Endoscopic therapies for patients with obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a major threat to public health and traditional bariatric surgery continues to have low utilization. Endoscopic treatments for obesity have emerged that offer less risk, but questions remain regarding efficacy, durability, and safety. We compared the efficacy of endoscopic bariatric procedures as compared to other existing treatments. METHODS: A literature search of Embase, Cochrane Central, and Pubmed was conducted from January 1, 2014 to December 7, 2021, including endoscopic bariatric therapies that were FDA or CE approved at the time of search to non-endoscopic treatments. Thirty-seven studies involving 15,639 patients were included. Primary outcomes included % total body weight loss (%TBWL), % excess body weight loss (%EBWL), and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included quality of life data and differences in hemoglobin A1C levels. Strength of clinical trial and observational data were graded according to the Cochrane methods. RESULTS: Intragastric balloons achieved greater %TBWL with a range of 7.6-14.1% compared to 3.3-6.7% with lifestyle modification at 6 months, and 7.5-14.0% compared to 3.1-7.9%, respectively, at 12 months. When endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) was compared to laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), ESG had less %TBWL at 4.7-14.4% compared to 18.8-26.5% after LSG at 6 months, and 4.5-18.6% as compared to 28.4-29.3%, respectively, at 12 months. For the AspireAssist, there was greater %TBWL with aspiration therapy compared to lifestyle modification at 12 months, 12.1-18.3% TBWL versus 3.5-5.9% TBWL, respectively. All endoscopic interventions had higher adverse events rates compared to lifestyle modification. CONCLUSION: This review is the first to evaluate various endoscopic bariatric therapies using only RCTs and observational studies for evaluation of weight loss compared with conservative management, lifestyle modification, and bariatric surgery. Endoscopic therapies result in greater weight loss compared to lifestyle modification, but not as much as bariatric surgery. Endoscopic therapies may be beneficial as an alternative to bariatric surgery.

Surgical and Endoscopic Resection of Duodenal Neuroendocrine Tumors Have Similar Disease-Specific Survival Outcome.

BACKGROUND: Duodenal neuroendocrine tumors (dNETs) are rare, and their management is not well-defined. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend surgical resection of large dNETs (> 2 cm) and endoscopic resection of small tumors (< 2 cm). We compared the survival outcomes between surgical and endoscopic resection in various dNET sizes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using patient data from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) database. Variables analyzed included age, tumor size, grade, stage, and lymph node status. Disease-specific survival (DSS) was compared for endoscopic and surgical groups in dNET size strata: 0-0.5, 0.5-1, 1-2, 2-3, and > 3 cm. Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used for survival analysis. RESULTS: The study included 465 patients, with 124 (26.7%) undergoing surgical resection. The average age was 61.9 years, and tumor sizes ranged from 0.1 to 10.5 cm. Endoscopic resection had 40.5% of tumors between 0 and 0.5 cm, while surgery had only 21% (p < 0.001). In the surgical cohort, 79.8% had grade 1 tumors compared to 88.3% in the endoscopy group (P = 0.024). Among surgically resected cases, 48.4% (60 patients) had lymph node involvement. Age, tumor size, grade, and stage did not significantly predict survival after surgical resection. Stratified by tumor size, no difference in DSS was observed between surgery and endoscopy groups. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic resection demonstrated similar survival outcomes to surgical resection across dNET sizes in this national analysis. Given the risks and the lack of survival benefits for surgery, endoscopic resection may be beneficial for both small and large tumors. Further studies are warranted to validate the current NCCN guidelines.