Propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy and enteral stenting for malignant gastric outlet.

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) significantly reduce patients' quality of life. Endoscopic treatment involves enteral stenting or endoscopic ultrasonography to perform gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE). Aim was to compare enteral stenting with EUS-GE for endoscopic treatment of malignant GOO. METHODS: We retrospectively compared enteral stenting with EUS-GE for the treatment of malignant GOO. Patients treated at our institution were identified and a propensity score matching analysis was performed. Treatment failure was the primary outcome, while the secondary endpoints were time until treatment failure, technical and clinical success rates, and adverse event rates. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients were included in the final analysis. Of whom, 44 were included in each of the two treatment groups. Treatment failure occurred significantly more frequently in the enteral stenting group (13/44) compared with the EUS-GE group (4/44; hazard ratio: 4,9; 95% CI 1.6-15.1). A Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a median time until treatment failure of 22.0 weeks (95% CI 4.6-39.4) in the enteral stenting group compared with 76.0 weeks (95% CI 55.9-96.1) in the EUS-GE group (P = .002). No difference in technical success and clinical success was detected. Technical success was achieved in 43/44 patients (97.7%) in the enteral stenting group compared with 41/44 patients (93.2%) in the EUS-GE group, while clinical success was achieved in 32/44 (72.7%) and 35/44 (79.5%) patients, respectively. Nine adverse events were observed (9/44, 10.2%). There were no differences in 30-day adverse event rate and 30-day mortality rate. CONCLUSION: EUS-GE was superior to enteral stenting in the treatment of malignant GOO in terms of treatment failure and time until treatment failure in a propensity score-matched cohort.

Efficacy and safety of combined EMR and endoscopic full-thickness resection (hybrid EFTR) for large nonlifting colorectal adenomas.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) with a full-thickness resection device (FTRD) has become the standard technique for selected nonlifting colorectal adenomas, but tumor size is the major limitation. However, large lesions might be approached in combination with EMR. Herein, we report the largest single-center experience to date of combined EMR and EFTR (hybrid EFTR) in patients with large (≥25 mm) nonlifting colorectal adenomas not amenable to EMR or EFTR alone. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent hybrid EFTR of large (≥25 mm) nonlifting colorectal adenomas. Outcomes of technical success (successful advancement of the FTRD with consecutive successful clip deployment and snare resection), macroscopic complete resection, adverse events, and endoscopic follow-up were evaluated. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients with nonlifting colorectal adenomas were included. Mean lesion size was 36.5 mm (range, 25-60 mm), and 66.6% were located in the right side of the colon. Technical success was 100% with macroscopic complete resection in 97.3%. Mean procedure time was 83.6 minutes. Adverse events occurred in 6.7%, leading to surgical therapy in 1.3%. Histology revealed T1 carcinoma in 16%. Endoscopic follow-up was available in 93.3% (mean follow-up time, 8.1 months; range, 3-36) and showed no signs of residual or recurrent adenoma in 88.6%. Recurrence (11.4%) was treated endoscopically. CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid EFTR is safe and effective for advanced colorectal adenoma that cannot be approached by EMR or EFTR alone. Hybrid EFTR expands the indication of EFTR substantially in selected patients.