Western outcomes of circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection for early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection (cESD) in the esophagus has been reported to be feasible in small Eastern case series. We assessed the outcomes of cESD in the treatment of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in Western countries. METHODS: We conducted an international study at 25 referral centers in Europe and Australia using prospective databases. We included all patients with ESCC treated with cESD before November 2022. Our main outcomes were curative resection according to European guidelines and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 171 cESDs were performed on 165 patients. En bloc and R0 resections rates were 98.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95.0-99.4) and 69.6% (95% CI, 62.3-76.0), respectively. Curative resection was achieved in 49.1% (95% CI, 41.7-56.6) of the lesions. The most common reason for noncurative resection was deep submucosal invasion (21.6%). The risk of stricture requiring 6 or more dilations or additional techniques (incisional therapy/stent) was high (71%), despite the use of prophylactic measures in 93% of the procedures. The rates of intraprocedural perforation, delayed bleeding, and adverse cardiorespiratory events were 4.1%, 0.6%, and 4.7%, respectively. Two patients died (1.2%) of a cESD-related adverse event. Overall and disease-free survival rates at 2 years were 91% and 79%. CONCLUSIONS: In Western referral centers, cESD for ESCC is curative in approximately half of the lesions. It can be considered a feasible treatment in selected patients. Our results suggest the need to improve patient selection and to develop more effective therapies to prevent esophageal strictures.

Implementation of esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection in Spain: Results from the nationwide registry. / Implementación de la disección endoscópica submucosa esofágica en España: resultados del registro nacional.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: The outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the esophagus have not been assessed in our country. Our primary aim was to analyze the effectiveness and safety of the technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Analysis of the prospectively maintained national registry of ESD. We included all superficial esophageal lesions removed by ESD in 17 hospitals (20 endoscopists) between January 2016 and December 2021. Subepithelial lesions were excluded. The primary outcome was curative resection. We conducted a survival analysis and used logistic regression analysis to assess predictors of non-curative resection. RESULTS: A total of 102 ESD were performed on 96 patients. The technical success rate was 100% and the percentage of en-bloc resection was 98%. The percentage of R0 and curative resection was 77.5% (n=79; 95%CI: 68%-84%) and 63.7% (n=65; 95%CI: 54%-72%), respectively. The most frequent histology was Barrett-related neoplasia (n=55 [53.9%]). The main reason for non-curative resection was deep submucosal invasion (n=25). The centers with a lower volume of ESD obtained worse results in terms of curative resection. The rate of perforation, delayed bleeding and post-procedural stenosis were 5%, 5% and 15.7%, respectively. No patient died or required surgery due to an adverse effect. After a median follow-up of 14months, 20patients (20.8%) underwent surgery and/or chemoradiotherapy, and 9 patients died (mortality 9.4%). CONCLUSIONS: In Spain, esophageal ESD is curative in approximately two out of three patients, with an acceptable risk of adverse events.

Screening uptake of colonoscopy versus fecal immunochemical testing in first-degree relatives of patients with non-syndromic colorectal cancer: A multicenter, open-label, parallel-group, randomized trial (ParCoFit study).

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy screening is underused by first-degree relatives (FDRs) of patients with non-syndromic colorectal cancer (CRC) with screening completion rates below 50%. Studies conducted in FDR referred for screening suggest that fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) was not inferior to colonoscopy in terms of diagnostic yield and tumor staging, but screening uptake of FIT has not yet been tested in this population. In this study, we investigated whether the uptake of FIT screening is superior to the uptake of colonoscopy screening in the familial-risk population, with an equivalent effect on CRC detection. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This open-label, parallel-group, randomized trial was conducted in 12 Spanish centers between February 2016 and December 2021. Eligible individuals included asymptomatic FDR of index cases <60 years, siblings or ≥2 FDR with CRC. The primary outcome was to compare screening uptake between colonoscopy and FIT. The secondary outcome was to determine the efficacy of each strategy to detect advanced colorectal neoplasia (adenoma or serrated polyps ≥10 mm, polyps with tubulovillous architecture, high-grade dysplasia, and/or CRC). Screening-naïve FDR were randomized (1:1) to one-time colonoscopy versus annual FIT during 3 consecutive years followed by a work-up colonoscopy in the case of a positive test. Randomization was performed before signing the informed consent using computer-generated allocation algorithm based on stratified block randomization. Multivariable regression analysis was performed by intention-to-screen. On December 31, 2019, when 81% of the estimated sample size was reached, the trial was terminated prematurely after an interim analysis for futility. Study outcomes were further analyzed through 2-year follow-up. The main limitation of this study was the impossibility of collecting information on eligible individuals who declined to participate. A total of 1,790 FDR of 460 index cases were evaluated for inclusion, of whom 870 were assigned to undergo one-time colonoscopy (n = 431) or FIT (n = 439). Of them, 383 (44.0%) attended the appointment and signed the informed consent: 147/431 (34.1%) FDR received colonoscopy-based screening and 158/439 (35.9%) underwent FIT-based screening (odds ratio [OR] 1.08; 95% confidence intervals [CI] [0.82, 1.44], p = 0.564). The detection rate of advanced colorectal neoplasia was significantly higher in the colonoscopy group than in the FIT group (OR 3.64, 95% CI [1.55, 8.53], p = 0.003). Study outcomes did not change throughout follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, compared to colonoscopy, FIT screening did not improve screening uptake by individuals at high risk of CRC, resulting in less detection of advanced colorectal neoplasia. Further studies are needed to assess how screening uptake could be improved in this high-risk group, including by inclusion in population-based screening programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02567045).

Underwater versus conventional EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Underwater EMR (UEMR) is an alternative procedure to conventional EMR (CEMR) to treat large, nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (LNPCLs). In this multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of UEMR versus CEMR on LNPCLs. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial from February 2018 to February 2020 in 11 hospitals in Spain. A total of 298 patients (311 lesions) were randomized to the UEMR (n = 149) and CEMR (n = 162) groups. The main outcome was the lesion recurrence rate in at least 1 follow-up colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included technical aspects, en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rates, and adverse events, among others. RESULTS: There were no differences in the overall recurrence rate (9.5% UEMR vs 11.7% CEMR; absolute risk difference, -2.2%; 95% CI, -9.4 to 4.9). However, considering polyp sizes between 20 and 30 mm, the recurrence rate was lower for UEMR (3.4% UEMR vs 13.1% CEMR; absolute risk difference, -9.7%; 95% CI, -19.4 to 0). The R0 resection showed the same tendency, with significant differences favoring UEMR only for polyps between 20 and 30 mm. Overall, UEMR was faster and easier to perform than CEMR. Importantly, the techniques were equally safe. CONCLUSIONS: UEMR is a valid alternative to CEMR for treating LNPCLs and could be considered the first option of treatment for lesions between 20 and 30 mm due to its higher en bloc and R0 resection rates. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03567746.).

TYPE II ACHALASIA WITH SUBSEQUENT RECOVERY OF ESOPHAGEAL MOTILITY - POEM.

CASE REPORT: 54-year-old woman with acromegaly due to pituitary macroadenoma that consulted for dysphagia for solids. In gastroscopy, it is observed difficulty in passing in the esophagogastric junction (EGJ). Under the suspect of Achalasia, a high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) was performed, observing a complete absence of motility of the esophageal body, panesophageal pressurization in > 20% of swallows and IRP of 21mmHg, confirming the diagnosis of type II Achalasia. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) is performed. After the intervention, the patient presented clinical improvement. In the control HRM carried out one year after the POEM, in addition to a decrease in IRP, is remarkable a partial recovery of motility in the upper and middle third of the esophagus. DISCUSSION: Achalasia is an esophageal motor disorder characterized by incomplete relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter and a complete absence of peristalsis in the esophageal body. The cause of the absence of motility is the loss of the inhibitory neurons of the myenteric plexus, but the accurate etiopathogenesis is still unknown. Therefore, there is no curative treatment and all therapeutic options are symptomatic, aimed to relieve the obstruction of the EGJ. POEM is the newest method. Absence of motility of the esophageal body in patients with achalasia was believed to be irreversible. Nevertheless, more and more studies describe a partial recovery of motility observed in manometry after POEM, especially in type II Achalasia. The exact pathophysiological mechanism of this recovery is still unknown. IMAGES DESCRIPTION: Figure 1 (Before POEM): High-resolution manometry with a diagnosis of type II Achalasia: Absence of motility, panesophageal pressurization and IRP 21mmHg Figure 2 (After POEM): High resolution manometry showing ineffective esophageal motility (partial recovery of motility) after POEM with IRP of 4mmHg.

Clinical outcome of non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection for early colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in a curative intent for submucosa-invasive early (T1) colorectal cancers (T1-CRCs) often leads to subsequent surgical resection in case of histologic parameters indicating higher risk of nodal involvement. In some cases, however, the expected benefit may be offset by the surgical risks, suggesting a more conservative approach. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with T1-CRC who underwent ESD at 13 centres ending inclusion in 2019 (n=3373). Cases with high risk of nodal involvement (non-curative ESD: G3, submucosal invasion>1000 µm, lymphovascular involvement, budding or incomplete resection/R1) were analysed if follow-up data (endoscopy/imaging) were available, regardless of the postendoscopic management (follow-up vs surgery) selected by the multidisciplinary teams in these institutions. Comorbidities were classified according to Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Outcomes were disease recurrence, death and disease-related death rates in the two groups. Rate of residual disease (RD) at both the previous resection site and regional lymph nodes was assessed in the surgical cases as well as from follow-up in the follow-up group. RESULTS: Of 604 patients treated by colorectal ESD for submucosally invasive cancer, 207 non-curative resections (34.3%) were included (138 male; mean age 67.6±10.9 years); in 65.2% of cases, no complete resection was achieved (R1). Of the 207 cases, 60.9% (n=126; median CCI: 3; IQR: 2-4) underwent surgical treatment with RD in 19.8% (25/126), while 39.1% (n=81, median CCI: 5; IQR: 4-6) were followed up by endoscopy in all cases. Patients in the follow-up group had a higher overall mortality (HR=3.95) due to non-CRC causes (n=9, mean survival after ESD 23.7±13.7 months). During this follow-up time, tumour recurrence and disease-specific survival rates were not different between the groups (median follow-up 30 months; range: 6-105). CONCLUSION: Following ESD for a lesion at high risk of RD, follow-up only may be a reasonable choice in patients at high risk for surgery. Also, endoscopic resection quality should be improved. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03987828.

Endoscopy-Related Bleeding and Thromboembolic Events in Patients on Direct Oral Anticoagulants or Vitamin K Antagonists.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Few prospective studies have assessed the safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in elective endoscopy. Our primary aim was to compare the risks of endoscopy-related gastrointestinal bleeding and thromboembolic events in patients on DOACs or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in this setting. Secondarily, we examined the impact of the timing of anticoagulant resumption on the risk of delayed bleeding in high-risk therapeutic procedures. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, observational study from January 2018 to March 2020 of 1602 patients on oral anticoagulants (1004 on VKAs and 598 on DOACs) undergoing 1874 elective endoscopic procedures. Our primary outcomes were 90-day thromboembolic events and 30-day endoscopy-related gastrointestinal bleeding. The inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score method was used for baseline covariate adjustment. RESULTS: The 2 groups had similar risks of endoscopy-related gastrointestinal bleeding (VKAs vs DOACs, 6.2% vs 6.7%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.67-1.65) and thromboembolic events (VKAs vs DOACs, 1.3% vs 1.5%; adjusted OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.34-2.38). In high bleeding risk procedures (n = 747), delayed anticoagulant resumption (> 48 hours or 24-48 hours vs < 24 hours) did not reduce the risk of postprocedural bleeding (10.3%, 9%, and 5.8%, respectively; adjusted P = .43). Hot and cold snare polypectomy were the most frequent high-risk interventions (41.8% and 39.8%, respectively). CONCLUSION: In a prospective study of patients on DOACs or VKAs undergoing elective endoscopy, endoscopy-related bleeding and thromboembolic events showed similar risk. Our study suggests that early anticoagulant resumption is safe in most patients, but more data are needed for advanced high-risk therapeutic procedures.

Location, morphology and invasiveness of lateral spreading tumors in the colorectum differ between two large cohorts from an eastern and western country.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Data from Japanese series show that surface morphology of laterally spreading tumors (LST) in the colon identifies lesions with different incidence and pattern of submucosal invasion. Such data from western countries are scarce. We compared clinical and histological features of LST in a western country and an eastern country, with special interest on mucosal invasiveness of LST, and investigated the effect of clinical factors on invasiveness in both countries. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with LST lesions ≥20mm were included from a multicenter prospective registry in Spain and from a retrospective registry from the National Cancer Center Hospital East, Japan. The primary outcome was the presence of submucosal invasion in LST. The secondary outcome was the presence of high-risk histology, defined as high-grade dysplasia or submucosal invasion. RESULTS: We evaluated 1102 patients in Spain and 663 in Japan. Morphological and histological characteristics differed. The prevalence of submucosal invasion in Japan was six-fold the prevalence in Spain (Prevalence Ratio PR=5.66; 95%CI: 3.96, 8.08), and the prevalence of high-risk histology was 1.5 higher (PR=1.44; 95%CI: 1.31, 1.58). Compared to the granular homogeneous type and adjusted by clinical features, granular mixed, flat elevated, and pseudo-depressed types were associated with higher odds of submucosal invasion in Japan, whereas only the pseudo-depressed type showed higher risk in Spain. Regarding high-risk histology, both granular mixed and pseudo-depressed were associated with higher odds in Japan, compared with only the granular mixed type in Spain. CONCLUSION: This study reveals differences in location, morphology and invasiveness of LST in an eastern and a western cohort.

The Answer to "When to Clip" After Colorectal Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Based on a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Delayed bleeding (DB) is the most common major complication of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Two randomized clinical trials recently demonstrated that clip closure after EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) reduces the risk of DB. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of this prophylactic measure. METHODS: EMRs of LNCPCPs were consecutively registered in the ongoing prospective multicenter database of the Spanish EMR Group from May 2013 until July 2017. Patients were classified according to the Spanish Endoscopy Society EMR group (GSEED-RE2) DB risk score. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for both Spanish and US economic contexts. The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) thresholds were set at 54,000 € or $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. RESULTS: We registered 2,263 EMRs in 2,130 patients. Applying their respective DB relative risk reductions after clip closure (51% and 59%), the DB rate decreased from 4.5% to 2.2% in the total cohort and from 13.7% to 5.7% in the high risk of the DB GSEED-RE2 subgroup. The ICERs for the universal clipping strategy in Spain and the United States, 469,706 € and $1,258,641, respectively, were not cost effective. By contrast, selective clipping in the high-risk of DB GSEED-RE2 subgroup was cost saving, with a negative ICER of -2,194 € in the Spanish context and cost effective with an ICER of $87,796 in the United States. DISCUSSION: Clip closure after EMR of large colorectal lesions is cost effective in patients with a high risk of bleeding. The GSEED-RE2 DB risk score may be a useful tool to identify that high-risk population.

Safety and effectiveness of peroral endoscopic myotomy in patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy: an international multicenter case-control study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events in patients undergoing peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) who are receiving antithrombotic therapy is unknown. Our primary aim was to assess the safety of POEM in this patient subset. Secondary outcomes were rates of clinical success, GERD, and procedure-related outcomes. METHODS: This was an international, 1:1, case-control study performed at 10 centers using prospectively maintained databases. All consecutive patients who underwent POEM before November 2019 were considered for inclusion. Cases were patients on antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapy. Controls not receiving antithrombotics were matched for age and esophageal motility disorder. Primary outcomes were major bleeding and thromboembolic events on postprocedural day 30. RESULTS: Of 2895 patients who underwent POEM, 126 cases (103 on antiplatelets, 35 anticoagulants, 12 both) and 126 controls were enrolled. The rate of major bleeding was higher for the antithrombotics users (5.6% vs 0.8%, P = .03). Anticoagulants and clopidogrel were temporarily interrupted in all cases. Aspirin was continued in 40.5% of users without increasing the bleeding risk. One thromboembolic event occurred in each group (0.79%; P = 1.00). No POEM-related deaths were noted. Rates of clinical success (91.7% vs 96% in controls, P = .20), postprocedural GERD, and technical-related outcomes were similar in both groups. Antithrombotic management was heterogeneous, and guidelines were not adhered to in 23.8% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: POEM is safe and effective in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy although it is associated with a greater risk of major bleeding.

Accuracy of the Narrow-Band Imaging International Colorectal Endoscopic Classification System in Identification of Deep Invasion in Colorectal Polyps.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: T1 colorectal polyps with at least 1 risk factor for metastasis to lymph node should be treated surgically and are considered endoscopically unresectable. Optical analysis, based on the Narrow-Band Imaging International Colorectal Endoscopic (NICE) classification system, is used to identify neoplasias with invasion of the submucosa that require endoscopic treatment. We assessed the accuracy of the NICE classification, along with other morphologic characteristics, in identifying invasive polyps that are endoscopically unresectable (have at least 1 risk factor for metastasis to lymph node). METHODS: We performed a multicenter, prospective study of data collected by 58 endoscopists, from 1634 consecutive patients (examining 2123 lesions) at 17 university and community hospitals in Spain from July 2014 through June 2016. All consecutive lesions >10 mm assessed with narrow-band imaging were included. The primary end point was the accuracy of the NICE classification for identifying lesions with deep invasion, using findings from histology analysis as the reference standard. Conditional inference trees were fitted for the analysis of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: Of the 2123 lesions analyzed, 89 (4.2%) had features of deep invasion and 91 (4.3%) were endoscopically unresectable. The NICE classification system identified lesions with deep invasion with 58.4% sensitivity (95% CI, 47.5-68.8), 96.4% specificity (95% CI, 95.5-97.2), a positive-predictive value of 41.6% (95% CI, 32.9-50.8), and a negative-predictive value of 98.1% (95% CI, 97.5-98.7). A conditional inference tree that included all variables found the NICE classification to most accurately identify lesions with deep invasion (P < .001). However, pedunculated morphology (P < .007), ulceration (P = .026), depressed areas (P < .001), or nodular mixed type (P < .001) affected accuracy of identification. Results were comparable for identifying lesions that were endoscopically unresectable. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of 2123 colon lesions >10 mm, we found the NICE classification and morphologic features identify those with deep lesions with >96% specificity-even in non-expert hands and without magnification. ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02328066.

Clip Closure After Resection of Large Colorectal Lesions With Substantial Risk of Bleeding.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is not clear whether closure of mucosal defects with clips after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) prevents delayed bleeding, although it seems to have no protective effects when risk is low. We performed a randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy of complete clip closure of large (≥2 cm) nonpedunculated colorectal lesions after EMR in patients with an estimated average or high risk of delayed bleeding. METHODS: We performed a single-blind trial at 11 hospitals in Spain from May 2016 through June 2018, including 235 consecutive patients who underwent EMR for large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions with an average or high risk of delayed bleeding (based on Spanish Endoscopy Society Endoscopic Resection Group score). Participants were randomly assigned to groups that received closure of the scar with 11-mm through-the-scope clips (treated, n = 119) or no clip (control, n = 116). The primary outcome was proportion of patients in each group with delayed bleeding, defined as evident hematochezia that required medical intervention within 15 days after colonoscopy. RESULTS: In the clip group, complete closure was achieved in 68 (57%) cases, with partial closure in 33 (28%) cases and failure to close in 18 (15%) cases. Delayed bleeding occurred in 14 (12.1%) patients in the control group and in 6 (5%) patients in the clip group (absolute risk difference, reduction of 7% in the clip group; 95% confidence interval, -14.7% to 0.3%). After completion of the clip closure, there was only 1 (1.5%) case of delayed bleeding (absolute risk difference, reduction of 10.6%; 95% confidence interval, -4.3% to 17.9%). CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial of patients with large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions undergoing EMR, we found that clip closure of mucosal defects in patients with a risk of bleeding can be a challenge, but also reduces delayed bleeding. Prevention of delayed bleeding required complete clip closure. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02765022.

Clinical validation of risk scoring systems to predict risk of delayed bleeding after EMR of large colorectal lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Endoscopic Resection Group of the Spanish Society of Endoscopy (GSEED-RE) model and the Australian Colonic Endoscopic Resection (ACER) model were proposed to predict delayed bleeding (DB) after EMR of large superficial colorectal lesions, but neither has been validated. We validated and updated these models. METHODS: A multicenter cohort study was performed in patients with nonpedunculated lesions ≥20 mm removed by EMR. We assessed the discrimination and calibration of the GSEED-RE and ACER models. Difficulty performing EMR was subjectively categorized as low, medium, or high. We created a new model, including factors associated with DB in 3 cohort studies. RESULTS: DB occurred in 45 of 1034 EMRs (4.5%); it was associated with proximal location (odds ratio [OR], 2.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-6.16), antiplatelet agents (OR, 2.51; 95% CI, .99-6.34) or anticoagulants (OR, 4.54; 95% CI, 2.14-9.63), difficulty of EMR (OR, 3.23; 95% CI, 1.41-7.40), and comorbidity (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, .99-4.47). The GSEED-RE and ACER models did not accurately predict DB. Re-estimation and recalibration yielded acceptable results (GSEED-RE area under the curve [AUC], .64 [95% CI, .54-.74]; ACER AUC, .65 [95% CI, .57-.73]). We used lesion size, proximal location, comorbidity, and antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy to generate a new model, the GSEED-RE2, which achieved higher AUC values (.69-.73; 95% CI, .59-.80) and exhibited lower susceptibility to changes among datasets. CONCLUSIONS: The updated GSEED-RE and ACER models achieved acceptable prediction levels of DB. The GSEED-RE2 model may achieve better prediction results and could be used to guide the management of patients after validation by other external groups. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03050333.).

Increased Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Patients With Multiple Serrated Polyps and Their First-Degree Relatives.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We investigated whether patients with multiple serrated polyps, but not meeting the World Health Organization criteria for serrated polyposis syndrome, and their relatives have similar risks for colorectal cancer (CRC) as those diagnosed with serrated polyposis. METHODS: We collected data from patients with more than 10 colonic polyps, recruited in 2008-2009 from 24 hospitals in Spain for a study of causes of multiple colonic polyps. We analyzed data from 53 patients who met the criteria for serrated polyposis and 145 patients who did not meet these criteria, but who had more than 10 polyps throughout the colon, of which more than 50% were serrated. We calculated age- and sex-adjusted standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) for CRC in both groups, as well as in their first-degree relatives. RESULTS: The prevalence of CRC was similar between patients with confirmed serrated polyposis and multiple serrated polyps (odds ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-2.82; P = .40). The SIR for CRC in patients with serrated polyposis (0.51; 95% CI, 0.01-2.82) did not differ significantly from the SIR for CRC in patients with multiple serrated polyps (0.74; 95% CI, 0.20-1.90; P = .70). The SIR for CRC also did not differ significantly between first-degree relatives of these groups (serrated polyposis: 3.28, 95% CI, 2.16-4.77; multiple serrated polyps: 2.79, 95% CI, 2.10-3.63; P = .50). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no differences in the incidence of CRC between groups during the follow-up period (log-rank, 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: The risk of CRC in patients with multiple serrated polyps who do not meet the criteria for serrated polyposis, and in their first-degree relatives, is similar to that of patients diagnosed with serrated polyposis.

Comment to the letter "Acute appendicitis after a colonic endoscopic submucosal resection".

We read with interest the letter to the editor "Acute appendicitis after a colonic endoscopic submucosal resection" by Serrano González J et al., which was published in the Revista Española de Enfermedades Digestivas (The Spanish Journal of Gastroenterology) issue 3, 2018. We would like to clarify the following aspects mentioned in this letter.

Clinical guidelines for endoscopic mucosal resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions.

This document summarizes the contents of the Clinical Guidelines for the Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Lesions that was developed by the working group of the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy (GSEED of Endoscopic Resection). This document presents recommendations for the endoscopic management of superficial colorectal neoplastic lesions.

Clinical guidelines for endoscopic mucosal resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions. / Guía clínica para la resección mucosa endoscópica de lesiones colorrectales no pediculadas.

This document summarizes the contents of the Clinical Guidelines for the Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Lesions that was developed by the working group of the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy (GSEED of Endoscopic Resection). This document presents recommendations for the endoscopic management of superficial colorectal neoplastic lesions.

Serrated lesions and serrated polyposis syndrome.

The serrated pathway has been shown to be an alternative colorectal carcinogenetic route potentially accounting for up to one third of all CRCs. Serrated lesions, particularly SSPs, have been a focus of research during the past few years. They have well-established histological and molecular characteristics that account for their potential carcinogenetic risk through the accumulation BRAF, KRAS and methylator profile (CpG) mutations. Their endoscopic identification and resection represent a challenge because of their specific characteristics, and the need for an adequate specimen for histological diagnosis. Knowledge of these lesions is key, as is the adoption of established criteria for their endoscopic description and histological diagnosis. SPS is the maximum expression of involvement by serrated lesions, is associated with increased risk for CRC, and requires attentive endoscopic follow-up, as well as family screening. While the exact etiopathogenic mechanism remains unknown, current research will likely provide us with appropriate answers in the not too distant future.