Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Resections Larger than 10 cm: Outcomes from a Portuguese Center.

Background: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a minimally invasive technique for en bloc resection of superficial neoplastic lesions, independent of their size. However, for giant gastrointestinal superficial neoplasia, the risk of invasive cancer is higher, and ESD is typically challenging. Despite the increasing literature on giant resections, data on their efficacy and safety are still lacking. Objective: The aim of this study was to describe ESD outcomes from a Portuguese center, compare them with other international studies, and analyze the possible risk factors influencing outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective single-center review using a prospectively collected database, including patients with rectal ESD resections larger than 10 cm, between January 2016 and December 2021. Clinical, procedural, and pathological data were collected and analyzed. Revision of the literature for comparison with international results was done through PubMed. Data were analyzed and statistical analysis performed, using Microsoft Excel and SPSS, to identify significant risk factors. Results: The study included 15 rectal resections, with a mean diameter of 140.9 mm (range 105-270), corresponding to lesions of 125.9 mm (87-238). The overall en bloc resection rate was 100% (n = 15). According to ESGE criteria, procedure was considered curative in 53.3% (n = 8), non-curative with high risk in 13.3% (n = 2), and local-risk recurrence in 33.3% (n = 5). Adverse events occurred in 26.7% (n = 4): 1 minor perforation and 3 stenosis, most endoscopically managed. For non-curative resections with local-risk recurrence, surveillance without adjuvant therapy was performed in all cases. For high-risk non-curative resections, surgery was performed in 1 patient and adjuvant chemoradiation therapy in another. Follow-up (mean 16 months) demonstrated a recurrence rate of 0%. Statistical analysis revealed resection size ≥20 cm as a risk factor for perforation (p value 0.067), and involvement of ≥90% of the circumference and procedural time ≥4 h as risk factors for stenosis (p value 0.029 and 0.009, respectively). Conclusions: Although challenging, ESD for giant lesions seems effective and safe, with a still relevant rate of complications, which were mostly endoscopically treated. Rigorous characterization of lesions is crucial to predict and avoid complications or the need for therapy escalation.

Background: A dissecao endoscopica da submucosa (DES) e uma tecnica minimamente invasiva para ressecao em bloco de tumores superficiais, independentemente do seu tamanho. No entanto, nas neoplasias superficiais gastrointestinais gigantes, o risco de cancro invasivo esta aumentado e a DES e tipicamente desafiante. Apesar do incremento da literatura acerca de ressecoes gigantes, dados da sua eficacia e seguranca sao ainda escassos. Objetivo: Descricao de outcomes de DES de um centro portugues e comparacao com estudos internacionais. Analise de eventuais fatores de risco influenciando os outcomes. Métodos: Revisao retrospetiva de um centro, usando a sua base de dados prospectivamente colhida, incluindo pacientes com ressecoes rectais por DES maiores que 10 cm, entre janeiro 2016 e dezembro 2021. Dados clinicos, endoscopicos e patologicos foram colhidos e analisados. A literatura foi revista atraves do PubMed, para comparacao com resultados internacionais. A analise dos resultados e estatistica foi realizada, utilizando o Microsoft Excel e SPSS, para a identificacao de fatores de risco com impacto significativo nos outcomes. Resultados: O estudo incluiu um total de 15 ressecoes retais, com uma media de diametros de 140,9 mm (intervalo 105­270), correspondendo a lesoes 125,9 mm (intervalo 87­238). A taxa de ressecao em bloco foi de 100% (n = 15). Segundo os criterios da ESGE, o procedimento foi curativo em 53,3% (n = 8), nao curativo com alto risco em 13,3% (n = 2) e com risco de recorrencia local em 33,3% (n = 5). Eventos adversos ocorreram em 26,7% (n = 4): 1 microperfuracao e 3 estenoses, a maioria geridas endoscopicamente. Os 5 casos nao curativos com risco de recorrencia local ficaram apenas sob vigilancia. Nas resseccoes nao curativas de alto risco, um paciente foi submetido a cirurgia e outro a quimioradioterapia adjuvante. O follow-up (media de 16 meses) demonstrou uma taxa de recorrencia de 0%. A analise estatistica demonstrou o tamanho da resseccao ≥20 cm como fator de risco significativo para perfuracao (p value 0.067); e envolvimento de ≥ 90% da circunferencia do lumen e tempo de procedimento ≥4h como fatores de risco significativos para estenose (p value 0.029 e 0.009, respetivamente). Conclusão: Apesar de desafiante, a DES para lesoes gigantes parece eficaz e segura, com uma taxa de complicacoes importante, possiveis de tratamento endoscopico. A caracterizacao rigorosa destas lesoes e crucial para predizer e evitar complicacoes ou a necessidade de escalada terapeutica.

Early intervention with biologic therapy in Crohn´s disease: how early is early?

BACKGROUND: Early biologic therapy within the first 18-24 months after diagnosis is associated with improved clinical outcomes in Crohn's disease [CD]. However, the definition of the best time to initiate biologic therapy remains unclear. We aimed to assess if there is an optimal timing for early biologic therapy initiation. METHODS: This was a multicentre retrospective cohort study including newly diagnosed CD patients who started anti-tumour necrosis factor [TNF] therapy within 24 months from diagnosis. The timing of initiation of biologic therapy was categorised as ≤6, 7-12, 13-18, and 19-24 months. The primary outcome was CD-related complications defined as a composite of progression of Montreal disease behaviour, CD-related hospitalisations, or CD-related intestinal surgeries. Secondary outcomes included clinical, laboratory, endoscopic, and transmural remission. RESULTS: We included 141 patients where 54%, 26%, 11%, and 9% started biologic therapy at ≤6, 7-12, 13-18, and 19-24 months after diagnosis, respectively. A total of 34 patients [24%] reached the primary outcome: 8% had progression of disease behaviour, 15% were hospitalised, and 9% required surgery. There was no difference in the time to a CD-related complication according to the time of initiation of biologic therapy within the first 24 months. Clinical, endoscopic, and transmural remission was achieved in 85%, 50%, and 29%, respectively, but no differences were found according to the time of initiation of biologic therapy. CONCLUSION: Starting anti-TNF therapy within the first 24 months after diagnosis was associated with a low rate of CD-related complications and high rates of clinical and endoscopic remission, although we found no differences with earlier initiation within this window of opportunity.