is large or if the procedure is conducted by nonexpert endoscopists.

Efficacy of ultrasound endoscopy with artificial intelligence for the differential diagnosis of non-gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are common subepithelial lesions (SELs) and require treatment considering their malignant potential. We recently developed an endoscopic ultrasound-based artificial intelligence (EUS-AI) system to differentiate GISTs from non-GISTs in gastric SELs, which were used to train the system. We assessed whether the EUS-AI system designed for diagnosing gastric GISTs could be applied to non-gastric GISTs. Between January 2015 and January 2021, 52 patients with non-gastric SELs (esophagus, n = 15; duodenum, n = 26; colon, n = 11) were enrolled. The ability of EUS-AI to differentiate GISTs from non-GISTs in non-gastric SELs was examined. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of EUS-AI for discriminating GISTs from non-GISTs in non-gastric SELs were 94.4%, 100%, and 86.1%, respectively, with an area under the curve of 0.98 based on the cutoff value set using the Youden index. In the subanalysis, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of EUS-AI were highest in the esophagus (100%, 100%, 100%; duodenum, 96.2%, 100%, 0%; colon, 90.9%, 100%, 0%); the cutoff values were determined using the Youden index or the value determined using stomach cases. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-AI increased as lesion size increased, regardless of lesion location. EUS-AI based on gastric SELs had good diagnostic ability for non-gastric GISTs.