Clinical course of small gastric subepithelial lesion less than 20 mm diagnosed by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are treated as malignant gastric subepithelial lesions (SELs), and resection is recommended. However, small gastric SELs < 20 mm with no malignant features are monitored without histopathological examination, and the frequency of malignancy is unknown. This study aimed to clarify the clinicopathological findings and clinical course of gastric SELs < 20 mm measured by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients with small gastric SELs < 20 mm diagnosed using EUS at a tertiary referral center between 2009 and 2021. The clinical course after diagnosis using EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) was reviewed. RESULTS: Among 333 patients with small gastric SELs, 104 patients with 105 lesions underwent EUS-FNA. The pathological diagnosis was confirmed in 87 patients. GISTs were the most common pathology (47%). Among the 87 patients, 43 underwent therapeutic interventions, including tumor resection and chemotherapy. In groups of tumor resection, the pathological tumor size on the resected specimen was significantly larger than the size measured by EUS (19.5 mm vs 15.0 mm, P < 0.001), and 37% of resected SELs were 20 mm or over. No recurrence was observed after tumor resection during a mean follow-up period of 40 months. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 40% of small gastric SELs were malignant tumors, such as GIST, with most of them requiring treatment. Additionally, considering that the EUS measurement is 5 mm smaller than the pathological tumor diameter, further examinations, such as systematic EUS-FNA, may be required for SEL, including those smaller than 20 mm.

Impact of endoscopy intervals on metachronous gastric cancer after endoscopic submucosal dissection: Comparison between 1 year and half-a-year.

OBJECTIVES: Japanese guidelines recommend posttreatment endoscopy once or twice a year after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer. However, the impact of endoscopy intervals on metachronous gastric cancer (MGC) remains unclear, especially the difference between 1-year and half-a-year intervals. We aimed to investigate this difference. METHODS: This study retrospectively investigated 2429 patients who underwent gastric ESD between May 2001 and June 2019 at our hospital. Patients who developed MGC were classified based on those who underwent the previous endoscopy within at least 7 months (short-interval group) and within 8-13 months (regular-interval group). Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust for possible confounders. The primary outcome was the proportion of MGC beyond curative ESD criteria established in the guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 216 eligible patients developed MGC. The short- and regular-interval groups included 43 and 173 patients, respectively. Overall, no patients in the short-interval group had MGC beyond curative ESD criteria, while 27 patients in the regular-interval group did. The proportion of MGC beyond curative ESD criteria was significantly lower in the short-interval group than in the regular-interval group before (P = 0.003) and after (P = 0.028) PSM. Although not significant, the short-interval group tended to have a higher stomach preservation rate than the regular-interval group (P = 0.093). CONCLUSION: Our study indicated a possible benefit of biannual surveillance endoscopy in the early post-ESD period.

Predictors of severe submucosal fibrosis during endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with ulcerative colitis: Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Severe submucosal fibrosis is a crucial technical difficulty encountered during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). We aimed to identify predictors of severe submucosal fibrosis in patients with UC. METHODS: We retrospectively included 55 tumors resected using ESD from 48 consecutive patients with UC. We analyzed the clinicopathological characteristics and treatment outcomes between the F0/1 (none to mild submucosal fibrosis) group (n = 28) and F2 (severe submucosal fibrosis) group (n = 27). RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the F0/1 and F2 groups in en bloc resection rate (100% vs. 96%, P = 0.49), the R0 resection rate (100% vs. 93%, P = 0.24), and the dissection speed (0.18 vs. 0.13 cm2 /min, P = 0.07). Intraoperative perforation was more common in the F2 group (30%) than in the F0/1 group (8%; P = 0.01). Multivariable analysis showed that a longer duration of UC (≥10 years; odds ratio [OR] 6.11; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-31.03; P = 0.03) and scarring of background mucosa of the tumor (OR 39.61; 95% CI 3.91-400.78; P < 0.01) were independent predictors of severe submucosal fibrosis. CONCLUSION: Long UC duration and scarring background mucosa were predictors of severe submucosal fibrosis associated with perforation during ESD.

Endoscopic resection is feasible for high-grade dysplasia in patients with ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic resection (ER) is feasible for treating well-circumscribed dysplasia in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). However, long-term prognosis of ER for high-grade dysplasia (HGD) in patients with UC remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the long-term prognoses of ER for HGD compared with low-grade dysplasia (LGD) and verify the feasibility of ER and follow-up with surveillance colonoscopy for HGD. METHODS: An observational, single-center retrospective study included 38 and 22 patients with LGD and HGD who were followed-up with surveillance colonoscopy after ER. We evaluated the cumulative incidence rate of metachronous HGD or colorectal cancer (CRC) and identified the characteristics of metachronous dysplasia. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 56 months, and surveillance colonoscopies were performed 3.6 times (mean). The 5-year cumulative incidence rate of HGD/CRC was relatively high in HGD (24.6%) than in LGD (13.7%), but the difference was not significant (p = .16). In HGD cases, six metachronous dysplasia lesions (two LGD and four HGD) were detected 11.6-40.5 months after ER. However, these patients did not progress to CRC. All metachronous lesions were well-circumscribed and with no invisible dysplasia surrounding them; they were 'endoscopically resectable' lesions. Two of the four metachronous HGD lesions were treated endoscopically and two, by colectomy. No synchronous HGD or CRC was detected in the colectomy specimens. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that ER and follow-up with surveillance colonoscopy is feasible in patients with HGD when histological complete resection is achieved.

Endoscopic Resection with One-Port Placement: A Newly Developed Technique for the Safe Management of Advanced Endoscopic Resection for Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) without laparoscopic assistance (pure EFTR) is an emerging, less invasive treatment for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). However, the technique has seldom been performed outside China because of concerns regarding pneumoperitoneum, maintenance of endoscopic view, and endoscopic suturing. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection with one-port placement (EROPP) for gastric GISTs. METHODS: This retrospective study included 17 patients with gastric GISTs originating from the muscularis propria who underwent EROPP between 2019 and 2022. One camera port was inserted in the umbilicus before initiating the endoscopic procedure to maintain intra-abdominal pressure, which was monitored and adjusted via this port. While allowing for conversion to laparoscopic surgery if needed, EFTR was performed as follows: (1) circumferential incision of the mucosal and submucosal layers around the lesion was performed by typical endoscopic submucosal dissection; (2) an intentional perforation and subsequent seromuscular resection was made using dental floss and an endo-clip for traction; and (3) closure of the gastric full-thickness defect was performed with an over-the-scope clip (OTSC) after peroral retrieval of the specimen. We retrospectively assessed the short-term outcomes and safety. RESULTS: All procedures were completed successfully without conversion to laparoscopic surgery. The median size of the resected tumors was 23 mm (range, 8-35 mm), the median resection time was 36 min (range, 22-95 min), and closure time was 18 min (range, 10-45 min). The rates of en bloc and complete resection were 100% and 88%, respectively. In 2 cases, another port was added to aspirate the leaking fluid or check the condition of the endoscopic closure. All gastric defects were endoscopically closed, mainly using OTSCs. The recovery course for all patients was uneventful, and no adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: EROPP is a safe and minimally invasive treatment for gastric GISTs and appears to be suitable for introducing EFTR procedures.

Comparison of treatment outcomes between endoscopic submucosal dissection with the needle-type knife and insulated-tip knife for superficial esophageal neoplasms.

Our study aimed to compare the treatment outcomes between endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with an insulated-tip knife (ESD-IT) and a needle-type knife (ESD-N) for large superficial esophageal neoplasms, as no study of this kind has been previously reported. We used the dataset of a multicenter, randomized controlled trial that compared conventional ESD (C-ESD) and traction-assisted ESD (TA-ESD) for superficial esophageal neoplasms. We compared the procedural outcomes between ESD-IT and ESD-N in a post hoc analysis and conducted sub-analyses based on traction assistance and electrical knife type. We included 223 (EST-IT, n = 169; ESD-N, n = 54) patients with no significant differences in baseline characteristics. The operator handover rate due to ESD difficulties was significantly higher in ESD-N (ESD-IT = 0.6% vs. ESD-N = 13.0%, P = 0.001), while the injection volume was significantly higher in ESD-IT than in ESD-N (40.0 vs. 20.5 mL, P < 0.001). Other outcomes were comparable between both groups (procedural time: 51.0 vs. 49.5 minute, P = 0.89; complete resection: 90.5% vs. 90.7%, P > 0.99; and complication rate: 1.8% vs. 3.7%, P = 0.60 for ESD-IT and ESD-N, respectively). In the sub-analyses, the handover rate was significantly lower with TA-ESD than with C-ESD for ESD-N (3.2% vs. 26.1%, P = 0.034), and a significantly smaller injection volume was used in TA-ESD than in C-ESD for ESD-IT (31.5 vs. 47.0 mL, P < 0.01). ESD with either endoscopic device achieved favorable treatment outcomes with low complication rates. The handover rate in ESD-N and the injection volume in ESD-IT improved with the traction method.

Learning curve analysis for duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection: A single-operator experience.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Superficial duodenal epithelial tumors are emerging targets for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). However, it is unknown how competence is achieved in duodenal ESD. This study aimed to elucidate the learning curve for duodenal ESD. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included 100 consecutive patients who underwent duodenal ESD by a single endoscopist between March 2014 and September 2021. The primary outcome was to define the learning curve for duodenal ESD by an endoscopist with sufficient non-duodenal ESD experience. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) curve analysis was used to assess the learning curve in terms of procedural speed. Comparative analyses of phases identified using the CUSUM method were performed. RESULTS: In total, 98 patients were included in the analysis. Evaluation of the cumulative sum curve revealed four distinct phases in the graph: phase I, cases 1-25 (learning phase); phase II, cases 26-47 (proficiency phase); phase III, cases 48-72 (mastery phase); and phase IV, cases 73-98 (after introduction of general anesthesia). The median procedural speed was significantly faster in phase II than in phase I (11.1 mm2 /min vs 7.0 mm2 /min, P = .002). Clinically significant intraoperative perforation tended to decrease through phase II to phase IV (22.7%, 12.0%, and 3.8% in phases II, III, and IV, respectively). Delayed perforation occurred only in phases I and II. CONCLUSIONS: Duodenal ESD requires 25 cases to gain proficiency and 50 to achieve mastery even for an endoscopist with extensive non-duodenal ESD experience.

Safety and efficacy of water pressure endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal tumors with submucosal fibrosis (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colorectal neoplasms with submucosal fibrosis are the most challenging targets of endoscopic resection. Water pressure endoscopic submucosal dissection (WP-ESD) is a recently introduced procedure that has several advantages over conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (C-ESD). This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of WP-ESD for fibrotic colorectal neoplasms. METHODS: This retrospective observational study investigated 133 colorectal neoplasms expected to have submucosal fibrosis that were resected by WP-ESD or C-ESD between April 2012 and April 2020. Eighty-seven lesions after endoscopic or surgical treatment, 18 with biopsy scar with fold convergence and 28 in patients with ulcerative colitis, were included. The differences in treatment outcomes, including procedure time and adverse event proportions, between the WP-ESD and C-ESD groups were analyzed. The clinical course after perforation using WP-ESD was also evaluated, including postprocedural multidetector CT findings obtained immediately after WP-ESD. RESULTS: Severe submucosal fibrosis was observed in 96 lesions (72.2%). The median procedure time was significantly shorter in the WP-ESD group than in the C-ESD group (43.5 minutes [interquartile range {IQR}, 32.8-73] vs 72 minutes [IQR, 45-105]; P = .0041). The multivariate analysis revealed WP-ESD as an independent factor for a short procedure time (odds ratio, 2.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-6.55). The proportions of post-ESD electrocoagulation syndrome (11.6% vs 13.1%) and perforation (20.4% vs 22.8%) were similar between the groups. Four of 11 patients with perforation who underwent WP-ESD showed fluid collection on postprocedural multidetector CT images. CONCLUSIONS: WP-ESD can shorten procedure time for treating fibrotic colorectal neoplasms.

Appropriate endoscopic treatment selection and surveillance for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors.

OBJECTIVES: Superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) have become frequently detected and referred for endoscopic resection (ER). However, optimal treatment methods and long-term outcomes after ER of SNADETs have not been fully elucidated. We aimed to clarify them by analyzing our large cohort of patients with SNADETs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We enrolled 190 consecutive tumors from 189 patients undergoing ER between January 2004 and September 2019. Cases were stratified into endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), conventional endoscopic mucosal resection, (CEMR) and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR). Baseline characteristics and short-term outcomes were compared between the groups. Long-term outcomes were also investigated with a median follow-up of 36 months. RESULTS: ESD significantly exceeded CEMR (96.4% vs. 52.9%; p = .0026) and UEMR (96.4% vs. 50.0%; p = .0008) in complete resection rates for 11- to 20-mm lesions; the differences were not significant for lesions ≤10 mm. Local recurrence only occurred in patients with an incomplete resection. Only patients with submucosal invasion died from the primary neoplasms. The 3- and 5-year disease-free survivals were 91.3% and 83.5%. CONCLUSIONS: While tumors ≤10 mm seem to be good indications for endoscopic mucosal resection, ESD should be considered for larger tumors to better achieve complete resection. Patients with submucosal invasive carcinomas have a great risk of cancer death. Therefore, a close follow-up and an additional treatment are desirable.

An endoscopic treatment strategy for superficial tumors in patients with ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopic resection is feasible for superficial tumors in patients with ulcerative colitis; however, endoscopic resection options have not been evaluated comprehensively. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection, and decision making regarding endoscopic resection options for patients with ulcerative colitis. METHODS: Endoscopically treated tumors from patients with ulcerative colitis were analyzed retrospectively. We evaluated en bloc and R0 resection, adverse events, local tumor recurrence, and metachronous lesion occurrence rates. RESULTS: We examined 102 tumors (mean size, 12 mm; non-polypoid, 55 tumors) from 74 patients with ulcerative colitis, of whom, 39 and 63 underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection, respectively. The R0 resection rate was significantly higher for endoscopic submucosal dissection (97%) than for endoscopic mucosal resection (80%) (P = 0.0015). For 11-20-mm tumors, the R0 resection rate was significantly higher for endoscopic submucosal dissection (94%) than for endoscopic mucosal resection (55%) (P = 0.0027); the endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection R0 rates did not differ for ≤ 10-mm tumors. The non-polypoid tumor R0 resection rates were significantly higher for endoscopic submucosal dissection (100%) than for endoscopic mucosal resection (65%) (P < 0.001) and did not differ regarding the polypoid tumor R0 resection rates (75% vs 86%, P = 0.49). Four patients experienced intraoperative perforation during endoscopic submucosal dissection. No local recurrences occurred. Metachronous high-grade dysplasia occurred in three patients during surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ulcerative colitis, endoscopic submucosal dissection is suitable for ≥ 11-mm and non-polypoid tumors, whereas endoscopic mucosal resection is acceptable for ≤ 10-mm tumors.

Factors influencing interruption of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become a standardized procedure worldwide, the difficulty of the procedure is well known. However, there have been no studies assessing the causes of treatment interruption. The present study aimed to evaluate the factors involved in the interruption of colorectal ESD. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 1116 consecutive superficial colorectal neoplasms of 1012 patients who were treated with ESD between August 2008 and September 2018. The clinicopathological characteristics and treatment outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Interrupted ESD was reported in 14 lesions (1.3%) of the total study population. Univariate analysis of clinical characteristics indicated that age, 0-I macroscopic-type tumor, and tumor location on the left side colon were risk factors for interruption. Multivariate analysis revealed that 0-I macroscopic-type tumor was the sole preoperative independent risk factor for interruption. Univariate analysis revealed that the presence of muscle-retracting sign (MRS), deep submucosal tumor invasion, and intermediate invasive growth pattern represented the etiology of interruption. Multivariate analysis indicated that MRS can be a sole key sign for the interruption. Additionally, the resectability and curability of 0-I type tumors were significantly inferior to those of predominantly lateral spreading tumors. Observations of 0-I macroscopic-type tumors, MRS, and submucosal deep invasion were significantly more frequent in interrupted cases. Conventional endoscopic images without magnification endoscopy were more associated with interruption than irregular surfaces or Vi pit patterns in cases with 0-I type tumors. CONCLUSION: ESD of 0-I type tumors is highly disruptive, and undiagnosable submucosal infiltration can reduce the curability.

Conventional versus traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection for large esophageal cancers: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely used as a minimally invasive treatment for large esophageal cancers, but prolonged procedure duration and life-threatening adverse events remain matters of concern. We aimed to determine whether traction-assisted ESD (TA-ESD) is superior to conventional ESD in terms of technical outcomes. METHODS: A superiority, randomized, phase III trial was conducted at 7 institutions across Japan. Patients with large esophageal cancer (defined as tumor diameter >20 mm) were eligible for this study. Enrolled patients were randomly assigned to undergo conventional ESD or TA-ESD. The primary endpoint was ESD procedure duration. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-one patients were recruited and randomized. On applying exclusion criteria, 117 and 116 patients who underwent conventional ESD and TA-ESD, respectively, were included in the baseline analysis. In 1 patient, conventional ESD was discontinued because of severe perforation. Thus, the final analysis included 116 patients per group (primary analysis). The ESD procedure duration was significantly shorter for TA-ESD than for conventional ESD (44.5 minutes vs 60.5 minutes, respectively; P < .001). Moreover, no adverse events were noted in the TA-ESD group. The rate of horizontal margin involvement did not differ between the groups (10.3% vs 6.9% for conventional ESD and TA-ESD, respectively; P = .484). CONCLUSIONS: TA-ESD was superior to conventional ESD in terms of procedure duration and was not associated with any adverse events. TA-ESD should be considered the procedure of choice for large esophageal cancers. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000024080.).

Utility of multi-detector computed tomography scans after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Several reports have described major adverse events after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), such as perforation or bleeding. However, few studies have discussed the occurrence of post-ESD electrocoagulation syndrome (PEECS) after colorectal ESD. In addition, the occurrence of fever without abdominal pain in patients requires postoperative management similar to that required for PEECS. Therefore, we have defined post-ESD inflammatory syndrome (PEIS) composed of both PEECS and fever without abdominal pain. This study aimed to evaluate the correlation between the findings of multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) imaging and PEIS in patients. METHODS: Between January 2015 and October 2015, we performed colorectal ESD in 100 patients; after this, all patients underwent abdominal examinations by MDCT scans. Nine patients who experienced intraoperative perforations or penetrations were excluded; 91 patients were enrolled in our prospective study. MDCT findings in patients were classified according to the amount of extraluminal gas. The patients were divided into 2 groups based on the presence or absence of extraluminal gas and were assessed for co-occurring PEIS. RESULTS: Among the 91 patients, extraluminal gas was observed in 31 (34%); of these, PEIS occurred in 14 (15%) patients. Patients with extraluminal gas had increased incidence of PEIS compared with patients without extraluminal gas (29% vs 8%, P = .014). CONCLUSIONS: Extraluminal gas was detected by MDCT in many cases and significantly correlated with the occurrence of PEIS, even in cases without obvious intraoperative perforation or penetration. MDCT findings after ESD may be useful for predicting PEIS and appropriate perioperative management.

Conventional versus traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric neoplasms: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The aim of this study was to clarify whether dental floss clip (DFC) traction improves the technical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). METHODS: A superiority, randomized control trial was conducted at 14 institutions across Japan. Patients with single gastric neoplasm meeting the indications of the Japanese guidelines for gastric treatment were enrolled and assigned to receive conventional ESD or DFC traction-assisted ESD (DFC-ESD). Randomization was performed according to a computer-generated random sequence with stratification by institution, tumor location, tumor size, and operator experience. The primary endpoint was ESD procedure time, defined as the time from the start of the submucosal injection to the end of the tumor removal procedure. RESULTS: Between July 2015 and September 2016, 640 patients underwent randomization. Of these, 316 patients who underwent conventional ESD and 319 patients who underwent DFC-ESD were included in our analysis. The mean ESD procedure time was 60.7 and 58.1 minutes for conventional ESD and DFC-ESD, respectively (P = .45). Perforation was less frequent in the DFC-ESD group (2.2% vs .3%, P = .04). For lesions located in the greater curvature of the upper or middle stomach, the mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the DFC-ESD group (104.1 vs 57.2 minutes, P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that DFC-ESD does not result in shorter procedure time in the overall patient population, but it can reduce the risk of perforation. When selectively applied to lesions located in the greater curvature of the upper or middle stomach, DFC-ESD provides a remarkable reduction in procedure time.

Histological verification of the usefulness of magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging for horizontal margin diagnosis of differentiated-type early gastric cancers.

BACKGROUND: Although magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging (ME-NBI) can help identify the horizontal margin (HM) of early gastric cancer (EGC), little is known about the factors that can clarify the HM by using ME-NBI. We aimed to characterize the pathological features of lesions in which the HM was identified using ME-NBI. METHODS: The HMs of 639 differentiated-type EGCs treated with endoscopic submucosal dissection or surgery were analyzed using conventional endoscopy and ME-NBI. The number and width of the intervening parts (IP) and the number, width, and depth of the subepithelial capillaries (SEC) in cancerous and noncancerous areas were measured. RESULTS: In 13 lesions (2.0%), more than 90% of the HM was not recognized with conventional endoscopy, but 11 of these lesions were detectable with ME-NBI (NBI group). The HMs of the other 626 lesions were mostly recognized using conventional endoscopy (WLI/CE group). In the NBI group, the IP width, standard deviation (SD), and number of IPs did not significantly differ between the cancerous and noncancerous areas. However, the SEC number was significantly larger and the depth was shallower in cancerous areas. In the WLI/CE group, the IP width and SD were significantly larger, but the IP number was significantly smaller in cancerous areas. The SEC depth was significantly shallower in cancerous areas. CONCLUSIONS: Differences of IP width, SD, and IP number may be factors for identifying HMs with conventional endoscopy. Because NBI can better visualize vessel structures, the increased SEC number and shallow SECs may clarify the HM.

A pilot study of fluorescent imaging of colorectal tumors using a γ-glutamyl-transpeptidase-activatable fluorescent probe.

UNLABELLED: Backgrounds/Aim: Colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) are sometimes difficult to visualize even with image-enhanced endoscopy. γ-Glutamyl-transpeptidase (GGT) is a cell surface-associated enzyme that is overexpressed in various types of human cancers. Furthermore, GGT expression is higher in colorectal cancer cells than in normal colorectal mucosa. γ-Glutamyl hydroxymethyl rhodamine green (gGlu-HMRG), an activatable fluorescent probe, is nonfluorescent under a neutral pH and normal cellular environment; however, it turns highly fluorescent upon reaction with GGT. We evaluated ex vivo fluorescent imaging of colorectal LSTs using this GGT-activatable fluorescent probe. METHODS: Between March 2013 and March 2014, 30 endoscopically resected colorectal LSTs were prospectively included in this study. Each was analyzed by first taking a baseline image before spraying, then spraying with gGlu-HMRG onto the freshly resected specimen, and finally taking fluorescent images 15 min after spraying with a dedicated imaging machine. RESULTS: Of the LSTs, 67% rapidly showed positive fluorescent activity. These activities were shown in adenoma (54%) and carcinoma in adenoma (76%), and in LST-granular type (80%) and LST-nongranular type (40%). CONCLUSION: Topically spraying gGlu-HMRG enabled rapid and selective fluorescent imaging of colorectal tumors owing to the upregulated GGT activity in cancer cells.

Safety and effectiveness of propofol-based monitored anesthesia care without intubation during endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric and esophageal cancers.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) becomes more difficult with an increased risk of complications if patient sedation is insufficient. We assessed the safety and effectiveness of propofol-based monitored anesthesia care (MAC) without intubation during ESD for early esophageal cancer (EEC) or early gastric cancer (EGC) in the endoscopy room. METHODS: We investigated 1013 consecutive patients with 1126 lesions who underwent ESD for EGC/EEC with either MAC or regular sedation by endoscopists (control group) between July 2010 and March 2013. Patient characteristics, endoscopic findings, technical results, body movement, oxygen saturation (SpO2 ), and drug dosages were then examined. RESULTS: MAC was carried out in 137 EGC (16%) and 82 EEC patients (57%), whereas regular sedation was used in 731 EGC (84%) and 63 EEC patients (43%). MAC was conducted in 21% of all ESD procedures. In the MAC and control groups, body movement requiring a third person for control occurred in 30 (22%) and 533 (72%) cases during gastric ESD (P < 0.0001) and in 36 (44%) and 53 (84%) cases during esophageal ESD (P < 0.0001), respectively. The median minimum SpO2 was significantly lower in the MAC group than in the control group during both gastric and esophageal ESD (96% vs 98%, P < 0.0001; 96% vs 98%, P < 0.0004, respectively). MAC did not cause any adverse effects requiring prolongation of hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol-based MAC without intubation provided a safer treatment environment by significantly reduced body movement and was very effective for difficult cases requiring longer procedure times or more powerful sedation.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric tube cancer after esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Recent improvements in the survival of patients after esophagectomy have led to an increasing occurrence of gastric tube cancer (GTC). Removal of the reconstructed gastric tube, however, can lead to high morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and effectiveness of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for GTC. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan. PATIENTS: We investigated patients with GTC after esophagectomy undergoing ESD from 1998 to 2011. INTERVENTION ESD MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Patient characteristics, endoscopic findings, technical results, histopathology including curability and Helicobacter pylori gastritis, and long-term outcomes. RESULTS: There were 51 consecutive patients with 79 lesions including 38 lesions (48%) meeting the absolute indication, 31 (39%) satisfying the expanded indications, and 10 (13%) falling outside such indications. The median procedure time was 90 minutes. There were 73 en bloc resections (92%), 59 en bloc resections with tumor-free margins (R0 resections, 75%), and 51 curative resections (65%) based on the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association criteria. Fifty patients (98%) were assessed as H pylori gastritis positive. Adverse events included 3 perforations (3.8%) during ESD and 2 delayed perforations (2.5%) without any emergency surgery and 3 delayed bleeding (3.8%). Local recurrence was detected in 4 patients (7.8%), and metachronous GTCs were identified in 18 patients (35%). Five patients (10%) died of GTC including 3 metachronous lesions. The 5-year overall survival rate was 68.4%, and the disease-specific survival rate was 86.7% with 100% for curative and 72.7% for non-curative patients during a median follow-up period of 3.8 years (range, 0-12.1 years). LIMITATION: Single-center retrospective study. CONCLUSIONS: ESD for GTC was feasible and effective for curative patients; however, long-term outcomes for non-curative patients were less satisfactory.