EUS vs. ERCP-guided primary drainage of inoperable distal malignant biliary obstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) as first-line interventions in distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO). We assessed the efficacy and safety of these two approaches. METHODS: A PubMed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases bibliographic search until 01/12/2023 was performed to identify RCTs comparing EUS-BD to ERCP for primary biliary drainage in inoperable patients with DMBO. Primary outcome was technical success. Secondary outcomes were clinical success, adverse events (AEs), mean procedure time, 1-year stent patency, and overall survival. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using random-effect model. RESULTS: Five studies (519 patients) were included. The RR for pooled technical success in EUS-BD was 1.06 ([0.96-1.17]; P=0.27) and 1.02 [0.97-1.08]; P=0.45) for clinical success. 1-year stent patency was similar among the two groups (RR 1.15; [0.94-1.42], P=0.17), with lower reintervention in the EUS-BD group (RR 0.58; [0.37-0.9]; P=0.01). The RR of AEs rate was 0.85 [0.49-1.46]; P=0.55) and severe AEs of 0.97 [0.10-0.17]; P=0.98). On subgroup analysis, EUS-lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) outperformed ERCP in term of technical success (RR 1.17; [1.01-1.35]; P=0.03). Procedure time was lower in EUS-BD (standardized mean difference -2.36 minutes; [-2.68 to -2.05]; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-BD showed a statistically significant lower re-intervention rate compared to ERCP, but with similar technical success rate, stent patency, clinical success rate and safety profile, while in the subgroup of EUS-LAMS, the technical success was better than ERCP Keywords: distal; biliary obstruction; efficacy; safety.

Underwater EMR versus conventional EMR for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors in the Western setting.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) is established as the primary treatment modality for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) but recently underwater EMR (U-EMR) emerged as a potential alternative. The majority of previous studies focused on Asian populations and small lesions (≤20 mm). We aimed to compare the efficacy and outcomes of U-EMR versus C-EMR for SNADETs in a Western setting. METHODS: This was a retrospective multinational study from 10 European centers that performed both C-EMR and U-EMR between January 2013 and July 2023. The main outcomes were the technical success, procedure-related adverse events (AEs), and the residual/recurrent adenoma (RRA) rate, evaluated on a per-lesion basis. We assessed the association between the type of EMR and the occurrence of AEs or RRA using mixed-effects logistic regression models (propensity scores). Sensitivity analyses were performed for lesions ≤ or >20 mm. RESULTS: A total of 290 SNADETs submitted to endoscopic resection during the study period met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed (C-EMR n=201, 69.3%; U-EMR n=89, 30.7%). Overall technical success rate was 95.5% and comparable between groups. In logistic regression models, compared with U-EMR, C-EMR was associated with a significantly higher frequency of overall delayed AEs (OR 4.95; 95%CI=2.87-8.53), post-procedural bleeding (OR=7.92; 95%CI=3.95-15.89) and RRA (OR=3.66; 95%CI=2.49-5.37). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results when solely considering either small (≤20 mm) or large (>20 mm) lesions. CONCLUSION: Compared with C-EMR, U-EMR was associated with a lower rate of overall AEs and RRA, regardless of lesion size. Our results confirm the possible role of U-EMR as an effective and safe technique in the management of SNADETs.

Environmental impact of small-bowel capsule endoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: The environmental impact of endoscopy, including small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), has gained attention due to its contribution to the global carbon footprint. This study aimed to evaluate the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (kgCO2e) of SBCE, including devices life cycle and capsule journey. METHODS: SBCE devices (3 brands) were evaluated using life cycle assessment methodology (ISO 14040), including patient travelling, bowel preparation, capsule examination and video recording. A survey was conducted on 120 patients undergoing a SBCE to gather data on their transportation, activities during the procedure, and awareness of pollution generated and on 87 physicians reading capsules. RESULTS: For the 3 different capsules, the weight was 4 g (3.9-5.2% of total), while 43 to 119 g were attributed for packaging (9-97%) including 5 g of deactivation magnets (4-6%) and 11 to 50 g for instruction forms (40%). A full SBCE generated between 19 and 20 kgCO2e, including 0.04 kgCO2e (0.2%) for the capsule itself and 18 kgCO2e related to patient travelling (94.7%). Capsule retrieval would add 0.98 kgCO2e using dedicated devices. Capsule deconstruction revealed components (e.g. Neodymium) that are prohibited from environmental disposal. 76% of patients were not aware of the illegal nature of flushing capsules, and 63% would be willing to retrieve it. Data storage and physician impact were negligible. CONCLUSION: The GHG emission of SBCE is mainly determined by patient travelling. The capsule device itself has a comparably low carbon footprint. Considering capsule components disposal is illegal, retrieval of the capsule seems crucial but increasing device-related emissions.

Traction-assisted endoscopic submucosal dissection to resect ileo-cecal valve neoplasia: a French retrospective multicenter case series.

INTRODUCTION: The ileocecal valve (ICV) is considered to be one of the most difficult locations for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of traction-assisted ESD in this situation. METHODS: All patients who underwent traction assisted ESD for an ICV lesion were identified from a prospective ESD database in three centers. The results were evaluated in terms of en bloc, R0 rate. Factors associated with R0 failure were explored. RESULTS: In total, 106 patients with an ileocecal lesion were included. The median diameter of the lesions was 50 mm (IQR 38-60) and 58.4% (62/106) invaded the terminal ileum. The en-bloc and R0 resection rates were 94.8% and 76.4%, respectively. Factors associated with R0 failure were lesions covering more than 75% of the ICV (OR, 0.21 [0.06, 0.76] p = 0.018), anal lip involvement (OR 0.36 [0.13, 0.99], p= 0.037), and more than two sites of the ICV (OR 0.28 [0.08, 1.01] p = 0.030). CONCLUSION: Traction-assisted ESD to treat ICV lesions is a safe and feasible option. Large lesions and anal lip involvement appear to be factors predictive of difficulty.

Curative criteria for endoscopic treatment of colorectal cancer.

As endoscopic treatment enables en bloc resection of T1 colorectal cancers, the risk of recurrence, often assimilated to the risk of lymph node metastases, must be assessed in order to offer patients an additional treatment if this risk is deemed significant. The curative criteria currently used by most guidelines are depth of invasion <1 mm, well or moderately differentiated tumour, absence of lympho-vascular invasion, absence of significant budding and tumour-free resection margins. However, these factors must be assessed by qualified pathologists, as they are difficult to evaluate. Moreover, the combination of these factors leads to unnecessary surgery in over 80 % of patients whose tumours are classified as high risk. Refinement of current criteria and research into new tumour and immunological markers are needed to better predict the actual risk of our patients.

Non-metastatic colon cancer: French Intergroup Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatments, and follow-up (TNCD, SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, ACHBT, SFP, AFEF, and SFR).

INTRODUCTION: This article is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of non-metastatic colon cancer (CC), revised in November 2022. METHODS: These guidelines represent collaborative work of all French medical and surgical societies involved in the management of CC. Recommendations were graded in three categories (A, B, and C) according to the level of evidence found in the literature published up to November 2022. RESULTS: Initial evaluation of CC is based on clinical examination, colonoscopy, chest-abdomen-pelvis computed tomography (CT) scan, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) assay. CC is usually managed by surgery and adjuvant treatment depending on the pathological findings. The use of adjuvant therapy remains a challenging question in stage II disease. For high-risk stage II CC, adjuvant chemotherapy must be discussed and fluoropyrimidine monotherapy or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy proposed according to the type and number of poor prognostic features. Oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (FOLFOX or CAPOX) is the current standard for adjuvant therapy of patients with stage III CC. However, these regimens are associated with significant oxaliplatin-induced neurotoxicity. The results of the recent IDEA study provide evidence that 3 months of treatment with CAPOX is as effective as 6 months of oxaliplatin-based therapy in patients with low-risk stage III CC (T1-3 and N1). A 6-month oxaliplatin-based therapy remains the standard of care for high-risk stage III CC (T4 and/or N2). For patients unfit for oxaliplatin, fluoropyrimidine monotherapy is recommended. CONCLUSION: French guidelines for non-metastatic CC management help to offer the best personalized therapeutic strategy in daily clinical practice. Each individual case must be discussed within a multidisciplinary tumor board and then the treatment option decided with the patient.

Will Endoscopic-Ultrasound-Guided Choledocoduodenostomy with Electrocautery-Enhanced Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent Placement Replace Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography When Treating Distal Malignant Biliary Obstructions?

Malignant distal biliary obstructions are becoming increasingly common, especially in patients with cancers of the pancreatic head, despite progress in medical oncology research. ERCP is the current gold standard for management of such strictures, but the emergence of EC-LAMS has rendered EUS-CDS both safe and efficient. It is a "game changer"; originally intended for ERCP failure, two randomised clinical trials recently proposed EUS-CDS as a first-intent procedure in palliative settings. For resectable diseases, the absence of iatrogenic pancreatitis associated with a lower rate of postsurgical adverse events (compared with ERCP) leads us to believe that EUS-CDS might be used in first-intent as a pre-operative endoscopic biliary drainage.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection assisted by adaptive traction: results of the first 54 procedures.

BACKGROUND : Good submucosal exposure is key to successful endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and can be achieved with various traction devices. Nevertheless, these devices have a fixed traction force that tends to decrease as the dissection progresses. In contrast, the ATRACT adaptive traction device increases traction during the procedure. METHODS : In this retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data (from a French database), we analyzed ESD procedures performed with the ATRACT device between April 2022 and October 2022. The device was used consecutively whenever possible. We collected details of lesion characteristics, procedural data, histologic outcomes, and clinical consequences for the patient. RESULTS : 54 resections performed in 52 patients by two experienced operators (46 procedures) and six novices (eight procedures) were analyzed. The ATRACT devices used were the ATRACT-2 (n = 21), the ATRACT 2 + 2 (n = 30), and the ATRACT-4 (n = 3). Four adverse events were observed: one perforation (1.9 %), which was closed endoscopically, and three delayed bleeding events (5.5 %). The R0 rate was 93 %, resulting in curative resection in 91 % of cases. CONCLUSION: ESD using the ATRACT device is safe and effective in the colon and rectum, but can also be used to assist with procedures in the upper gastrointestinal tract. It may be particularly useful in difficult locations.