Clinical outcomes of anti-reflux mucosal ablation for gastroesophageal reflux disease: An international bi-institutional study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Anti-reflux mucosal ablation (ARMA) is an emerging endoscopic treatment aimed at enhancing the gastroesophageal junction flap valve. This study aimed to evaluate its feasibility, effectiveness, and safety. METHODS: Between May 2018 and December 2022, patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms refractory to acid suppression medications or those dependent on such medications were enrolled for ARMA. This retrospective analysis utilized prospectively collected data from an international bi-center study. GERD questionnaire, upper endoscopy, and 24-h pH monitoring were conducted at 2-6 months and 12 months post-ARMA. Clinical success was defined as a > 50% reduction in a validated GERD questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients underwent ARMA. Definitive GERD was diagnosed in 44 (64.7%) patients, while 24 (35.3%) exhibited reflux hypersensitivity. Clinical success rates at 2-6 months and 1 year post-ARMA were 60% (39/65) and 70% (21/30), respectively. The median GERD-health-related quality of life score significantly improved from 26 to 11 at 2-6 months (P < 0.001). Among the 51 patients (71.8%) who underwent 24-h pH monitoring, the median acid exposure time decreased from 5.3% to 0.7% (P = 0.003), accompanied by a significant reduction in esophagitis rates (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis did not identify predictors of short-term success. Nine (13.2%) patients experienced transient stenosis requiring balloon dilation. CONCLUSIONS: ARMA demonstrates both technical feasibility and reproducibility as a safe procedure that effectively ameliorates GERD symptoms in approximately two-thirds of patients during short-term follow up. Both reflux hypersensitivity and confirmed GERD patients, regardless of their response to acid suppression medication, may be suitable candidates.

The "diagnose and leave in" strategy for diminutive rectosigmoid polyps in Lynch syndrome: a post hoc analysis from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The "diagnose-and-leave-in" policy has been established to reduce the risks and costs related to unnecessary polypectomies in the average-risk population. In individuals with Lynch syndrome, owing to accelerated carcinogenesis, the general recommendation is to remove all polyps, irrespective of size, location, and appearance. We evaluated the feasibility and safety of the diagnose-and-leave-in strategy in individuals with Lynch syndrome. METHODS : We performed a post hoc analysis based on per-polyp data from a randomized, clinical trial conducted by 24 dedicated colonoscopists at 14 academic centers, in which 256 patients with confirmed Lynch syndrome underwent surveillance colonoscopy from July 2016 to January 2018. In vivo optical diagnosis with confidence level for all detected lesions was obtained before polypectomy using virtual chromoendoscopy alone or with dye-based chromoendoscopy. Primary outcome was the negative predictive value (NPV) for neoplasia of high-confidence optical diagnosis among diminutive (≤ 5 mm) rectosigmoid lesions. Histology was the reference standard. RESULTS: Of 147 rectosigmoid lesions, 128 were diminutive. In 103 of the 128 lesions (81 %), the optical diagnostic confidence was high and showed an NPV of 96.0 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 88.9 %-98.6 %) and accuracy of 89.3 % (95 %CI 81.9 %-93.9 %). By following the diagnose-and-leave-in policy, we would have avoided 59 % (75/128) of polypectomies at the expense of two diminutive low grade dysplastic adenomas and one diminutive sessile serrated lesion that would have been left in situ. CONCLUSION: In patients with Lynch syndrome, the diagnose-and-leave-in strategy for diminutive rectosigmoid polyps would be feasible and safe.

White-Light Endoscopy Is Adequate for Lynch Syndrome Surveillance in a Randomized and Noninferiority Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Dye-based pancolonic chromoendoscopy is recommended for colorectal cancer surveillance in patients with Lynch syndrome. However, there is scarce evidence to support its superiority to high-definition white-light endoscopy. We performed a prospective study assess whether in the hands of high detecting colonoscopists, high-definition, white-light endoscopy is noninferior to pancolonic chromoendoscopy for detection of adenomas in patients with Lynch syndrome. METHODS: We conducted a parallel controlled study, from July 2016 through January 2018 at 14 centers in Spain of adults with pathogenic germline variants in mismatch repair genes (60% women; mean age, 47 ± 14 years) under surveillance. Patients were randomly assigned to groups that underwent high-definition white-light endoscopy (n = 128) or pancolonic chromoendoscopy (n = 128) evaluations by 24 colonoscopists who specialized in detection of colorectal lesions in high-risk patients for colorectal cancer. Adenoma detection rates (defined as the proportion of patients with at least 1 adenoma) were compared between groups, with a noninferiority margin (relative difference) of 15%. RESULTS: We found an important overlap of confidence intervals (CIs) and no significant difference in adenoma detection rates by pancolonic chromoendoscopy (34.4%; 95% CI 26.4%-43.3%) vs white-light endoscopy (28.1%; 95% CI 21.1%-36.4%; P = .28). However, pancolonic chromoendoscopy detected serrated lesions in a significantly higher proportion of patients (37.5%; 95% CI 29.5-46.1) than white-light endoscopy (23.4%; 95% CI 16.9-31.4; P = .01). However, there were no significant differences between groups in proportions of patients found to have serrated lesions of 5 mm or larger (9.4% vs 7.0%; P = .49), of proximal location (11.7% vs 10.2%; P = .68), or sessile serrated lesions (3.9% vs 5.5%; P = .55), respectively. Total procedure and withdrawal times with pancolonic chromoendoscopy (30.7 ± 12.8 minutes and 18.3 ± 7.6 minutes, respectively) were significantly longer than with white-light endoscopy (22.4 ± 8.7 minutes and 13.5 ± 5.6 minutes; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized parallel trial, we found that for Lynch syndrome surveillance, high-definition white-light endoscopy is not inferior to pancolonic chromoendoscopy if performed by experienced and dedicated endoscopists. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02951390.

Diminutive Polyps With Advanced Histologic Features Do Not Increase Risk for Metachronous Advanced Colon Neoplasia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: With advances in endoscopic imaging, it is possible to differentiate adenomatous from hyperplastic diminutive (1-5 mm) polyps during endoscopy. With the optical Resect-and-Discard strategy, these polyps are then removed and discarded without histopathology assessment. However, failure to recognize adenomas (vs hyperplastic polyps), or discarding a polyp with advanced histologic features, could result in a patient being considered at low risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia, resulting in an inappropriately long surveillance interval. We collected data from international cohorts of patients undergoing colonoscopy to determine what proportion of patients are high risk because of diminutive polyps advanced histologic features and their risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia. METHODS: We collected data from 12 cohorts (in the United States or Europe) of patients undergoing colonoscopy after a positive result from a fecal immunochemical test (FIT cohort, n = 34,221) or undergoing colonoscopies for screening, surveillance, or evaluation of symptoms (colonoscopy cohort, n = 30,123). Patients at high risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia were defined as patients with polyps that had advanced histologic features (cancer, high-grade dysplasia, ≥25% villous features), 3 or more diminutive or small (6-9 mm) nonadvanced adenomas, or an adenoma or sessile serrated lesion ≥10 mm. Using an inverse variance random effects model, we calculated the proportion of diminutive polyps with advanced histologic features; the proportion of patients classified as high risk because their diminutive polyps had advanced histologic features; and the risk of these patients for metachronous advanced neoplasia. RESULTS: In 51,510 diminutive polyps, advanced histologic features were observed in 7.1% of polyps from the FIT cohort and 1.5% polyps from the colonoscopy cohort (P = .044); however, this difference in prevalence did not produce a significant difference in the proportions of patients assigned to high-risk status (0.8% of patients in the FIT cohort and 0.4% of patients in the colonoscopy cohort) (P = .25). The proportions of high-risk patients because of diminutive polyps with advanced histologic features who were found to have metachronous advanced neoplasia (17.6%) did not differ significantly from the proportion of low-risk patients with metachronous advanced neoplasia (14.6%) (relative risk for high-risk categorization, 1.13; 95% confidence interval 0.79-1.61). CONCLUSION: In a pooled analysis of data from 12 international cohorts of patients undergoing colonoscopy for screening, surveillance, or evaluation of symptoms, we found that diminutive polyps with advanced histologic features do not increase risk for metachronous advanced neoplasia.