Standardised training for endoscopic mucosal resection of large non-pedunculated colorectal polyps to reduce recurrence (*STAR-LNPCP study): a multicentre cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the preferred treatment for non-invasive large (≥20 mm) non-pedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) but is associated with an early recurrence rate of up to 30%. We evaluated whether standardised EMR training could reduce recurrence rates in Dutch community hospitals. DESIGN: In this multicentre cluster randomised trial, 59 endoscopists from 30 hospitals were randomly assigned to the intervention group (e-learning and 2-day training including hands-on session) or control group. From April 2019 to August 2021, all consecutive EMR-treated LNPCPs were included. Primary endpoint was recurrence rate after 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 1412 LNPCPs were included; 699 in the intervention group and 713 in the control group (median size 30 mm vs 30 mm, 45% vs 52% size, morphology, site and access (SMSA) score IV, 64% vs 64% proximal location). Recurrence rates were lower in the intervention group compared with controls (13% vs 25%, OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.78; p=0.005) with similar complication rates (8% vs 9%, OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.36; p=0.720). Recurrences were more often unifocal in the intervention group (92% vs 76%; p=0.006). In sensitivity analysis, the benefit of the intervention on recurrence rate was only observed in the 20-40 mm LNPCPs (5% vs 20% in 20-29 mm, p=0.001; 10% vs 21% in 30-39 mm, p=0.013) but less evident in ≥40 mm LNPCPs (24% vs 31%; p=0.151). In a post hoc analysis, the training effect was maintained in the study group, while in the control group the recurrence rate remained high. CONCLUSION: A compact standardised EMR training for LNPCPs significantly reduced recurrences in community hospitals. This strongly argues for a national dedicated training programme for endoscopists performing EMR of ≥20 mm LNPCPs. Interestingly, in sensitivity analysis, this benefit was limited for LNPCPs ≥40 mm. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR7477.

Long-Term Outcome of Immediate Versus Postponed Intervention in Patients With Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (POINTER): Multicenter Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term outcomes of immediate drainage versus the postponed-drainage approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. BACKGROUND: In the randomized POINTER trial, patients assigned to the postponed-drainage approach using antibiotic treatment required fewer interventions, as compared with immediate drainage, and over a third were treated without any intervention. METHODS: Clinical data of those patients alive after the initial 6-month follow-up were re-evaluated. The primary outcome was a composite of death and major complications. RESULTS: Out of 104 patients, 88 were re-evaluated with a median follow-up of 51 months. After the initial 6-month follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 7 of 47 patients (15%) in the immediate-drainage group and 7 of 41 patients (17%) in the postponed-drainage group (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.33-2.28; P =0.78). Additional drainage procedures were performed in 7 patients (15%) versus 3 patients (7%) (RR 2.03; 95% CI 0.56-7.37; P =0.34). The median number of additional interventions was 0 (IQR 0-0) in both groups ( P =0.028). In the total follow-up, the median number of interventions was higher in the immediate-drainage group than in the postponed-drainage group (4 vs. 1, P =0.001). Eventually, 14 of 15 patients (93%) in the postponed-drainage group who were successfully treated in the initial 6-month follow-up with antibiotics and without any intervention remained without intervention. At the end of follow-up, pancreatic function and quality of life were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Also, during long-term follow-up, a postponed-drainage approach using antibiotics in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis results in fewer interventions as compared with immediate drainage and should therefore be the preferred approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN33682933.

Immediate versus Postponed Intervention for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Infected necrotizing pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that is treated with the use of a step-up approach, with catheter drainage often delayed until the infected necrosis is encapsulated. Whether outcomes could be improved by earlier catheter drainage is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized superiority trial involving patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, in which we compared immediate drainage within 24 hours after randomization once infected necrosis was diagnosed with drainage that was postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis was reached. The primary end point was the score on the Comprehensive Complication Index, which incorporates all complications over the course of 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were randomly assigned to immediate drainage (55 patients) or postponed drainage (49 patients). The mean score on the Comprehensive Complication Index (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe complications) was 57 in the immediate-drainage group and 58 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, -1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12 to 10; P = 0.90). Mortality was 13% in the immediate-drainage group and 10% in the postponed-drainage group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.42 to 3.68). The mean number of interventions (catheter drainage and necrosectomy) was 4.4 in the immediate-drainage group and 2.6 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.0). In the postponed-drainage group, 19 patients (39%) were treated conservatively with antibiotics and did not require drainage; 17 of these patients survived. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This trial did not show the superiority of immediate drainage over postponed drainage with regard to complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Patients randomly assigned to the postponed-drainage strategy received fewer invasive interventions. (Funded by Fonds NutsOhra and Amsterdam UMC; POINTER ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN33682933.).

Gallstones as a cause in presumed acute alcoholic pancreatitis: observational multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Data on the incidence and clinical relevance of gallstones in patients with suspected acute alcoholic pancreatitis are lacking and are essential to minimize the risk of recurrent acute pancreatitis. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of gallstones and the associated rate of recurrent acute pancreatitis in patients with presumed acute alcoholic pancreatitis. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2019, 23 hospitals prospectively enrolled patients with acute pancreatitis. Those diagnosed with their first episode of presumed acute alcoholic pancreatitis were included in this study. The term gallstones was used to describe the presence of cholelithiasis or biliary sludge found during imaging. The primary outcome was pancreatitis recurrence during 3 years of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 334 patients were eligible for inclusion, of whom 316 were included in the follow-up analysis. Gallstone evaluation, either during the index admission or during follow-up, was performed for 306 of 334 patients (91.6%). Gallstones were detected in 54 patients (17.6%), with a median time to detection of 6 (interquartile range 0-42) weeks. During follow-up, recurrent acute pancreatitis occurred in 121 of 316 patients (38.3%), with a significantly higher incidence rate for patients with gallstones compared with patients without gallstones (59% versus 34.2% respectively; P < 0.001), while more patients with gallstones had stopped drinking alcohol at the time of their first recurrence (41% versus 24% respectively; P = 0.020). Cholecystectomy was performed for 19 patients with gallstones (36%). The recurrence rate was lower for patients in the cholecystectomy group compared with patients who did receive inadequate treatment or no treatment (5/19 versus 19/34 respectively; P = 0.038). CONCLUSION: Gallstones were found in almost one in every five patients diagnosed with acute alcoholic pancreatitis. Gallstones were associated with a higher rate of recurrent pancreatitis, while undergoing cholecystectomy was associated with a reduction in this rate.

Oncologic outcomes of screen-detected and non-screen-detected T1 colorectal cancers.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) has increased with the implementation of CRC screening programs. It is unknown whether the outcomes and risk models for T1 CRC based on non-screen-detected patients can be extrapolated to screen-detected T1 CRC. This study aimed to compare the stage distribution and oncologic outcomes of T1 CRC patients within and outside the screening program. METHODS: Data from T1 CRC patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 were collected from 12 hospitals in the Netherlands. The presence of lymph node metastasis (LNM) at diagnosis was compared between screen-detected and non-screen-detected patients using multivariable logistic regression. Cox proportional hazard regression was used to analyze differences in the time to recurrence (TTR), metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival. Additionally, the performance of conventional risk factors for LNM was evaluated across the groups. RESULTS: 1803 patients were included (1114 [62%] screen-detected), with median follow-up of 51 months (interquartile range 30). The proportion of LNM did not significantly differ between screen- and non-screen-detected patients (12.6% vs. 8.9%; odds ratio 1.41; 95%CI 0.89-2.23); a prediction model for LNM performed equally in both groups. The 3- and 5-year TTR, MFS, and CSS were similar for patients within and outside the screening program. However, overall survival was significantly longer in screen-detected T1 CRC patients (adjusted hazard ratio 0.51; 95%CI 0.38-0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Screen-detected and non-screen-detected T1 CRCs have similar stage distributions and oncologic outcomes and can therefore be treated equally. However, screen-detected T1 CRC patients exhibit a lower rate of non-CRC-related mortality, resulting in longer overall survival.

Effect of optical diagnosis training on recognition and treatment of submucosal invasive colorectal cancer in community hospitals: a prospective multicenter intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Recognition of submucosal invasive colorectal cancer (T1 CRC) is difficult, with sensitivities of 35 %-60 % in Western countries. We evaluated the real-life effects of training in the OPTICAL model, a recently developed structured and validated prediction model, in Dutch community hospitals. METHODS: In this prospective multicenter study (OPTICAL II), 383 endoscopists from 40 hospitals were invited to follow an e-learning program on the OPTICAL model, to increase sensitivity in detecting T1 CRC in nonpedunculated polyps. Real-life recognition of T1 CRC was then evaluated in 25 hospitals. Endoscopic and pathologic reports of T1 CRCs detected during the next year were collected retrospectively, with endoscopists unaware of this evaluation. Sensitivity for T1 CRC recognition, R0 resection rate, and treatment modality were compared for trained vs. untrained endoscopists. RESULTS: 1 year after e-learning, 528 nonpedunculated T1 CRCs were recorded for endoscopies performed by 251 endoscopists (118 [47 %] trained). Median T1 CRC size was 20 mm. Lesions were mainly located in the distal colorectum (66 %). Trained endoscopists recognized T1 CRCs more frequently than untrained endoscopists (sensitivity 74 % vs. 62 %; mixed model analysis odds ratio [OR] 2.90, 95 %CI 1.54-5.45). R0 resection rate was higher for T1 CRCs detected by trained endoscopists (69 % vs. 56 %; OR 1.73, 95 %CI 1.03-2.91). CONCLUSION: Training in optical recognition of T1 CRCs in community hospitals was associated with increased recognition of T1 CRCs, leading to higher en bloc and R0 resection rates. This may be an important step toward more organ-preserving strategies.

Patient selection for urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography by endoscopic ultrasound in predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis (APEC-2): a multicentre prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Routine urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (ES) does not improve outcome in patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis. Improved patient selection for ERCP by means of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for stone/sludge detection may challenge these findings. DESIGN: A multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis. Patients underwent urgent EUS, followed by ERCP with ES in case of common bile duct stones/sludge, within 24 hours after hospital presentation and within 72 hours after symptom onset. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or mortality within 6 months after inclusion. The historical control group was the conservative treatment arm (n=113) of the randomised APEC trial (Acute biliary Pancreatitis: urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment, patient inclusion 2013-2017) applying the same study design. RESULTS: Overall, 83 patients underwent urgent EUS at a median of 21 hours (IQR 17-23) after hospital presentation and at a median of 29 hours (IQR 23-41) after start of symptoms. Gallstones/sludge in the bile ducts were detected by EUS in 48/83 patients (58%), all of whom underwent immediate ERCP with ES. The primary endpoint occurred in 34/83 patients (41%) in the urgent EUS-guided ERCP group. This was not different from the 44% rate (50/113 patients) in the historical conservative treatment group (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.29; p=0.65). Sensitivity analysis to correct for baseline differences using a logistic regression model also showed no significant beneficial effect of the intervention on the primary outcome (adjusted OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.90, p=0.92). CONCLUSION: In patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis, urgent EUS-guided ERCP with ES did not reduce the composite endpoint of major complications or mortality, as compared with conservative treatment in a historical control group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15545919.

Endoscopic Versus Surgical Step-Up Approach for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (ExTENSION): Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years. METHODS: In this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up. Netherlands Trial Register no: NL8571.

Preoptimisation in patients with acute obstructive colon cancer (PREOCC) - a prospective registration study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative mortality and morbidity rates are high in patients with obstructing colon cancer (OCC). Different treatment options have been evaluated over the years, mainly for left sided OCC. Optimising the preoperative health condition in elective colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment shows promising results. The aim of this study is to determine whether preoptimisation is feasible in patients with OCC, with a special interest/focus on right-sided OCC, and if, ultimately, optimisation reduces mortality and morbidity (stoma rates, major and minor complications) rates in OCC. METHODS: This is a prospective registration study including all patients presenting with OCC in our hospital. Patients with OCC, treated with curative intent, will be screened for eligibility to receive preoptimisation before surgery. The preoptimisation protocol includes; decompression of the small bowel with a NG-tube for right sided obstruction and SEMS or decompressing ileostomy or colostomy, proximal to the site of obstruction, for left sided colonic obstructions. For the additional work-up, additional nutrition by means of parenteral feeding (for patients who are dependent on a NG tube) or oral/enteral nutrition (in case the obstruction is relieved) is provided. Physiotherapy with attention to both cardio and muscle training prior surgical resection is provided. The primary endpoint is complication-free survival (CFS) at the 90 day period after hospitalisation. Secondary outcomes include pre- and postoperative complications, patient- and tumour characteristics, surgical procedures, total in hospital stay, creation of decompressing and/or permanent ileo- or colostomy and long-term (oncological) outcomes. DISCUSSION: Preoptimisation is expected to improve the preoperative health condition of patients and thereby reduce postoperative complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial Registry: NL8266 date of registration: 06-jan-2020. STUDY STATUS: Open for inclusion.

Full-Thickness Scar Resection After R1/Rx Excised T1 Colorectal Cancers as an Alternative to Completion Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Local full-thickness resections of the scar (FTRS) after local excision of a T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) with uncertain resection margins is proposed as an alternative strategy to completion surgery (CS), provided that no local intramural residual cancer (LIRC) is found. However, a comparison on long-term oncological outcome between both strategies is missing. METHODS: A large cohort of patients with consecutive T1 CRC between 2000 and 2017 was used. Patients were selected if they underwent a macroscopically complete local excision of a T1 CRC but positive or unassessable (R1/Rx) resection margins at histology and without lymphovascular invasion or poor differentiation. Patients treated with CS or FTRS were compared on the presence of CRC recurrence, a 5-year overall survival, disease-free survival, and metastasis-free survival. RESULTS: Of 3,697 patients with a T1 CRC, 434 met the inclusion criteria (mean age 66 years, 61% men). Three hundred thirty-four patients underwent CS, and 100 patients underwent FTRS. The median follow-up period was 64 months. CRC recurrence was seen in 7 patients who underwent CS (2.2%, 95% CI 0.9%-4.6%) and in 8 patients who underwent FTRS (9.0%, 95% CI 3.9%-17.7%). Disease-free survival was lower in FTRS strategy (96.8% vs 89.9%, P = 0.019), but 5 of the 8 FTRS recurrences could be treated with salvage surgery. The metastasis-free survival (CS 96.8% vs FTRS 92.1%, P = 0.10) and overall survival (CS 95.6% vs FTRS 94.4%, P = 0.55) did not differ significantly between both strategies. DISCUSSION: FTRS after local excision of a T1 CRC with R1/Rx resection margins as a sole risk factor, followed by surveillance and salvage surgery in case of CRC recurrence, could be a valid alternative strategy to CS.

Efficacy and safety of cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection for treatment of nonlifting colorectal polyps.

BACKGROUND : Suboptimal lifting increases complexity of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for benign colorectal polyps. Cap-assisted EMR (EMR-C) may allow fibrotic polyp tissue to be captured in the snare. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of EMR-C for benign nonlifting colorectal polyps. METHODS : This was a multicenter study, which prospectively registered all EMR-C procedures (2016-2018) for presumed benign nonlifting colorectal polyps. RESULTS : 70 nonlifting polyps with a median size of 25 mm (interquartile range [IQR] 15-40) were treated with EMR-C. Complete polyp removal was achieved in 68 (97.1 %), including 47 (67.1 %) with EMR-C alone. Overall, 66 polyps showed benign histology, and endoscopic follow-up after a median of 6 months (IQR 6-10) showed recurrence in 19.7 %. First (n = 10) and second (n = 2) benign recurrences were all treated endoscopically. Deep mural injury type III-V occurred in 7.4 % and was treated successfully with clips. CONCLUSION : EMR-C may be an alternative therapeutic option for removal of benign nonlifting polyp tissue. Although recurrence still occurs, repeat endoscopic therapy usually leads to complete polyp clearance.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection of T1 colorectal cancers: a retrospective analysis from a multicenter Dutch eFTR registry.

BACKGROUND: Complete endoscopic resection and accurate histological evaluation for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) are critical in determining subsequent treatment. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a new treatment option for T1 CRC < 2 cm. We aimed to report clinical outcomes and short-term results. METHODS: Consecutive eFTR procedures for T1 CRC, prospectively recorded in our national registry between November 2015 and April 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes were technical success and R0 resection. Secondary outcomes were histological risk assessment, curative resection, adverse events, and short-term outcomes. RESULTS: We included 330 procedures: 132 primary resections and 198 secondary scar resections after incomplete T1 CRC resection. Overall technical success, R0 resection, and curative resection rates were 87.0 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 82.7 %-90.3 %), 85.6 % (95 %CI 81.2 %-89.2 %), and 60.3 % (95 %CI 54.7 %-65.7 %). Curative resection rate was 23.7 % (95 %CI 15.9 %-33.6 %) for primary resection of T1 CRC and 60.8 % (95 %CI 50.4 %-70.4 %) after excluding deep submucosal invasion as a risk factor. Risk stratification was possible in 99.3 %. The severe adverse event rate was 2.2 %. Additional oncological surgery was performed in 49/320 (15.3 %), with residual cancer in 11/49 (22.4 %). Endoscopic follow-up was available in 200/242 (82.6 %), with a median of 4 months and residual cancer in 1 (0.5 %) following an incomplete resection. CONCLUSIONS: eFTR is relatively safe and effective for resection of small T1 CRC, both as primary and secondary treatment. eFTR can expand endoscopic treatment options for T1 CRC and could help to reduce surgical overtreatment. Future studies should focus on long-term outcomes.

Pain patterns in chronic pancreatitis: a nationwide longitudinal cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Pain in chronic pancreatitis is subdivided in a continuous or intermittent pattern, each thought to represent a different entity, requiring specific treatment. Because evidence is missing, we studied pain patterns in a prospective longitudinal nationwide study. DESIGN: 1131 patients with chronic pancreatitis (fulfilling M-ANNHEIM criteria) were included between 2011 and 2018 in 30 Dutch hospitals. Patients with continuous or intermittent pain were compared for demographics, pain characteristics, quality of life (Short-Form 36), imaging findings, disease duration and treatment. Alternation of pain pattern and associated variables were longitudinally assessed using a multivariable multinomial logistic regression model. RESULTS: At inclusion, 589 patients (52%) had continuous pain, 231 patients (20%) had intermittent pain and 311 patients (28%) had no pain. Patients with continuous pain had more severe pain, used more opioids and neuropathic pain medication, and had a lower quality of life. There were no differences between pain patterns for morphological findings on imaging, disease duration and treatment. During a median follow-up of 47 months, 552 of 905 patients (61%) alternated at least once between pain patterns. All alternations were associated with the Visual Analogue Scale pain intensity score and surgery was only associated with the change from pain to no pain. CONCLUSION: Continuous and intermittent pain patterns in chronic pancreatitis do not seem to be the result of distinctly different pathophysiological entities. The subjectively reported character of pain is not related to imaging findings or disease duration. Pain patterns often change over time and are merely a feature of how severity of pain is experienced.

Nationwide practice and outcomes of endoscopic biliary drainage in resectable pancreatic head and periampullary cancer.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines advise self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) over plastic stents in preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) for malignant extrahepatic biliary obstruction. This study aims to assess nationwide practice and outcomes. METHODS: Patients with pancreatic head and periampullary cancer who underwent EBD before pancreatoduodenectomy were included from the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2017-2018). Multivariable logistic and linear regression models were performed. RESULTS: In total, 575/1056 patients (62.0%) underwent preoperative EBD: 246 SEMS (42.8%) and 329 plastic stents (57.2%). EBD-related complications were comparable between the groups (44/246 (17.9%) vs. 64/329 (19.5%), p = 0.607), including pancreatitis (22/246 (8.9%) vs. 25/329 (7.6%), p = 0.387). EBD-related cholangitis was reduced after SEMS placement (10/246 (4.1%) vs. 32/329 (9.7%), p = 0.043), which was confirmed in multivariable analysis (OR 0.36 95%CI 0.15-0.87, p = 0.023). Major postoperative complications did not differ (58/246 (23.6%) vs. 90/329 (27.4%), p = 0.316), whereas postoperative pancreatic fistula (24/246 (9.8%) vs. 61/329 (18.5%), p = 0.004; OR 0.50 95%CI 0.27-0.94, p = 0.031) and hospital stay (14.0 days vs. 17.4 days, p = 0.005; B 2.86 95%CI -5.16 to -0.57, p = 0.014) were less after SEMS placement. CONCLUSION: This study found that preoperative EBD frequently involved plastic stents. SEMS seemed associated with lower risks of cholangitis and less postoperative pancreatic fistula, but without an increased pancreatitis risk.

Tumor Seeding During Colonoscopy as a Possible Cause for Metachronous Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In patients who have undergone surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC), 3% have recurrence of (metachronous) CRC. We investigated whether tumor seeding during colonoscopy (iatrogenic implantation of tumor cells in damaged mucosa) increases risk for metachronous CRC. METHODS: In a proof of principle study, we collected data from the Dutch National Pathology Registry for patients with a diagnosis of CRC from 2013 through 2015, with a second diagnosis of CRC within 6 months to 3.5 years after surgery. We reviewed pathology reports to identify likely metachronous CRC (histologically proven adenocarcinoma located elsewhere in the colon or rectum from the surgical anastomosis). For 22 patients fulfilling the inclusion criteria, we ascribed the most likely etiology to tumor seeding when endoscopic manipulations, such as biopsies or polypectomy, occurred at the location where the metachronous tumor was subsequently detected, after endoscopic manipulation of the primary tumor. We collected clinical data from patients and compared molecular profiles of the primary and metachronous colorectal tumors using next-generation sequencing. We then examined the source of seeded tumor. We tested whether tumor cells stay behind in the working channel of the endoscope after biopsies of colorectal tumors, and whether these cells maintain viability in organoid cultures. RESULTS: In total, tumor seeding was suspected as the most likely etiology of metachronous CRC in 5 patients. Tumor tissues were available from 3 patients. An identical molecular signature was observed in the primary and metachronous colorectal tumors from all 3 patients. In 5 control cases with a different etiology of metachronous CRC, the molecular signature of the primary and metachronous tumor were completely different. Based on review of 2147 patient records, we estimated the risk of tumor seeding during colonoscopy to be 0.3%-0.6%. We demonstrated that the working channel of the colonoscope becomes contaminated with viable tumor cells during biopsy collection. Subsequent instruments introduced through this working channel also became contaminated. These cells were shown to maintain their proliferative potential. CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of primary and secondary tumors from patients with metachronous CRC, we found that primary tumor cells might be seeded in a new location after biopsy of the primary tumor. Although our study does not eliminate other possibilities of transmission, our findings and experiments support the hypothesis that tumor seeding can occur during colonoscopy via the working channel of the endoscope. The possibility of iatrogenic seeding seems low. However, our findings compel awareness on this potentially preventable cause of metachronous CRC.

Associations of non-pedunculated T1 colorectal adenocarcinoma outcome with consensus molecular subtypes, immunoscore, and microsatellite status: a multicenter case-cohort study.

Advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) consensus molecular subtype 4 (CMS4) or CRC with a low immunoscore is associated with shorter survival times. Non-metastatic CRC with microsatellite instability (MSI) is associated with a lower risk of recurrence. We evaluated outcome (lymph node metastases [LNM] or cancer recurrence) in these tumor subtypes in patients with surgically-removed non-pedunculated T1 CRC by performing a multicenter case-cohort study. We included all patients in 13 hospitals in the Netherlands from 2000-2014 (n = 651). We randomly selected a subgroup of patients (n = 223) and all patients with LNM or recurrence (n = 63), and median follow-up of 44 months. We centrally reviewed tumor-slides, and constructed and immunostained tissue microarrays determining MSI, CMS (MSI/CMS1, CMS2/3, or CMS4), and immunoscore (I-low/I-high). We used weighted Cox proportional hazard models to evaluate the association of MSI, CMS, and immunoscore with LNM or recurrence, adjusting for conventional histologic risk factors. In the randomly selected subgroup of patients, 7.1% of tumors were MSI/CMS1, 91.0% CMS2/3, 1.8% CMS4, and 25% I-low. In the case-cohort, patients with CMS4 tumors had an increased risk for LNM or recurrence compared with patients with tumors of other CMSs (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 3.97; 95% CI, 1.12-14.06; P = 0.03). Albeit not significant, tumors with MSI had a lower risk for LNM or recurrence than other tumor subtypes (adjusted HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.12-2.30; P = 0.39), whereas tumors with a low immunoscore had an increased risk for LNM or recurrence (adjusted HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.68-2.48; P = 0.43). In conclusion, in a case-cohort study of patients with non-pedunculated T1 CRC, MSI, and immunoscore were not significantly associated with adverse outcome after surgery. CMS4 substantially increased the risk of adverse outcome. However, CMS4 is rare in T1 CRCs, limiting its value for determining the risk in patients.

Periprocedural adverse events after endoscopic resection of T1 colorectal carcinomas.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In contrast to the adverse event (AE) risk of endoscopic resection (ER) of adenomas, the intra- and postprocedural AE risks of ER of T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) are scarcely reported in the literature. It is unclear whether ER of early CRCs, which grow into the submucosal layer and sometimes show incomplete lifting, is associated with an increased AE risk. We aimed to identify the AE rate after ER of T1 CRCs and to identify the risk factors associated with these AEs. METHODS: Medical records of patients with T1 CRCs diagnosed between 2000 and 2014 in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands were reviewed. Patients who underwent primary ER were selected. The primary outcome was the occurrence of endoscopy-related AEs. The secondary outcome was the identification of risk factors. Multivariate logistic regression was performed. RESULTS: Endoscopic AEs occurred in 59 of 1069 (5.5%) patients, among which 37.3% were classified as mild, 59.3% as moderate, and 3.4% as severe. AEs were postprocedural bleeding (n = 40, 3.7%), perforation (n = 13, 1.2%), and postpolypectomy electrocoagulation syndrome (n = 6, 0.6%). No fatal AEs were observed. Independent predictors for AEs were age >70 years (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-3.96) and tumor size >20 mm (odds ratio, 2.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-4.69). CONCLUSIONS: In this large multicenter retrospective cohort study, AE rates of ER of T1 CRC (5.5%) are comparable with reported AE rates for adenomas. Larger tumor size and age >70 years are independent predictors for AEs. This study suggests that endoscopic treatment of T1 CRCs is not associated with an increased periprocedural AE risk.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) of colorectal lesions: results from the Dutch colorectal eFTR registry.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a minimally invasive resection technique that allows definite diagnosis and treatment for complex colorectal lesions ≤ 30 mm unsuitable for conventional endoscopic resection. This study reports clinical outcomes from the Dutch colorectal eFTR registry. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing eFTR in 20 hospitals were prospectively included. The primary outcome was technical success, defined as macroscopic complete en bloc resection. Secondary outcomes were: clinical success, defined as tumor-free resection margins (R0 resection); full-thickness resection rate; and adverse events. RESULTS : Between July 2015 and October 2018, 367 procedures were included. Indications were difficult polyps (non-lifting sign and/or difficult location; n = 133), primary resection of suspected T1 colorectal cancer (CRC; n = 71), re-resection after incomplete resection of T1 CRC (n = 150), and subepithelial tumors (n = 13). Technical success was achieved in 308 procedures (83.9 %). In 21 procedures (5.7 %), eFTR was not performed because the lesion could not be reached or retracted into the cap. In the remaining 346 procedures, R0 resection was achieved in 285 (82.4 %) and full-thickness resection in 288 (83.2 %). The median diameter of resected specimens was 23 mm. Overall adverse event rate was 9.3 % (n = 34/367): 10 patients (2.7 %) required emergency surgery for five delayed and two immediate perforations and three cases of appendicitis. CONCLUSION : eFTR is an effective and relatively safe en bloc resection technique for complex colorectal lesions with the potential to avoid surgery. Further studies assessing the role of eFTR in early CRC treatment with long-term outcomes are needed.

Long-term outcomes of major abdominal surgery and postoperative delirium after multimodal prehabilitation of older patients.

PURPOSE: The long-term outcomes of surgery followed by delirium after multimodal prehabilitation program are largely unknown. We conducted this study to assess the effects of prehabilitation on 1-year mortality and of postoperative delirium on 1-year mortality and functional outcomes. METHODS: The subjects of this study were patients aged ≥ 70 years who underwent elective surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) or colorectal cancer (CRC) between January 2013, and June 2018. A prehabilitation program was implemented in November 2015, which aimed to optimize physical health, nutritional status, factors of frailty and preoperative anemia prior to surgery. The outcomes were assessed as mortality after 6 and 12 months, compared between the two treatment groups; and mortality and functional outcomes, compared between patients with and those without delirium. RESULTS: There were 627 patients (controls N = 360, prehabilitation N = 267) included in this study. Prehabilitation did not reduce mortality after 1 year (HR 1.31 [95% CI 0.75-2.30]; p = 0.34). Delirium was significantly associated with 1-year mortality (HR 4.36 [95% CI 2.45-7.75]; p < 0.001) and with worse functional outcomes after 6 and 12 months (KATZ ADL p = 0.013 and p = 0.004; TUG test p = 0.041 and p = 0.011, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The prehabilitation program did not reduce 1-year mortality. Delirium and the burden of comorbidity are both independently associated with an increased risk of 1-year mortality and delirium is associated with worse functional outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Registration, NTR5932. https://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=5932 .

Endoscopic or surgical step-up approach for infected necrotising pancreatitis: a multicentre randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Infected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease and an indication for invasive intervention. The surgical step-up approach is the standard treatment. A promising alternative is the endoscopic step-up approach. We compared both approaches to see whether the endoscopic step-up approach was superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, superiority trial, we recruited adult patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis and an indication for invasive intervention from 19 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned to either the endoscopic or the surgical step-up approach. The endoscopic approach consisted of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic necrosectomy. The surgical approach consisted of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or death during 6-month follow-up. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN09186711. FINDINGS: Between Sept 20, 2011, and Jan 29, 2015, we screened 418 patients with pancreatic or extrapancreatic necrosis, of which 98 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach (n=51) or the surgical step-up approach (n=47). The primary endpoint occurred in 22 (43%) of 51 patients in the endoscopy group and in 21 (45%) of 47 patients in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·62-1·51; p=0·88). Mortality did not differ between groups (nine [18%] patients in the endoscopy group vs six [13%] patients in the surgery group; RR 1·38, 95% CI 0·53-3·59, p=0·50), nor did any of the major complications included in the primary endpoint. INTERPRETATION: In patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing major complications or death. The rate of pancreatic fistulas and length of hospital stay were lower in the endoscopy group. The outcome of this trial will probably result in a shift to the endoscopic step-up approach as treatment preference. FUNDING: The Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation, Fonds NutsOhra, and the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.