Is there a best choice of equipment for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection?

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a widely used technique to remove early neoplastic lesions. It was primarily used in the initial days to treat gastric lesions, but recently, the horizon of this endoscopic procedure has expanded, which has allowed us to manage other technically more complex locations, such as the colorectum. AREAS COVERED: There has been an exponential growth regarding the wide range of devices available in the market for performing colorectal ESD. As a result, the aim of this review is to highlight the indication of this endoscopic technique, which device is best suited for which indication, as well as future trajectories in this field. EXPERT OPINION: Although some devices have proven to be more advantageous than others in this area, very often the choice is still subjective, which is commonly attributed to individual preferences and experience. However, an accurate knowledge of the available tools and their functioning, with their pros and cons, is fundamental for any endoscopist venturing into the field of third space endoscopy. In this way, one can choose which device best suits a particular situation, along with simultaneously having the wealth of knowledge related to therapeutic armamentarium at our disposal in the endoscopy suite.

Comparison of two strategies for the management of postoperative recurrence in Crohn's disease patients with one clinical risk factor: A multicentre IG-IBD study.

BACKGROUND: The management of postoperative recurrence (POR) in Crohn's disease (CD) after ileo-colonic resection is a highly debated topic. Prophylactic immunosuppression after surgery is currently recommended in the presence of at least one clinical risk factor. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine whether early immunosuppression can be avoided and guided by endoscopy in CD patients with only one risk factor. METHODS: CD patients with only one risk factor for POR, including previous intestinal resection, extensive small intestine resection (>50 cm), fistulising phenotype, history of perianal disease, and active smoking, were retrospectively included. Two groups were formed based on whether immunosuppression was started immediately after surgery ("prophylaxis group") or guided by endoscopy ("endoscopy-driven group"). Primary endpoints were rates of any endoscopic recurrence (Rutgeerts ≥ i2a) and severe endoscopic recurrence (i4) within 12 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes were clinical recurrence rates at 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 195 patients were enroled, of whom 61 (31.3%) received immunoprophylaxis. No differences between immunoprophylaxis and the endoscopy-driven approach were found regarding any endoscopic recurrence (36.1% vs. 45.5%, respectively, p = 0.10) and severe endoscopic recurrence (9.8% vs. 15.7%, respectively, p = 0.15) at the first endoscopic evaluation. Clinical recurrence rates were also not statistically different (p = 0.43, p = 0.09, and p = 0.63 at 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In operated CD patients with only one risk factor for POR, immediate immunoprophylaxis does not decrease the rate of early clinical and endoscopic recurrence. Prospective studies are needed to confirm our results.

Real-time, computer-aided, detection-assisted colonoscopy eliminates differences in adenoma detection rate between trainee and experienced endoscopists.

Background and study aims Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a well-accepted quality indicator of screening colonoscopy. In recent years, the added value of artificial intelligence (AI) has been demonstrated in terms of ADR and adenoma miss rate (AMR). To date, there are no studies evaluating the impact of AI on the performance of trainee endoscopists (TEs). This study aimed to assess whether AI might eliminate any difference in ADR or AMR between TEs and experienced endoscopists (EEs). Patients and methods We performed a prospective observational study in 45 subjects referred for screening colonoscopy. A same-day tandem examination was carried out for each patient by a TE with the AI assistance and subsequently by an EE unaware of the lesions detected by the TE. Besides ADR and AMR, we also calculated for each subgroup of endoscopists the adenoma per colonoscopy (APC), polyp detection rate (PDR), polyp per colonoscopy (PPC) and polyp miss rate (PMR). Subgroup analyses according to size, morphology, and site were also performed. Results ADR, APC, PDR, and PPC of AI-supported TEs were 38 %, 0.93, 62 %, 1.93, respectively. The corresponding parameters for EEs were 40 %, 1.07, 58 %, 2.22. No significant difference was found for each analysis between the two groups ( P  > 0.05). AMR and PMR for AI-assisted TEs were 12.5 % and 13 %, respectively. Sub-analyses did not show any significant difference ( P  > 0.05) between the two categories of operators. Conclusions In this single-center prospective study, the possible impact of AI on endoscopist quality training was demonstrated. In the future, this could result in better efficacy of screening colonoscopy by reducing the incidence of interval or missed cancers.

Clinic, Endoscopic and Histological Features in Patients Treated with ICI Developing GI Toxicity: Some News and Reappraisal from a Mono-Institutional Experience.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have widened the therapeutic scenario of different solid tumors over the last ten years. Gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs), such as diarrhea and colitis, occur in up to 50% of patients treated with ICIs. Materials and methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective analysis in patients with solid tumors treated with ICIs in a 6-year period, from 2015 to 2021, developing GI AEs, for which an endoscopic analysis was performed, with available histological specimens or surgery. Results: Twenty-one patients developed GI AEs under ICIs. The median time from the start of ICIs to the onset of GI AEs was 5 months. Diarrhea was the most frequent symptom (57.2%), upper GI symptoms presented in four patients (19%), while three patients (14.3%) had no symptoms and were diagnosed occasionally. Two patients underwent surgical resection for acute abdomen. Histological findings observed in endoscopic sampling were eosinophilic-pattern gastro-enterocolitis, apoptotic damage, IBD-like features, and ischemic-like changes. Histological damage was also documented in patients with unremarkable endoscopy. Conclusions: Under ICI therapy, GI toxicity is an expected event. Since GIAEs can mimic a broad range of primary GI diseases, a multidisciplinary approach is advocated with upper and lower GI mucosal sampling to remodel therapy and avoid complications.

Inverted colonic diverticulum (ICD): report of two cases and literature review of a not that unusual endoscopic challenge.

Inverted colonic diverticulum (ICD) is a rare intraluminal lesion occurring in about 0.7-1.7% of people, often endoscopically indistinguishable from polyps. Some unspecific endoscopic features may assist to distinguish polypoid ICD from true polyps. This differentiation bears relevance for the therapeutic approach, as colonic polyps require snare polypectomy, a practice which may be associated with colonic perforation in case of true ICD. The endoscopist, therefore, should be aware of the likelihood of detecting these lesions during colonoscopy. A close inspection and a gentle probing could assist in a correct diagnosis and avoid risky procedures such as biopsy or polypectomy. Rarely, a neoplasm arising over an ICD and its treatment has been described. We reported two cases, one of which with dysplasia, and their treatment, and reviewed all the ICD endoscopic cases so far reported in the literature, remarking the possibility of finding pedunculated ICDs or neoplasm arising over an ICD.

Accuracy and inter-observer agreement of the nice and kudo classifications of superficial colonic lesions: a comparative study.

PURPOSE: For superficial colonic lesions, the NICE and Kudo classifications are used in the in vivo prediction of histology and as guide to therapy. The NICE system derives information from unmagnified NBI endoscopic images. The Kudo one necessitates a magnification, but, as this tool is not commonly available, it is applied also to characterize unmagnified pictures to compare their diagnostic performances. METHODS: We conducted a prospective comparison of the NICE versus the Kudo classification for the differential diagnosis of colonic polyps taking histology as the gold standard. The inter-observer agreement for both classifications among 11 colonoscopists was also evaluated. Short unmagnified NBI videoclips of 64 colonic polyps were sent twice to the participants. In the first round, they classified the lesions according to the NICE classification; 4 months later, the same videos were assessed with the Kudo system. The diagnosis provided by the participants was grouped in non-neoplastic, non-invasive neoplasia, invasive neoplasia. RESULTS: Overall, the diagnostic accuracy was 82% (95%CI: 79-85) with the NICE system and 81% (95%CI: 78-84) with the Kudo one (ρ = 0.78). The accuracy of the NICE classification for non-neoplastic lesions was greater compared with the Kudo's (ρ = 0.03). Sensitivity sub-analyses revealed a higher ability of the NICE in distinguishing between neoplastic vs. non-neoplastic lesions (ρ = 0.01). The overall inter-rater agreement did not differ when the classifications were compared. CONCLUSION: The NICE and the Kudo classifications might be considered comparable. Our data could allow the use of the NBI Kudo classification even in those centers where magnification is not available.

Interobserver agreement of the Paris and simplified classifications of superficial colonic lesions: a Western study.

Background and study aims The Paris classification of superficial colonic lesions has been widely adopted, but a simplified description that subgroups the shape into pedunculated, sessile/flat and depressed lesions has been proposed recently. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and inter-rater agreement among 13 Western endoscopists for the two classification systems. Methods Seventy video clips of superficial colonic lesions were classified according to the two classifications, and their size estimated. The interobserver agreement for each classification was assessed using both Cohen k and AC1 statistics. Accuracy was taken as the concordance between the standard morphology definition and that made by participants. Sensitivity analyses investigated agreement between trainees (T) and staff members (SM), simple or mixed lesions, distinct lesion phenotypes, and for laterally spreading tumors (LSTs). Results Overall, the interobserver agreement for the Paris classification was substantial (κ = 0.61; AC1 = 0.66), with 79.3 % accuracy. Between SM and T, the values were superimposable. For size estimation, the agreement was 0.48 by the κ-value, and 0.50 by AC1. For single or mixed lesions, κ-values were 0.60 and 0.43, respectively; corresponding AC1 values were 0.68 and 0.57. Evaluating the several different polyp subtypes separately, agreement differed significantly when analyzed by the k-statistics (0.08-0.12) or the AC1 statistics (0.59-0.71). Analyses of LSTs provided a κ-value of 0.50 and an AC1 score of 0.62, with 77.6 % accuracy. The simplified classification outperformed the Paris classification: κ = 0.68, AC1 = 0.82, accuracy = 91.6 %. Conclusions Agreement is often measured with Cohen's κ, but we documented higher levels of agreement when analyzed with the AC1 statistic. The level of agreement was substantial for the Paris classification, and almost perfect for the simplified system.

Helicobacter pylori Primary and Secondary Genotypic Resistance to Clarithromycin and Levofloxacin Detection in Stools: A 4-Year Scenario in Southern Italy.

Antibiotic resistance has become an emerging problem for treating Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection. Clarithromycin and levofloxacin are two key antibiotics used for its eradication. Therefore, we reviewed our experience with genotypic resistance analysis in stools to both clarithromycin and levofloxacin in the last four years to evaluate time trends, both in naive and failure patients. Patients collected a fecal sample using the THD fecal test device. Real-time polymerase chain reaction was performed to detect point mutations conferring resistance to clarithromycin (A2142C, A2142G, and A2143G in 23S rRNA) and levofloxacin (substitutions at amino acid position 87 and 91 of gyrA). One hundred and thirty-five naive patients were recruited between 2017-2020. Clarithromycin resistance was detected in 37 (27.4%). The time trend did not show any significant variation from 2017 to 2020 (p = 0.33). Primary levofloxacin resistance was found in 26 subjects (19.2%), and we observed a dramatic increase in rates from 2017 (10%) to 2018 (3.3%), 2019 (20%), and 2020 (37.8%). Ninety-one patients with at least one eradication failure were recruited. Secondary resistance to clarithromycin and levofloxacin was found in 59 (64.8%) and 45 patients (59.3%), respectively. In conclusion, our geographic area has a high risk of resistance to clarithromycin. There is also a progressive spreading of levofloxacin-resistant strains.

Landmarks for dual biological therapy in inflammatory bowel disease: lesson from two case reports of vedolizumab in combination with ustekinumab.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a chronic and disabling disorder. Severity of IBD is prominent among refractory with patients with concomitant immune-mediated disorders. Among those patients, dual biological therapy (DBT) has been suggested as an alternative approach to spare steroids and avoid surgery. However, pieces of evidence on clinical outcomes among patients receiving DBT are still limited. We present two cases of IBD patients, with dermatological comorbidity, treated with a combination of vedolizumab and ustekinumab, identifying possible landmarks to address therapeutic choice. No patient experienced adverse events in the follow-up period and both obtained complete clinical remission. DBT may be an effective approach to consider in selected patients with refractory IBD with concomitant severe immune-mediated diseases taking into account medical history of the patient, presence, and type of concomitant extraintestinal manifestations, safety profile of selected DBT, licensed therapeutic indications, and costs.