Cimetropium bromide does not improve polyp and adenoma detection during colonoscope withdrawal: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic inspection of colonic mucosa is disturbed by colonic folds and peristalsis, which may result in missed polyps. Cimetropium bromide, an antispasmodic agent, inhibits peristalsis and colonic spasms, which may improve polyp detection. The purpose of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was to investigate whether cimetropium bromide could improve polyp and adenoma detection in the colorectum and right colon. METHODS: Patients undergoing screening or diagnostic colonoscopy were randomized to receive intravenous cimetropium bromide (5 mg) or placebo after cecal intubation. The primary outcomes were the number of polyps per patient (PPP) and adenomas per patient (APP); secondary outcomes were the polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), and advanced neoplasm detection rate (ANDR). RESULTS: A total of 181 patients were analyzed; 91 patients received cimetropium bromide and 90 patients received placebo. Cimetropium bromide and placebo groups did not significantly differ in the PPP and APP for the colorectum (1.38 ±â€Š1.58 vs 1.69 ±â€Š2.28, P = .298; 0.96 ±â€Š1.27 vs 1.11 ±â€Š1.89, P = .517, respectively) and right colon (0.70 ±â€Š0.95 vs 0.78 ±â€Š1.21, P = .645; 0.47 ±â€Š0.81 vs 0.51 ±â€Š0.81, P = .757, respectively). Two groups also did not significantly differ in the PDR, ADR, and ANDR for the colorectum and right colon. Furthermore, there were no difference between groups in the PPP, APP, PDR, ADR, and ADNR in a sub-analysis of expert and non-expert endoscopists. CONCLUSIONS: Cimetropium bromide did not improve polyp and adenoma detection in the colorectum and right colon during colonoscope withdrawal, regardless of the expertness of the endoscopist. However, its use may be helpful in patients with active peristalsis or for beginning endoscopists during standard colonoscopy without a transparent cap.

Predictive factors to diagnosis undifferentiated early gastric cancer after endoscopic submucosal dissection.

It is difficult to predict precisely whether the lesion corresponds to endoscopic resection indication. Furthermore, discrepancy may occur between endoscopic forceps biopsy (EFB) and finally resected specimen, which may be diagnosed as undifferentiated cancer and additional surgery may be required. Our study aimed to evaluate predictive factors to diagnose undifferentiated cancer after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).Among the 532 patients diagnosed by ESD between January 2009 and December 2015, 557 early gastric cancer (EGC) cases were studied. Factors predicting diagnosis of undifferentiated cancer and clinical outcomes of the lesions were retrospectively analyzed.Among the 557 cases with EGC, 535 (96.1%) were diagnosed as differentiated cancer and 22 (3.9%) as the undifferentiated type with ESD. Tumor size was larger (mean size 20.67 vs 13.59 mm, P < .001) and age was lower (60.24 vs 64.50 years, P < .001) in the group with undifferentiated cancer. En bloc resection rate was similar (95.5% vs 95.9%, P = .886), but the complete resection rate was lower (72.7% vs 92.4%, P < .001) in the group with undifferentiated cancer. On multivariate analysis, tumor size ≥10 mm (OR = 11.340, P = .032), age <55 years (OR = 5.972, P = .004), surface redness (OR = 11.562, P = .024), and whitish discoloration (OR = 35.368, P < .001) were predominantly associated with undifferentiated cancer.Young age (<55 years), large tumor size (≥10 mm), surface redness, and whitish discoloration are predictors of undifferentiated cancer, and lesions with these features detected need to be treated cautiously.

Comparison of endoscopic resection therapies for rectal carcinoid tumor: endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection using band ligation.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has been the endoscopic treatment of choice for rectal carcinoid tumors <10 mm in size. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may cause more severe complications, longer operation time, and higher cost than EMR. AIM: : To compare EMR using band ligation (EMR-B) method with ESD for the endoscopic treatment of rectal carcinoid tumors. METHODS: From November 2008 to September 2011, we enrolled consecutive patients with rectal carcinoid tumors <10 mm in diameter and without lymph node enlargement. Rate of complete resection rate, incidence of complications, and length of procedures were evaluated. RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled (31 ESD cases and 29 EMR-B cases). The mean age was 48.03±13.09 years. Both groups had similar mean tumor diameter (EMR-B 4.34±1.75 vs. ESD 5.22±2.09 mm; P=0.084). Resection time was longer in the ESD group than in the EMR-B group (15.09±5.73 vs. 6.37±5.52 min; P<0.001). The complete resection rate was 80.6% (25 of 31) in the ESD group and 82.8% (24 of 29) in the EMR-B group (P=0.833). In incomplete resection cases, neither local recurrence nor distant metastasis was detected during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ESD, EMR-B resulted in a comparable histologically complete resection rate and took less time to perform. Given the advantages of easier and shorter procedure time, EMR-B may be considered the treatment of choice for small rectal carcinoid tumors.