Unusual presentation of biliopancreatic cancer as primary retroperitoneal tumor.

Primary retroperitoneal tumors are little-known neoplasias and consequently, difficult to diagnose. We report an extremely unusual case of a biliopancreatic adenocarcinoma with retroperitoneal localization simulating a primary retroperitoneal tumor. As far as we know, there are no similar cases published up to date.

Preliminary experience of the use of self-expanding nititol stent in refractory variceal bleeding: a real-world study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The fully-covered self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) has a role in the management of refractory acute variceal haemorrhage. The aim of this study was to evaluate its effectiveness and complications in real-world practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An observational, descriptive, multicenter study was carried out. Eight patients with clinically significant portal hypertension who underwent a SEMS were included. RESULTS: SEMS placement controlled acute bleeding in 7 patients with technical success. Stents were removed after a median of 8 days. Rescue transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt was performed around 48 hours after SEMS placement. Four patients survived after successful SEMS removal. The most common adverse event was stent loop in 2 patients. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience, SEMS was highly effective in controlling acute refractory variceal bleeding. Bleeding-related mortality rate was probably due to impossibility of TIPS implantation. Stent loop was a common limiting factor.

Primary malignant melanoma of the colon and the importance of an adequate anatomopathological analysis.

Primary malignant melanoma of the colon is an extremely rare tumor due to the absence of melanoblasts in this segment of the digestive tract. We report the case of a patient presenting an ulcerated lesion with a neoplastic appearance in the dentate line during a coloscopy. After chemotherapy and radiotherapy, surgical amputation was performed. The study of the surgical specimen described an invasive malignant melanoma located in the submucosa without involvement of the overlying epithelium or the muscularis propria, nor vascular or lymph node invasion, and with tumor free margins. The patient was presented to the melanoma committee, which determited follow up in consultations. This case strengthens the importance of a good anatomopathological study to prevent delays in diagnosis and appropriate treatment.

Underwater versus conventional EMR of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Underwater EMR (UEMR) is an alternative procedure to conventional EMR (CEMR) to treat large, nonpedunculated colorectal lesions (LNPCLs). In this multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of UEMR versus CEMR on LNPCLs. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial from February 2018 to February 2020 in 11 hospitals in Spain. A total of 298 patients (311 lesions) were randomized to the UEMR (n = 149) and CEMR (n = 162) groups. The main outcome was the lesion recurrence rate in at least 1 follow-up colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included technical aspects, en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rates, and adverse events, among others. RESULTS: There were no differences in the overall recurrence rate (9.5% UEMR vs 11.7% CEMR; absolute risk difference, -2.2%; 95% CI, -9.4 to 4.9). However, considering polyp sizes between 20 and 30 mm, the recurrence rate was lower for UEMR (3.4% UEMR vs 13.1% CEMR; absolute risk difference, -9.7%; 95% CI, -19.4 to 0). The R0 resection showed the same tendency, with significant differences favoring UEMR only for polyps between 20 and 30 mm. Overall, UEMR was faster and easier to perform than CEMR. Importantly, the techniques were equally safe. CONCLUSIONS: UEMR is a valid alternative to CEMR for treating LNPCLs and could be considered the first option of treatment for lesions between 20 and 30 mm due to its higher en bloc and R0 resection rates. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03567746.).

Location, morphology and invasiveness of lateral spreading tumors in the colorectum differ between two large cohorts from an eastern and western country.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Data from Japanese series show that surface morphology of laterally spreading tumors (LST) in the colon identifies lesions with different incidence and pattern of submucosal invasion. Such data from western countries are scarce. We compared clinical and histological features of LST in a western country and an eastern country, with special interest on mucosal invasiveness of LST, and investigated the effect of clinical factors on invasiveness in both countries. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with LST lesions ≥20mm were included from a multicenter prospective registry in Spain and from a retrospective registry from the National Cancer Center Hospital East, Japan. The primary outcome was the presence of submucosal invasion in LST. The secondary outcome was the presence of high-risk histology, defined as high-grade dysplasia or submucosal invasion. RESULTS: We evaluated 1102 patients in Spain and 663 in Japan. Morphological and histological characteristics differed. The prevalence of submucosal invasion in Japan was six-fold the prevalence in Spain (Prevalence Ratio PR=5.66; 95%CI: 3.96, 8.08), and the prevalence of high-risk histology was 1.5 higher (PR=1.44; 95%CI: 1.31, 1.58). Compared to the granular homogeneous type and adjusted by clinical features, granular mixed, flat elevated, and pseudo-depressed types were associated with higher odds of submucosal invasion in Japan, whereas only the pseudo-depressed type showed higher risk in Spain. Regarding high-risk histology, both granular mixed and pseudo-depressed were associated with higher odds in Japan, compared with only the granular mixed type in Spain. CONCLUSION: This study reveals differences in location, morphology and invasiveness of LST in an eastern and a western cohort.

Comparison of the Mayo Endoscopy Score and the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopy Index of Severity and the Ulcerative Colitis Colonoscopy Index of Severity.

Background and study aims: Endoscopy plays an essential role in managing patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), as it allows us to visualize and assess the severity of the disease. As such assessments are not always objective, different scores have been devised to standardize the findings. The main aim of this study was to assess the interobserver variability between the Mayo Endoscopy Score (MES), Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopy Index of Severity (UCEIS) and Ulcerative Colitis Colonoscopy Index of Severity (UCCIS) analyzing the severity of the endoscopic lesions in patients with ulcerative colitis. Patients and methods: This was a single-cohort observational study in which a colonoscopy was carried out on patients with UC, as normal clinical practice, and a video was recorded. The results from the video were classified according to the MES, UCEIS and UCCIS by three endoscopic specialists independently, and they were compared to each other. The Mayo Endoscopy Score (MES) was used to assess the clinical situation of the patient. The therapeutic impact was analyzed after colonoscopy was carried out. Results: Sixty-seven patients were included in the study. The average age was 51 (SD ±â€Š16.7) and the average MES was 3.07 (SD ±â€Š2.54). The weighted Kappa index between endoscopists A and B for the MES was 0.8; between A and C 0.52; and between B and C 0.49. The intraclass correlation coefficient for UCEIS was 0.92 among the three endoscopists (CI 95 %: 0.83-0.96) and 0.96 for UCCIS among the three endoscopists (CI 95 % 0.94-0.97). A change in treatment for 34.3 % of the patients was implemented on seeing the results of the colonoscopy. Conclusions: There was an adequate, but not perfect, correlation between the different endoscopists for MES, UCEIS, UCCIS. This was higher with the last two scores. Thus, there is still some subjectivity to be minimized through special training, on assessing the seriousness of the endoscopic lesions in patients with UC.

Índice de Mayo Endoscópico e Índice de Severidad Endoscópica de la Colitis Ulcerosa: ¿son igual de válidos? / No disponible

INTRODUCCIÓN: la endoscopia tiene un papel fundamental en el manejo de los pacientes con colitis ulcerosa (CU), ya que permite la visualización y evaluación de la gravedad de la enfermedad. No obstante, dicha evaluación no es siempre algo objetivo, por lo que se han desarrollado diferentes escalas que pretenden homogeneizar los hallazgos. Objetico: el objetivo del estudio fue evaluar la variabilidad interobservador entre el Índice de Mayo Endoscópico (IME) y el Índice de Severidad Endoscópica de la Colitis Ulcerosa (UCEIS), al analizar la gravedad de las lesiones endoscópicas en pacientes con CU. El objetivo secundario fue analizar si la preparación catártica afectaba al grado de concordancia entre los endoscopistas. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: se trata de un estudio observacional comparativo de una única cohorte a la cual se realiza una colonoscopia bajo guía de práctica clínica habitual a pacientes con CU y se estadifica según el IME y el UCEIS por tres endoscopistas expertos. Para valorar el grado de correlación interobservador se utilizaron el índice de Kappa para el IME y el coeficiente de correlación intraclase para el UCEIS. Se incluyeron 67 pacientes, con edad media de 51 años (DE ± 16,7) e índice de Mayo clínico medio de 3,07 (DE ± 2,54). RESULTADOS: el índice de Kappa ponderado entre los endoscopistas A y B para el IME fue de 0,8; entre el A y el C, de 0,52; y entre el B y el C, de 0,49. Para el UCEIS, el coeficiente de correlación intraclase fue del 0,922 entre los tres endoscopistas (IC 95 %: 0,832-0,959). Se encontró una mejor correlación interobservador cuando la preparación catártica era ≥ 8 según la escala de Boston. CONCLUSIÓN: existe, por tanto, una superior correlación entre los diferentes endoscopistas para el UCEIS que para el IME, por lo que debería ser considerado como el mejor índice a utilizar en la práctica clínica. Una buena preparación catártica es importante para mejorar la correlación interobservador

No disponible

An esophageal neuroendocrine tumor in a Barrett's esophagus successfully treated with endoscopic resection

No disponible

Effectiveness of salivary stimulation using xylitol-malic acid tablets as coadjuvant treatment in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: early findings

BACKGROUND: Besides dental erosion syndrome, other oral syndromes could benefit from the stimulation of salivary secretion, in patients with gastrooesophageal reflux disease (GORD). Our aims is evaluate the improvement of oral extraoesophageal manifestations in patients with GORD using xylitol–malic acid tablets to stimulate salivary secretion. Material and METHODS: The effectiveness of salivary stimulation using xylitol–malic acid tablets (as a supplement to omeprazole 40 mg/day) was assessed in a clinical trial (n = 14) lasting six months with patients with prior positive pH-metry, through GORD extra-oesophageal clinical signs, GerdQ and RDQ questionnaires, odontological variables, basal salivary secretion, stimulated salivary secretion, pH and buffer capacity, mucosal erythema index and dental wear. Statistics: chi-square (Haberman post-hoc), ANOVA, and Mann-Whitney U; variables between visits were evaluated with McNemar’s Student’s t and Wilcoxon tests; p < 0.05. RESULTS: 100% of patients not taking xylitol–malic acid presented xerostomia, but only 14.3% of patients taking xylitol–malic acid (p < 0.01) did. The mean saliva-buffer capacity at the last visit for patients not taking xylitol–malic acid was 2.14 ± 0.38, versus 2.71 ± 0.49 for patients taking xylitol–malic acid (p < 0.05). Retro-sternal burning (p < 0.05), heartburn (p < 0.05) and regurgitation (p < 0.05) were also reduced. CONCLUSIONS: Xylitol-malic acid tablets improve quality of life among patients with GORD, by reducing dry mouth, increasing saliva buffering and reducing heartburn, retro-sternal burning and regurgitation

No disponible

An esophageal neuroendocrine tumor in a Barrett's esophagus successfully treated with endoscopic resection.

Neuroendocrine tumors rarely occur in the esophagus because the neuroendocrine system is not well developed in the esophagus. The case of a neuroendocrine esophageal tumor developed in a patient with Barret's esophagus is presented. It was successfully trated by endoscopy.

Index of the Mayo Endoscopy and Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopy Index of Severity: are they equally valid?

INTRODUCTION: endoscopy plays an essential role in the management of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), as it allows us to visualize and assess the severity of the disease. Different scores have been devised to standardize the findings because such assessments are not always objective. AIMS: the aim of this study was to assess the interobserver variability between the Index of Mayo Endoscopy (IME) and the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopy Index of Severity (UCEIS), analyzing the severity of the endoscopic lesions in patients with UC. The secondary aim was to analyze if the cathartic preparation affected the degree of concordance amongst the endoscopists. MATERIAL AND METHODS: this was a single-cohort observational, comparative study in which a colonoscopy was performed in patients with UC, as the normal clinical practice. The results were classified according to the IME and the UCEIS by three endoscopic specialists. In order to assess the degree of interobserver correlation, the Kappa index for IME was used and the intraclass correlation coefficient was used for UCEIS. RESULTS: sixty-seven patients were included in the study. The average age was 51 (SD ± 16.7) and the average Mayo Clinic index was 3.07 (SD ± 2.54). The weighted Kappa index between endoscopists A and B for the IME was 0.8, 0.52 between A and C and 0.49 between B and C. The intraclass correlation coefficient for UCEIS was 0.922 between the three endoscopists (95 % CI: 0.832-0.959). A better interobserver correlation was found when the cathartic preparation was ≥ 8 based on the Boston Scale. CONCLUSIONS: there was a higher correlation between the different endoscopists for the UCEIS than for the IME. Thus, this should be considered to be the best index to use in the clinical practice. A good cleansing preparation is important to improve the interobserver correlation.

Clinical validation of risk scoring systems to predict risk of delayed bleeding after EMR of large colorectal lesions.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Endoscopic Resection Group of the Spanish Society of Endoscopy (GSEED-RE) model and the Australian Colonic Endoscopic Resection (ACER) model were proposed to predict delayed bleeding (DB) after EMR of large superficial colorectal lesions, but neither has been validated. We validated and updated these models. METHODS: A multicenter cohort study was performed in patients with nonpedunculated lesions ≥20 mm removed by EMR. We assessed the discrimination and calibration of the GSEED-RE and ACER models. Difficulty performing EMR was subjectively categorized as low, medium, or high. We created a new model, including factors associated with DB in 3 cohort studies. RESULTS: DB occurred in 45 of 1034 EMRs (4.5%); it was associated with proximal location (odds ratio [OR], 2.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31-6.16), antiplatelet agents (OR, 2.51; 95% CI, .99-6.34) or anticoagulants (OR, 4.54; 95% CI, 2.14-9.63), difficulty of EMR (OR, 3.23; 95% CI, 1.41-7.40), and comorbidity (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, .99-4.47). The GSEED-RE and ACER models did not accurately predict DB. Re-estimation and recalibration yielded acceptable results (GSEED-RE area under the curve [AUC], .64 [95% CI, .54-.74]; ACER AUC, .65 [95% CI, .57-.73]). We used lesion size, proximal location, comorbidity, and antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy to generate a new model, the GSEED-RE2, which achieved higher AUC values (.69-.73; 95% CI, .59-.80) and exhibited lower susceptibility to changes among datasets. CONCLUSIONS: The updated GSEED-RE and ACER models achieved acceptable prediction levels of DB. The GSEED-RE2 model may achieve better prediction results and could be used to guide the management of patients after validation by other external groups. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03050333.).

Clip Closure After Resection of Large Colorectal Lesions With Substantial Risk of Bleeding.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is not clear whether closure of mucosal defects with clips after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) prevents delayed bleeding, although it seems to have no protective effects when risk is low. We performed a randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy of complete clip closure of large (≥2 cm) nonpedunculated colorectal lesions after EMR in patients with an estimated average or high risk of delayed bleeding. METHODS: We performed a single-blind trial at 11 hospitals in Spain from May 2016 through June 2018, including 235 consecutive patients who underwent EMR for large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions with an average or high risk of delayed bleeding (based on Spanish Endoscopy Society Endoscopic Resection Group score). Participants were randomly assigned to groups that received closure of the scar with 11-mm through-the-scope clips (treated, n = 119) or no clip (control, n = 116). The primary outcome was proportion of patients in each group with delayed bleeding, defined as evident hematochezia that required medical intervention within 15 days after colonoscopy. RESULTS: In the clip group, complete closure was achieved in 68 (57%) cases, with partial closure in 33 (28%) cases and failure to close in 18 (15%) cases. Delayed bleeding occurred in 14 (12.1%) patients in the control group and in 6 (5%) patients in the clip group (absolute risk difference, reduction of 7% in the clip group; 95% confidence interval, -14.7% to 0.3%). After completion of the clip closure, there was only 1 (1.5%) case of delayed bleeding (absolute risk difference, reduction of 10.6%; 95% confidence interval, -4.3% to 17.9%). CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial of patients with large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions undergoing EMR, we found that clip closure of mucosal defects in patients with a risk of bleeding can be a challenge, but also reduces delayed bleeding. Prevention of delayed bleeding required complete clip closure. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02765022.

Guía clínica para la resección mucosa endoscópica de lesiones colorrectales no pediculadas / Clinical guidelines for endoscopic mucosal resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions

Este documento resume el contenido de la Guía de resección mucosa endoscópica elaborada por el grupo de trabajo de la Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva (GSEED de Resección Endoscópica) y expone las recomendaciones sobre el manejo endoscópico de las lesiones neoplásicas colorrectales superficiales (AU)

This document summarizes the contents of the Clinical Guidelines for the Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Lesions that was developed by the working group of the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy (GSEED of Endoscopic Resection). This document presents recommendations for the endoscopic management of superficial colorectal neoplastic lesions (AU)

Guía clínica para la resección mucosa endoscópica de lesiones colorrectales no pediculadas / Clinical guidelines for endoscopic mucosal resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions

Este documento resume el contenido de la Guía de resección mucosa endoscópica elaborada por el grupo de trabajo de la Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva (GSEED de Resección Endoscópica) y expone las recomendaciones sobre el manejo endoscópico de las lesiones neoplásicas colorrectales superficiales (AU)

This document summarizes the contents of the Clinical Guidelines for the Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Lesions that was developed by the working group of the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy (GSEED of Endoscopic Resection). This document presents recommendations for the endoscopic management of superficial colorectal neoplastic lesions (AU)

Clinical guidelines for endoscopic mucosal resection of non-pedunculated colorectal lesions.

This document summarizes the contents of the Clinical Guidelines for the Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Non-Pedunculated Colorectal Lesions that was developed by the working group of the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy (GSEED of Endoscopic Resection). This document presents recommendations for the endoscopic management of superficial colorectal neoplastic lesions.

Estudio multicéntrico de seguridad en endoscopia bariátrica / Multicenter study on the safety of bariatric endoscopy

Introducción: la endoscopia bariátrica abarca una serie de técnicas específicas encaminadas al tratamiento del paciente obeso. Como criterios de calidad, además de eficacia debe exigirse seguridad, expresada por una mínima incidencia de complicaciones graves. Métodos: revisión descriptiva y retrospectiva, multicéntrica, incluyendo la experiencia de siete hospitales que forman parte del Grupo Español de Endoscopia Bariátrica (GETTEMO) para documentar la incidencia, causa y resolución (y sus consecuencias médico-legales) de las complicaciones graves detectadas con cada una de las distintas técnicas de endoscopia bariátrica, diferenciadas además en función de la experiencia del endoscopista. Resultados: se recogieron 6.771 procedimientos endoscópicos bariátricos, entre los que se detectaron 57 complicaciones graves (0,84%). Balones: Orbera(R)-Medsil(R): 5/5.589; Spatz2(R) (modelo antiguo): 44/225; Heliosphere(R): 1/70; O’balon(R): 0/107. Suturas: POSE(R): 5/679; gastroplastia en manga con sistema Apollo(R): 0/55. Prótesis: Endobarrier(R): 2/46. Todas ellas se resolvieron con tratamiento médico/ endoscópico, excepto cinco casos (0,07%) que requirieron cirugía. Existió una única demanda judicial (perforación esofágica con balón Spatz2(R)), con resolución judicial favorable. No hubo mortalidad ni aparentemente diferencias en relación con la experiencia de los endoscopistas. Conclusiones: en nuestra experiencia multicéntrica, la endoscopia bariátrica puede considerarse un procedimiento seguro (0,84% total de complicaciones graves). Sin embargo, algunos dispositivos pueden presentar un mayor porcentaje de complicaciones, como en el 19,55% de balones Spatz2(R) (ya sustituido) o en el 4,34% del Endobarrier(R) (en el límite alto de la seguridad aceptada), aunque en este dispositivo nuestra casuística es limitada. Todas las complicaciones se resolvieron con tratamiento médico conservador, requiriendo cirugía solo de forma excepcional (0,07%). No se observó mortalidad relacionada con las técnicas y solo un único caso de demanda judicial. Se requieren más estudios evolutivos de las novedosas técnicas endoscópicas emergentes que corroboren estos resultados (AU)

Introduction: Bariatric endoscopy includes a series of specific techniques focused on the management of obese patients. As a quality criterion, safety as expressed by a minimal incidence of serious complications is required in addition to efficacy. Methods: A descriptive, retrospective, multicenter review of the experience recorded at seven hospitals included in the Grupo Español de Endoscopia Bariátrica (GETTEMO) in order to document the incidence, cause, and resolution (including legal consequences) of serious complications reported for each bariatric technique, and according to endoscopist expertise. Results: In all, 6,771 bariatric endoscopic procedures were collected, wherein 57 serious complications (0.84%) were identified. Balloons: Orbera(R)-Medsil(R), 5/5,589; Spatz2(R) (older model): 44/225; Heliosphere(R): 1/70; Obalon(R): 0/107. Sutures: POSE(R), 5/679; sleeve gastroplasty with Apollo(R) system: 0/55. Prostheses: Endobarrier(R): 2/46. All complications were resolved with medical/endoscopic management except for five cases (0.07%) that required surgery. A single lawsuit occurred (esophageal perforation with Spatz2(R) balloon), which had a favorable outcome. There was no mortality, and apparently no differences were found according to endoscopist expertise level. Conclusions: In our multicenter experience, bariatric endoscopy may be considered as a safe procedure (0.84% of serious complications in all). However, some devices may induce a higher proportion of complications, such as 19.55% for Spatz2(R) balloons (already replaced) or 4.34% for Endobarrier(R) sleeves (at the upper limit of accepted safety), although our experience with the latter is limited. All complications were resolved with conservative medical management, and only exceptionally required surgery (0.07%). No technique-related mortality was seen, and only one lawsuit occurred. Further evolutionary studies are required on the novel endoscopic techniques presently emerging to authenticate our results (AU)