Implementación de la disección endoscópica submucosa esofágica en España: resultados del registro nacional / Implementation of esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection in Spain: Results from the nationwide registry

Introducción y objetivos Los resultados de la disección submucosa endoscópica (DSE) en el esófago no han sido evaluados en nuestro país. Nuestro objetivo principal fue analizar la efectividad y la seguridad de la técnica. Material y métodos Análisis del registro nacional prospectivo de DSE. Se incluyeron todas las lesiones superficiales esofágicas extirpadas mediante DSE en 17 hospitales (20 endoscopistas) entre enero de 2016 y diciembre de 2021. Se excluyeron las lesiones subepiteliales. La variable principal fue el porcentaje de resección curativa. Se realizó un análisis de regresión logística para conocer los predictores de resección no curativa y un análisis de supervivencia. Resultados Se realizaron un total de 102 DSE en 96 pacientes. El éxito técnico fue del 100% y el porcentaje de resección en bloque, del 98%. El porcentaje de resección R0 y curativa fue del 77,5% (n = 79; IC 95%: 68%-84%) y del 63,7% (n = 65; IC 95%: 54%-72%), respectivamente. La histología más frecuente fue la neoplasia sobre esófago de Barrett (n = 55 [53,9%]). El principal motivo de resección no curativa fue la invasión submucosa profunda (n = 25). Los centros con menor volumen de casos obtuvieron cifras inferiores de resección curativa. El porcentaje de perforación, sangrado diferido y estenosis posprocedimiento fue del 5%, del 5% y del 15,7%, respectivamente. Ningún paciente falleció ni requirió cirugía por un efecto adverso. Tras una mediana de seguimiento de 14 meses, 20 pacientes (20,8%) recibieron cirugía y/o quimio-radioterapia, y 9 fallecieron (mortalidad del 9,4%). Conclusiones En nuestro medio, la DSE esofágica es curativa en aproximadamente dos de cada tres pacientes, con un riesgo aceptable de efectos adversos (AU)

Introduction and aims The outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the esophagus have not been assessed in our country. Our primary aim was to analyze the effectiveness and safety of the technique. Material and methods Analysis of the prospectively maintained national registry of ESD. We included all superficial esophageal lesions removed by ESD in 17 hospitals (20 endoscopists) between January 2016 and December 2021. Subepithelial lesions were excluded. The primary outcome was curative resection. We conducted a survival analysis and used logistic regression analysis to assess predictors of non-curative resection. Results A total of 102 ESD were performed on 96 patients. The technical success rate was 100% and the percentage of en-bloc resection was 98%. The percentage of R0 and curative resection was 77.5% (n = 79; 95% CI: 68%-84%) and 63.7% (n = 65; 95% CI: 54%-72%), respectively. The most frequent histology was Barrett-related neoplasia (n = 55 [53.9%]). The main reason for non-curative resection was deep submucosal invasion (n = 25). The centers with a lower volume of ESD obtained worse results in terms of curative resection. The rate of perforation, delayed bleeding and post-procedural stenosis were 5%, 5% and 15.7%, respectively. No patient died or required surgery due to an adverse effect. After a median follow-up of 14 months, 20 patients (20.8%) underwent surgery and/or chemoradiotherapy, and 9 patients died (mortality 9.4%). Conclusions In Spain, esophageal ESD is curative in approximately two out of three patients, with an acceptable risk of adverse events (AU)

Implementation of esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection in Spain: Results from the nationwide registry. / Implementación de la disección endoscópica submucosa esofágica en España: resultados del registro nacional.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: The outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the esophagus have not been assessed in our country. Our primary aim was to analyze the effectiveness and safety of the technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Analysis of the prospectively maintained national registry of ESD. We included all superficial esophageal lesions removed by ESD in 17 hospitals (20 endoscopists) between January 2016 and December 2021. Subepithelial lesions were excluded. The primary outcome was curative resection. We conducted a survival analysis and used logistic regression analysis to assess predictors of non-curative resection. RESULTS: A total of 102 ESD were performed on 96 patients. The technical success rate was 100% and the percentage of en-bloc resection was 98%. The percentage of R0 and curative resection was 77.5% (n=79; 95%CI: 68%-84%) and 63.7% (n=65; 95%CI: 54%-72%), respectively. The most frequent histology was Barrett-related neoplasia (n=55 [53.9%]). The main reason for non-curative resection was deep submucosal invasion (n=25). The centers with a lower volume of ESD obtained worse results in terms of curative resection. The rate of perforation, delayed bleeding and post-procedural stenosis were 5%, 5% and 15.7%, respectively. No patient died or required surgery due to an adverse effect. After a median follow-up of 14months, 20patients (20.8%) underwent surgery and/or chemoradiotherapy, and 9 patients died (mortality 9.4%). CONCLUSIONS: In Spain, esophageal ESD is curative in approximately two out of three patients, with an acceptable risk of adverse events.

Implementation of endoscopic submucosal dissection in a country with a low incidence of gastric cancer: Results from a prospective national registry.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become the treatment of choice for early gastric malignancies. In recent years, the ESD technique has been implemented in Western countries with increasing use. OBJECTIVES: To describe the results of gastric ESD in a Western country with a low incidence of gastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The prospective national registry was conducted over 4 years in 23 hospitals, including 30 endoscopists. Epithelial and subepithelial lesions (SEL) qualified to complete removal with ESD were assessed. The technique, instruments, and solution for submucosal injection varied at the endoscopist's discretion. ESD was defined as difficult when: en-bloc resection was not achieved, had to be converted to a hybrid resection, lasted more than 2 h or an intraprocedural perforation occurred. Additionally, independent risk factors for difficult ESD were analyzed. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty gastric ESD in 225 patients were performed from January 2016 to December 2019 (196 epithelial and 34 SEL). Most lesions were located in the lower stomach (111; 48.3%). One hundred and twenty-eight (55.6%) ESD were considered difficult. The median procedure time was 105 min (interquartile range [IQR]: 60-150). The procedure time for SEL was shorter than for epithelial lesions (90 min [45-121] vs. 110 min [62-160]; p = 0.038). En-bloc, R0, and curative resection rates were 91.3%, 75.2%, and 70.9%, respectively. Difficult ESD had lower R0 resection rates than ESD that did not meet the difficulty criteria (64.8% and 87.6%; p = 0.000, respectively). Fibrosis and poor maneuverability were independent factors associated with difficult ESD (OR 3.6, 95%CI 1.1-11.74 and OR 5.07, 95%CI 1.6-16.08; respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of cases is limited, the results of this analysis show acceptable en-bloc and R0 rates in gastric ESD considering the wide variability in experience among the operators. Fibrosis and poor maneuverability were associated with more difficulty in completing ESD.

Quality in diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for the detection and surveillance of gastric cancer precursor lesions: Position paper of AEG, SEED and SEAP. / Documento de posicionamiento de la AEG, la SEED y la SEAP sobre calidad de la endoscopia digestiva alta para la detección y vigilancia de las lesiones precursoras de cáncer gástrico.

This position paper, sponsored by the Asociación Española de Gastroenterología [Spanish Association of Gastroenterology], the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva [Spanish Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Society] and the Sociedad Española de Anatomía Patológica [Spanish Anatomical Pathology Society], aims to establish recommendations for performing an high quality upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for the screening of gastric cancer precursor lesions (GCPL) in low-incidence populations, such as the Spanish population. To establish the quality of the evidence and the levels of recommendation, we used the methodology based on the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We obtained a consensus among experts using a Delphi method. The document evaluates different measures to improve the quality of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in this setting and makes recommendations on how to evaluate and treat the identified lesions. We recommend that upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for surveillance of GCPL should be performed by endoscopists with adequate training, administering oral premedication and use of sedation. To improve the identification of GCPL, we recommend the use of high definition endoscopes and conventional or digital chromoendoscopy and, for biopsies, NBI should be used to target the most suspicious areas of intestinal metaplasia. Regarding the evaluation of visible lesions, the risk of submucosal invasion should be evaluated with magnifying endoscopes and endoscopic ultrasound should be reserved for those with suspected deep invasion. In lesions amenable to endoscopic resection, submucosal endoscopic dissection is considered the technique of choice.

Documento de posicionamiento de la AEG, la SEED y la SEAP sobre cribado de cáncer gástrico en poblaciones con baja incidencia / Gastric cancer screening in low incidence populations: Position statement of AEG, SEED and SEAP

Este documento de posicionamiento, auspiciado por la Asociación Española de Gastroenterología, la Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva y la Sociedad Española de Anatomía Patológica, tiene como objetivo establecer recomendaciones para el cribado del cáncer gástrico (CG) en poblaciones con incidencia baja, como la española. Para establecer la calidad de la evidencia y los niveles de recomendación se ha utilizado la metodología basada en el sistema GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Se obtuvo el consenso entre expertos mediante un método Delphi. El documento evalúa el cribado en población general, individuos con familiares con CG y lesiones precursoras de CG (LPCG). El objetivo de las intervenciones debe ser la reducción de la mortalidad por CG. Se recomienda el uso de la clasificación OLGIM y determinar el subtipo de metaplasia intestinal (MI) para evaluar las LPCG. No se recomienda establecer cribado poblacional endoscópico de CG ni de Helicobacter pylori. Sin embargo, el documento establece una recomendación fuerte para el tratamiento de H.pylori si se detecta la infección, y su investigación y tratamiento en individuos con antecedentes familiares de CG o con LPCG. En cambio, no se recomienda el uso de test serológicos para detectar LPCG. Se sugiere cribado endoscópico únicamente en los individuos con criterios de CG familiar. En cuanto a los individuos con LPCG, solo se sugiere vigilancia endoscópica ante MI extensa asociada a algún factor de riesgo adicional (MI incompleta y/o antecedentes familiares de CG) tras la resección de lesiones displásicas o en pacientes con displasia sin lesión visible tras una endoscopia digestiva alta de calidad con cromoendoscopia

This positioning document, sponsored by the Asociación Española de Gastroenterología, the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva and the Sociedad Española de Anatomía Patológica, aims to establish recommendations for the screening of gastric cancer (GC) in low incidence populations, such as the Spanish. To establish the quality of the evidence and the levels of recommendation, we used the methodology based on the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We obtained a consensus among experts using a Delphi method. The document evaluates screening in the general population, individuals with relatives with GC and subjects with GC precursor lesions (GCPL). The goal of the interventions should be to reduce GC related mortality. We recommend the use of the OLGIM classification and determine the intestinal metaplasia (IM) subtype in the evaluation of GCPL. We do not recommend to establish endoscopic mass screening for GC or Helicobacter pylori. However, the document strongly recommends to treat H.pylori if the infection is detected, and the investigation and treatment in individuals with a family history of GC or with GCPL. Instead, we recommend against the use of serological tests to detect GCPL. Endoscopic screening is suggested only in individuals that meet familial GC criteria. As for individuals with GCPL, endoscopic surveillance is only suggested in extensive IM associated with additional risk factors (incomplete IM and/or a family history of GC), after resection of dysplastic lesions or in patients with dysplasia without visible lesion after a high quality gastroscopy with chromoendoscopy

Gastric cancer screening in low incidence populations: Position statement of AEG, SEED and SEAP. / Documento de posicionamiento de la AEG, la SEED y la SEAP sobre cribado de cáncer gástrico en poblaciones con baja incidencia.

This positioning document, sponsored by the Asociación Española de Gastroenterología, the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva and the Sociedad Española de Anatomía Patológica, aims to establish recommendations for the screening of gastric cancer (GC) in low incidence populations, such as the Spanish. To establish the quality of the evidence and the levels of recommendation, we used the methodology based on the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). We obtained a consensus among experts using a Delphi method. The document evaluates screening in the general population, individuals with relatives with GC and subjects with GC precursor lesions (GCPL). The goal of the interventions should be to reduce GC related mortality. We recommend the use of the OLGIM classification and determine the intestinal metaplasia (IM) subtype in the evaluation of GCPL. We do not recommend to establish endoscopic mass screening for GC or Helicobacter pylori. However, the document strongly recommends to treat H.pylori if the infection is detected, and the investigation and treatment in individuals with a family history of GC or with GCPL. Instead, we recommend against the use of serological tests to detect GCPL. Endoscopic screening is suggested only in individuals that meet familial GC criteria. As for individuals with GCPL, endoscopic surveillance is only suggested in extensive IM associated with additional risk factors (incomplete IM and/or a family history of GC), after resection of dysplastic lesions or in patients with dysplasia without visible lesion after a high quality gastroscopy with chromoendoscopy.

Stay Connected and Up To Date: GI Meetings and Seminars and the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 has become an unprecedented global health and societal problem. The rapid spreading of this pandemic, together with the absence of effective treatments or vaccines, has led governments around the world to take drastic actions, including limiting the free movement of citizens, establishing maximum capacities and enforcing social distancing measures, among others. Consequently, major medical congresses, meetings, conferences, and workshops have been either cancelled or delayed. This situation has forced rapid changes in how the medical and scientific communities interact, and they now mainly meet using online technology. While political leaders have closed the borders of their countries as a logical public health measure, we have witnessed medical societies, clinicians, and scientists breaking other barriers and creating a new reality of global technological collaboration unlike anything seen before. An immense variety of webinars, online conferences, podcasts, courses, and many other forms of uploaded content can be seen from the comfort of one's own workplace or home at any time, and this has exponentially increased our reach; however, this great number of possibilities can be overwhelming, and it is more important than ever to separate wheat from chaff when deciding what online event to attend. The purpose of this article is to describe the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on congresses and meetings, to examine how GI physicians feel about the emerging trend of online initiatives and to offer suggestions on how to balance web-based meetings and daily work.

The Answer to "When to Clip" After Colorectal Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Based on a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Delayed bleeding (DB) is the most common major complication of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Two randomized clinical trials recently demonstrated that clip closure after EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) reduces the risk of DB. We analyzed the cost-effectiveness of this prophylactic measure. METHODS: EMRs of LNCPCPs were consecutively registered in the ongoing prospective multicenter database of the Spanish EMR Group from May 2013 until July 2017. Patients were classified according to the Spanish Endoscopy Society EMR group (GSEED-RE2) DB risk score. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for both Spanish and US economic contexts. The average incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) thresholds were set at 54,000 € or $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year, respectively. RESULTS: We registered 2,263 EMRs in 2,130 patients. Applying their respective DB relative risk reductions after clip closure (51% and 59%), the DB rate decreased from 4.5% to 2.2% in the total cohort and from 13.7% to 5.7% in the high risk of the DB GSEED-RE2 subgroup. The ICERs for the universal clipping strategy in Spain and the United States, 469,706 € and $1,258,641, respectively, were not cost effective. By contrast, selective clipping in the high-risk of DB GSEED-RE2 subgroup was cost saving, with a negative ICER of -2,194 € in the Spanish context and cost effective with an ICER of $87,796 in the United States. DISCUSSION: Clip closure after EMR of large colorectal lesions is cost effective in patients with a high risk of bleeding. The GSEED-RE2 DB risk score may be a useful tool to identify that high-risk population.

Vascular ophthalmological side effects associated with antiviral therapy for chronic hepatitis C are related to vascular endothelial growth factor levels.

We have screened for the incidence of vascular ophthalmological side effects (VOSE) in chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients undergoing pegylated interferon (peg-IFN) plus ribavirin (RBV) therapy and sought evidence for angiogenesis activation. Thirty-four CHC patients were prospectively evaluated (18 patients with 180 microg/week of peg-IFN-alpha2a plus 800mg/day of RBV and 16 with 1.5 microg/kg/week of peg-IFN-alpha2b plus 800-1,200mg/day of RBV). Complete ophthalmological evaluation and serum vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels were assessed before and at the end of therapy. Thirteen patients (38.2%) developed VOSE, eight (23.5%) featured subconjunctival haemorrhage, and five (14.7%) had evidence of retinopathy - all were unrelated to age, sex, genotype, the type of antiviral schedule used and response to therapy. At the end of treatment, the VOSE group had significantly higher serum VEGF levels than the group of patients without detectable side effects (median 281 [range 106-386] vs 117 [83-225] pg/ml, P=0.05). These differences increased when VEGF values were corrected by platelet count. In the VOSE group, baseline VEGF and VEGF/platelet values were also significantly higher (164 [55-260] vs 64 [21-172] pg/ml, P=0.046; and 0.920 [0.217-1.543] vs 0.320 [0.100-0.661] pg/10(6) platelets, P=0.024, respectively]. In a multivariate model VEGF/platelet values at end of treatment and hepatic fibrosis stage were the only predictors of VOSE development. In 3 out of 13 patients visual acuity was affected and 2 had residual lesions in the follow-up. In this exploratory study, antiviral therapy of CHC frequently induces VOSE, apparently through an activation of angiogenesis.