Recurrence following successful eradication of neoplasia with endoscopic mucosal resection compared with endoscopic submucosal dissection in Barrett's esophagus: a retrospective comparison.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are effective treatments for Barrett's neoplasia. However, little is known about recurrence rates following these techniques. We compared long-term neoplasia recurrence rates following EMR and ESD. METHODS: This study included patients with Barrett's neoplasia (high grade dysplasia/adenocarcinoma) treated between July 2019 and December 2023 at a tertiary referral center in Canada. Outcomes were residual neoplasia at first follow-up, complete remission of neoplasia (CRN), and neoplasia recurrence following CRN. RESULTS: 157 patients were included (87 EMR, 70 ESD). Compared with EMR, the ESD group had larger lesions (median 2 vs. 3 cm, P<0.05), more adenocarcinoma (85.1% vs. 94.3%, P = 0.07), and deeper submucosal invasion (T1a: 71.6% vs. 75.8%; T1b-SM1: 25.7% vs. 6.1%; T1b≥SM2: 2.7% vs. 18.2%; P<0.05). Among 124 patients with follow-up (71 EMR, 53 ESD), 84.9% of ESD-treated patients had curative resections (i.e. R0 resection with low risk for lymph node metastasis), whereas 94.4% of EMR-treated patients had deep margin R0 resection of low risk lesions. At first follow-up, residual neoplasia (14.1% vs. 11.3%) and CRN (97.2% vs. 100%) were similar in the EMR and ESD groups, but neoplasia recurrence following CRN was significantly higher with EMR (13% vs. 1.9%, P<0.05), with cumulative probability of recurrence at 3 years of 18.3% vs. 4.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Neoplasia recurrence following CRN was significantly higher following EMR compared with ESD, suggesting that ESD may be superior to EMR in preventing neoplasia recurrence in Barrett's esophagus.

Can optical evaluation distinguish between t1a and t1b esophageal adenocarcinoma: an international expert inter-observer agreement study.

INTRODUCTION: While piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for T1a oesophageal adenocarcinoma is acceptable, enbloc-R0 excision is advocated for T1b disease as it may offer a potential cure and mitigate recurrence. Thus, distinguishing between T1a and T1b disease is imperative under current treatment paradigms. We sought to ascertain whether expert Barrett's endoscopists were able to make this distinction based on optical evaluation. METHODS: Sixty sets of endoscopic images of histologically confirmed high grade dysplasia (HGD), T1a and T1b disease (n=20 for each) were compiled from consecutive patients at a single institution. Each set contained four images, and were standardized to include an overview, a close-up in high-definition white light, a near-focus magnification image, and a narrow-band image. Experts were invited to predict histology for each set. RESULTS: 19 experts from 8 countries (Australia, USA, Italy, Netherlands, Germany, Canada, Belgium, and Portugal) participated. The majority had been practicing for >20 years, with a median annual case volume for Barrett's EMR of 50 (IQR 18-75), and Barrett's ESD of 25 (IQR 10-45). Oesophageal adenocarcinoma (T1a/b) could be distinguished from HGD, with a pooled sensitivity of 89.1% (95% CI:84.7-93.4. When predicting T-stage for T1b adenocarcinoma cases, pooled sensitivity was 43.8% (95% CI:29.9-57.7). Fleiss' kappa was 0.421 (95% CI:0.399-0.442, P<0.001), indicating fair-to-moderate agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Expert Barrett's endoscopists can reliably differentiate T1a/T1b oesophageal adenocarcinoma from HGD. Although there is fair-to-moderate agreement for T-staging, T1b disease cannot be reliably distinguished from T1a disease. This may have implications on clinical decision making and selection of endoscopic treatment methods.

Unified Magnifying Endoscopic Classification (UMEC) of Gastrointestinal Lesions: A North American Validation Study.

Background and study aim: Magnifying endoscopy enables the diagnosis of advanced neoplasia throughout the gastrointestinal tract. The unified magnifying endoscopic classification (UMEC) framework unifies optical diagnosis criteria in the esophagus, stomach, and colon, dividing lesions into three categories: non-neoplastic, intramucosal neoplasia, and deep submucosal invasive cancer. This study aims to ascertain the performance of North American endoscopists when using the UMEC. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, five North American endoscopists without prior training in magnifying endoscopy independently diagnosed images of gastrointestinal tract lesions using UMEC. All endoscopists were blinded to endoscopic findings and histopathological diagnosis. Using histopathology as the gold standard, the endoscopists' diagnostic performances using UMEC were evaluated. Results: A total of 299 lesions (77 esophagus, 92 stomach, and 130 colon) were assessed. For esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy ranged from 65.2% (95%CI: 50.9-77.9) to 87.0% (95%CI: 75.3-94.6), 77.4% (95%CI: 60.9-89.6) to 96.8% (95%CI: 86.8-99.8), and 75.3% to 87.0%, respectively. For gastric adenocarcinoma, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy ranged from 94.9% (95%CI: 85.0-99.1) to 100%, 52.9% (95%CI: 39.4-66.2) to 92.2% (95%CI: 82.7-97.5), and 73.3% to 93.3%. For colorectal adenocarcinoma, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy ranged from 76.2% (95%CI: 62.0-87.3) to 83.3% (95%CI: 70.3-92.5), 89.7% (95%CI: 82.1-94.9) to 97.7% (95%CI: 93.1-99.6), and 86.8% to 90.7%. Intraclass correlation coefficients indicated good to excellent reliability. Conclusion: UMEC is a simple classification that may be used to introduce endoscopists to magnifying narrow-band imaging and optical diagnosis, yielding satisfactory diagnostic accuracy.

Establishment of standards for the referral of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: an international expert consensus using a modified Delphi process.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Resection of colorectal polyps has been shown to decrease the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. Large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps are often referred to expert centers for endoscopic resection, which requires relevant information to be conveyed to the therapeutic endoscopist to allow for triage and planning of resection technique. The primary objective of this study was to establish minimum expected standards for the referral of large nonpedunculated colonic polyps for potential endoscopic resection. METHODS: A Delphi method was used to establish consensus on minimum expected standards for the referral of large colorectal polyps among a panel of international endoscopy experts. The expert panel was recruited through purposive sampling, and 3 rounds of surveys were conducted to achieve consensus. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed for each round. RESULTS: A total of 24 international experts from diverse continents participated in the Delphi study, resulting in consensus on 19 statements related to the referral of large colorectal polyps. The identified factors, including patient demographic characteristics, relevant medications, lesion factors, photodocumentation, and the presence of a tattoo, were deemed important for conveying the necessary information to therapeutic endoscopists. The mean scores for the statements, which were scored on a scale of 1 to 10, ranged from 7.04 to 9.29, with high percentages of experts considering most statements as a very high priority. Subgroup analysis according to continent revealed some variations in consensus rates among experts from different regions. CONCLUSIONS: The identified consensus statements can aid in improving the triage and planning of resection techniques for large colorectal polyps, ultimately contributing to the reduction of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

Outcomes of Cold Snare Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Nonampullary Duodenal Adenomas ≥1 cm: A Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with use of electrocautery (conventional EMR) has historically been used to remove large duodenal adenomas, however, use of electrocautery can predispose to adverse events including delayed bleeding and perforation. Cold snare EMR (cs-EMR) has been shown to be safe and effective for removal of colon polyps, but data regarding its use in the duodenum is limited. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cs-EMR for nonampullary duodenal adenomas ≥1 cm. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective study of patients with nonampullary duodenal adenomas ≥1 cm who underwent cs-EMR between October 2014 and May 2023. Patients who received any form of thermal therapy were excluded. Primary outcomes were technical success and rate of recurrent adenoma. Secondary outcomes were adverse events and predictors of recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 125 patients underwent resection of 127 nonampullary duodenal adenomas with cs-EMR. Follow up data was available in 89 cases (70.1%). The recurrent adenoma rate was 31.5% (n=28). Adverse events occurred in 3.9% (n=5) with four cases of immediate bleeding (3.1%) and one case of delayed bleeding (0.8%). There were no cases of perforation. The presence of high-grade dysplasia was found to be an independent predictor of recurrence (OR: 10.9 [95% CI: 1.1-102.1], p=0.036). CONCLUSION: This retrospective multicenter study demonstrates that cs-EMR for nonampullary duodenal adenomas is safe and technically feasible with an acceptable recurrence rate. Future prospective studies are needed to directly compare outcomes of cs-EMR with conventional and underwater EMR.

Iron Surveillance and Management in Gastro-Intestinal Oncology Patients: A National Physician Survey.

PURPOSE: Iron deficiency (ID) is a complication of gastrointestinal (GI) cancers that may manifest as iron deficiency anemia (IDA). Serum ferritin monitoring and oral iron supplementation have the limitations of being falsely elevated and poorly absorbed, respectively. This study aims to assess the discordance in surveillance, treatment practices, and awareness of ID/IDA in GI cancer patients by Canadian physicians treating these patients. METHODS: From February 2020 to September 2021, a 22-question electronic survey was sent to medical oncologists (MOs), surgical oncologists (SOs), and gastroenterologists (GEs). The survey collected information about four domains: physician demographics, surveillance practices, treatment practices, and awareness of ID/IDA in GI cancer patients and ASCO/ASH guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 108 (34 MOs, 19 SOs, and 55 GEs) of the 872 (12.4%) invited physicians completed the survey. Of these, 26.5% of MOs, 36.8% of SOs, and 70.9% of GEs measured baseline iron parameters, with few continuing surveillance throughout treatment. Ferritin was widely measured by MOs (88.9%), SOs (100%), and GEs (91.4%). Iron was supplemented if ID/IDA was identified pre-treatment by 66.7% of MOs, 85.7% of SOs, and 94.2% of GEs. Parenteral iron was prescribed by SOs (100%), while oral iron was prescribed by MOs (83.3%) and GEs (87.9%). Only 18.6% of physicians were aware of the ASCO/ASH guidelines regarding erythropoiesis-stimulating agents with parenteral iron for treating chemotherapy-induced anemia. CONCLUSION: Results illustrate variations in practice patterns for IDA management across the different physician specialties. Moreover, there appeared to be gaps in the knowledge and care surrounding evidence-based IDA management principles which may contribute to poor clinical outcomes.

The Toronto Upper Gastrointestinal Cleaning Score: a prospective validation study.

BACKGROUND : Assessment of mucosal visualization during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) can be improved with a standardized scoring system. To address this need, we created the Toronto Upper Gastrointestinal Cleaning Score (TUGCS). METHODS : We developed the TUGCS using Delphi methodology, whereby an international group of endoscopy experts iteratively rated their agreement with proposed TUGCS items and anchors on a 5-point Likert scale. After each Delphi round, we analyzed responses and refined the TUGCS using an 80 % agreement threshold for consensus. We used the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to assess inter-rater and test-retest reliability. We assessed internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha and item-total and inter-item correlations with Pearson's correlation coefficient. We compared TUGCS ratings with an independent endoscopist's global rating of mucosal visualization using Spearman's ρ. RESULTS : We achieved consensus with 14 invited participants after three Delphi rounds. Inter-rater reliability was high at 0.79 (95 %CI 0.64-0.88). Test-retest reliability was excellent at 0.83 (95 %CI 0.77-0.87). Cronbach's α was 0.81, item-total correlation range was 0.52-0.70, and inter-item correlation range was 0.38-0.74. There was a positive correlation between TUGCS ratings and a global rating of visualization (r = 0.41, P = 0.002). TUGCS ratings for EGDs with global ratings of excellent were significantly higher than those for EGDs with global ratings of fair (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION : The TUGCS had strong evidence of validity in the clinical setting. The international group of assessors, broad variety of EGD indications, and minimal assessor training improves the potential for dissemination.

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.

Management of combined malignant biliary-duodenal obstruction in Roux-en-Y gastric bypass anatomy with EUS-guided gastrogastrostomy, EUS biliary drainage, and duodenal stent placement.

Video 1Demonstration of deploying lumen-apposing metal stents for gastrogastrostomy and choledochoduodenostomy in a patient with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass anatomy, as well as EUS-guided fine needle biopsy for pancreatic mass.

Clinical and pathological predictors of failure of endoscopic therapy for Barrett's related high-grade dysplasia and early esophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Multimodal endoscopic treatment for Barrett's esophagus (BE) related high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is safe and effective. However, there is a paucity of data to predict the response to endoscopic treatment. This study aimed to identify predictors of failure to achieve complete eradication of neoplasia (CE-N) and complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of all HGD/EAC cases treated endoscopically at a tertiary referral center. Only patients with confirmed HGD/EAC from initial endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) were included. Potential predictive variables including clinical characteristics, endoscopic features, and index histologic parameters of the EMR specimens were evaluated using multivariate Cox regression. RESULTS: A total of 457 patients were diagnosed with HGD/EAC by initial EMR from January 2008 to January 2019. Of these, 366 patients who underwent subsequent endoscopic treatment with or without RFA were included. Cumulative incidence rates at 3 years for CE-N and CE-IM were 91.4% (95% CI 87.8-94.2%) and 66.8% (95% CI 61.2-72.3%), respectively during a median follow-up period of 35 months. BE segment of 3-10 cm (HR 0.45; 95% CI 0.36-0.57) and > 10 cm (HR 0.25; 95% CI 0.15-0.40) were independent clinical predictors associated with failure to achieve CE-N. With respect to CE-IM, increasing age (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.78-1.00) was another predictor along with BE segment of 3-10 cm (HR 0.37; 95% CI 0.28-0.49) and > 10 cm (HR 0.15; 95% CI 0.07-0.30). Lymphovascular invasion increased the risk of CE-N and CE-IM failure in EAC cases. CONCLUSION: Failure to achieve CE-N and CE-IM is associated with long-segment BE and other clinical variables. Patients with these predictors should be considered for a more intensive endoscopic treatment approach at expert centers.

Clinical characteristics of young patients with early Barrett's neoplasia.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) may appear in young patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE). However, characteristics of Barrett's-related neoplasia in this younger population remain unknown. AIM: To identify clinical characteristics that differ between young and old patients with early-stage Barrett's-related neoplasia. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database comprised of consecutive patients with early-stage EAC (pT1) and HGD at a tertiary-referral center between 2001 and 2017. Baseline characteristics, drug and risk factor exposures, clinicopathological staging of EAC/HGD and treatment outcomes [complete eradication of neoplasia (CE-N), complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM), recurrence of neoplasia and recurrence of intestinal metaplasia] were retrieved. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors that differed significantly between older and younger (≤ 50 years) patients. RESULTS: We identified 450 patients with T1 EAC and HGD (74% and 26%, respectively); 45 (10%) were ≤ 50 years. Compared to the older group, young patients were more likely to present with ongoing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms (55% vs 38%, P = 0.04) and to be obese (body mass index > 30, 48% vs 32%, P = 0.04). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that young patients were significantly more likely to have ongoing GERD symptoms [odds ratio (OR) 2.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-3.85, P = 0.04] and to be obese (OR 2.06, 95%CI 1.07-3.98, P = 0.03) whereas the young group was less likely to have a smoking history (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.20-0.75, P < 0.01) compared to the old group. However, there were no significant differences regarding tumor histology, CE-N, CE-IM, recurrence of neoplasia and recurrence of intestinal metaplasia (mean follow-up, 44.3 mo). CONCLUSION: While guidelines recommend BE screening in patients > 50 years of age, younger patients should be considered for screening endoscopy if they suffer from obesity and GERD symptoms.

Clinical characteristics may distinguish patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma arising from long- versus short-segment Barrett's esophagus.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with long-segment Barrett's esophagus (LSBE; ≧3 cm) have higher risk of developing esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) than those with short-segment Barrett's esophagus (SSBE; <3 cm). However, it is unclear whether patients developing EAC from LSBE or SSBE differ significantly according to baseline clinical characteristics. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database comprising consecutive patients with early EAC treated by endoscopic mucosal resection at a single, tertiary-referral center. Information regarding baseline clinical characteristics were determined. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were performed to identify factors that differed significantly between patients with EAC arising from SSBE and LSBE. RESULTS: A total of 145 LSBE EAC and 179 SSBE EAC cases were identified. The LSBE EAC patients had a stronger association with having a hiatal hernia compared to the SSBE EAC patients. In contrast, inverse associations were observed in LSBE EAC patients with statin use and smoking pack-years relative to SSBE EAC patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who developed EAC on a background of LSBE were more likely to have a hiatus hernia compared to patients with SSBE EAC, who were more likely to have higher smoking pack-years and higher rates of statin use.

Feasibility of adapting the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery trainer box to endoscopic skills training tool.

BACKGROUND: The fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) training box is a validated tool, already accessible to surgical trainees to hone their laparoscopic skills. We aim to investigate the feasibility of adapting the FLS box for the practice and assessment of endoscopic skills. This would allow for a highly available, reusable, low-cost, mechanical trainer. METHODS: The design and development process was based on a user-centered design, which is a combination of the design thinking method and cognitive task analysis. The process comprises four phases: empathy, cognitive, prototyping/adaptation, and end user testing. The underlying idea was to utilize as many of the existing components of FLS training to maintain simplicity and cost effectiveness while allowing for the practice of clinically relevant endoscopic skills. A sample size of 18 participants was calculated to be sufficient to detect performance differences between experts and trainees using a two tailed t test with alpha set at 0.05, standard deviation of 5.5, and a power of 80%. RESULTS: Adaptation to the FLS box included two fundamental attachments: a front panel with an insertion point for an endoscope and a shaft which provides additional support and limits movement of the scope. The panel also allows for mounting of retroflexion tasks. Six endoscopic tasks inspired by FLS were designed (two of which utilize existing FLS components). Pilot testing with 38 participants showed high user's satisfaction and demonstrated that the trainer was robust and reliable. Task performance times was able to discriminate between trainees and experts for all six tasks. CONCLUSIONS: A mechanical, reusable, low-cost adaptation of the FLS training box for endoscopic skills is feasible and has high user satisfaction. Preliminary testing shows that the simulator is able to discriminate between trainees and experts. Following further validation, this adaptation may act as a supplement to the FES program.

Endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of early esophageal squamous neoplasia.

Esophageal cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. It carries a poor prognosis as more than half of patients present with advanced and unresectable disease. One contributing factor is the increased risk of lymph node metastases at early stages of disease. As such, it is essential to detect squamous cell neoplasia (SCN) at an early stage. In order to risk stratify lesions, endoscopists must be able to perform image enhanced endoscopy including magnification and Lugol's chromoendoscopy. The assessment of both the horizontal extent and depth of any lesion is also of utmost importance prior to treatment. Endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection remain the standard of care with literature supportive their respective use. Radiofrequency ablation and other endoscopic treatments are currently available although should not be considered first line at this time. Our objective is to review the current options for the endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of esophageal SCN.