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)

Perspectives and awareness of endoscopy healthcare professionals on sustainable practices in gastrointestinal endoscopy: results of the LEAFGREEN survey.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is one of healthcare's main contributors to climate change. We aimed to assess healthcare professionals' attitudes and the perceived barriers to implementation of sustainable GI endoscopy. METHODS: The LEAFGREEN web-based survey was a cross-sectional study conducted by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Green Endoscopy Working Group. The questionnaire comprised 39 questions divided into five sections (respondent demographics; climate change and sustainability beliefs; waste and resource management; single-use endoscopes and accessories; education and research). The survey was available via email to all active members of the ESGE and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) in March 2023. RESULTS: 407 respondents participated in the survey (11% response rate). Most participants (86%) agreed climate change is real and anthropogenic, but one-third did not consider GI endoscopy to be a significant contributor to climate change. Improvement in the appropriateness of endoscopic procedures (41%) and reduction in single-use accessories (34%) were considered the most important strategies to reduce the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. Respondents deemed lack of institutional support and knowledge from staff to be the main barriers to sustainable endoscopy. Strategies to reduce unnecessary GI endoscopic procedures and comparative studies of single-use versus reusable accessories were identified as research priorities. CONCLUSIONS: In this survey, ESGE and ESGENA members acknowledge climate change as a major threat to humanity. Further improvement in sustainability beliefs and professional attitudes, reduction in inappropriate GI endoscopy, and rational use of single-use accessories and endoscopes are critically required.

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.

Risk of delayed bleeding after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: the Limoges Bleeding Score.

BACKGROUND: Clinically significant delayed bleeding (CSDB) is a frequent, and sometimes severe, adverse event after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We evaluated risk factors of CSDB after colorectal ESD. METHODS: We analyzed a prospective registry of 940 colorectal ESDs performed from 2013 to 2022. The incidence of bleeding was evaluated up to 30 days. Risk factors for delayed bleeding were evaluated by multivariate logistic regression. A Korean scoring model was tested, and a new risk-scoring model was developed and internally validated. RESULTS: CSDB occurred in 75 patients (8.0%). The Korean score performed poorly in our cohort, with a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.567. In the multivariate analysis, risk factors were age ≥75 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.63; 95%CI 0.97-2.73; 1 point), use of antithrombotics (OR 1.72; 95%CI 1.01-2.94; 1 point), rectal location (OR 1.51; 95%CI 0.92-2.48; 1 point), size >50 mm (OR 3.67; 95%CI 2.02-7.14; 3 points), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of III or IV (OR 2.26; 95%CI 1.32-3.92; 2 points). The model showed fair calibration and good discrimination, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.751 (95%CI 0.690-0.812). The score was used to define two groups of patients, those with low-medium risk (0 to 4 points) and high risk (5 to 8 points) for CSDB (respective bleeding rates 4.1% and 17.5%). CONCLUSION: A score based on five simple and meaningful variables was predictive of CSDB.

Western outcomes of circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection for early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection (cESD) in the esophagus has been reported to be feasible in small Eastern case series. We assessed the outcomes of cESD in the treatment of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in Western countries. METHODS: We conducted an international study at 25 referral centers in Europe and Australia using prospective databases. We included all patients with ESCC treated with cESD before November 2022. Our main outcomes were curative resection according to European guidelines and adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 171 cESDs were performed on 165 patients. En bloc and R0 resections rates were 98.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95.0-99.4) and 69.6% (95% CI, 62.3-76.0), respectively. Curative resection was achieved in 49.1% (95% CI, 41.7-56.6) of the lesions. The most common reason for noncurative resection was deep submucosal invasion (21.6%). The risk of stricture requiring 6 or more dilations or additional techniques (incisional therapy/stent) was high (71%), despite the use of prophylactic measures in 93% of the procedures. The rates of intraprocedural perforation, delayed bleeding, and adverse cardiorespiratory events were 4.1%, 0.6%, and 4.7%, respectively. Two patients died (1.2%) of a cESD-related adverse event. Overall and disease-free survival rates at 2 years were 91% and 79%. CONCLUSIONS: In Western referral centers, cESD for ESCC is curative in approximately half of the lesions. It can be considered a feasible treatment in selected patients. Our results suggest the need to improve patient selection and to develop more effective therapies to prevent esophageal strictures.

Predicting residual neoplasia after a non-curative gastric ESD: validation and modification of the eCura system in the Western setting: the W-eCura score.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) after a non-curative (NC) gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and to validate and eventually refine the eCura scoring system in the Western setting. Also, to assess the rate and risk factors for parietal residual disease. DESIGN: Retrospective multicentre multinational study of prospectively collected registries from 19 Western centres. Patients who had been submitted to surgery or had at least one follow-up endoscopy were included. The eCura system was applied to assess its accuracy in the Western setting, and a modified version was created according to the results (W-eCura score). The discriminative capacities of the eCura and W-eCura scores to predict LNM were assessed and compared. RESULTS: A total of 314 NC gastric ESDs were analysed (72% high-risk resection (HRR); 28% local-risk resection). Among HRR patients submitted to surgery, 25% had parietal disease and 15% had LNM in the surgical specimen. The risk of LNM was significantly different across the eCura groups (areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) of 0.900 (95% CI 0.852 to 0.949)). The AUC-ROC of the W-eCura for LNM (0.916, 95% CI 0.870 to 0.961; p=0.012) was significantly higher compared with the original eCura. Positive vertical margin, lymphatic invasion and younger age were associated with a higher risk of parietal residual lesion in the surgical specimen. CONCLUSION: The eCura scoring system may be applied in Western countries to stratify the risk of LNM after a gastric HRR. A new score is proposed that may further decrease the number of unnecessary surgeries.

Risk of Residual Neoplasia after a Local-Risk Resection of Colorectal Lesions by Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: A Multinational Study.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in colorectal lesions is demanding, and a significant rate of non-curative procedures is expected. We aimed to assess the rate of residual lesion after a piecemeal ESD resection, or after an en bloc resection but with positive horizontal margins (local-risk resection-LocRR), for colorectal benign neoplasia. A retrospective multicenter analysis of consecutive colorectal ESDs was performed. Patients with LocRR ESDs for the treatment of benign colorectal lesions with at least one follow-up endoscopy were included. A cohort of en bloc resected lesions, with negative margins, was used as the control. A total of 2255 colorectal ESDs were reviewed; 352 of the ESDs were "non-curative". Among them, 209 were LocRR: 133 high-grade dysplasia and 76 low-grade dysplasia. Ten cases were excluded due to missing data. A total of 146 consecutive curative resections were retrieved for comparison. Compared to the "curative group", LocRRs were observed in lengthier procedures, with larger lesions, and in non-granular LSTs. Recurrence was higher in the LocRR group (16/199, 8% vs. 1/146, 0.7%; p = 0.002). However, statistical significance was lost when considering only en bloc resections with positive horizontal margins (p = 0.068). In conclusion, a higher rate of residual lesion was found after a piecemeal ESD resection, but not after an en bloc resection with positive horizontal margins.

The Human Gastric Juice: A Promising Source for Gastric Cancer Biomarkers.

Gastric cancer (GC) is a major public health problem worldwide, with high mortality rates due to late diagnosis and limited treatment options. Biomarker research is essential to improve the early detection of GC. Technological advances and research methodologies have improved diagnostic tools, identifying several potential biomarkers for GC, including microRNA, DNA methylation markers, and protein-based biomarkers. Although most studies have focused on identifying biomarkers in biofluids, the low specificity of these markers has limited their use in clinical practice. This is because many cancers share similar alterations and biomarkers, so obtaining them from the site of disease origin could yield more specific results. As a result, recent research efforts have shifted towards exploring gastric juice (GJ) as an alternative source for biomarker identification. Since GJ is a waste product during a gastroscopic examination, it could provide a "liquid biopsy" enriched with disease-specific biomarkers generated directly at the damaged site. Furthermore, as it contains secretions from the stomach lining, it could reflect changes associated with the developmental stage of GC. This narrative review describes some potential biomarkers for gastric cancer screening identified in gastric juice.

POEM from A to Z: current perspectives.

The "third space endoscopy" or also called "submucosal endoscopy" is a reality we can transfer to our patients since 2010. Various modifications of the submucosal tunneling technique allow access to the submucosa or deeper layers of the gastrointestinal tract. In addition to peroral endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of achalasia, also called esophageal POEM, other variants have emerged that make it possible to treat different esophageal motility disorders, esophageal diverticula, subepithelial tumors of various locations, gastroparesis, reconnection of complete esophageal strictures or even thanks to exceptional endoscopists, pediatric disorders such as Hirschsprung's disease. Although some technical aspects are yet to be standardized, these procedures are becoming widespread worldwide and will likely become the standard treatment of these pathologies soon.

Risk of residual neoplasia after a noncurative colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection for malignant lesions: a multinational study.

BACKGROUND : Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in colorectal lesions is technically demanding and a significant rate of noncurative procedures is expected. We aimed to assess the rate of residual lesions after a noncurative ESD for colorectal cancer (CRC) and to establish predictive scores to be applied in the clinical setting. METHODS : Retrospective multicenter analysis of consecutive colorectal ESDs. Patients with noncurative ESDs performed for the treatment of CRC lesions submitted to complementary surgery or with at least one follow-up endoscopy were included. RESULTS : From 2255 colorectal ESDs, 381 (17 %) were noncurative, and 135 of these were performed in CRC lesions. A residual lesion was observed in 24 patients (18 %). Surgery was performed in 96 patients and 76 (79 %) had no residual lesion in the colorectal wall or in the lymph nodes. The residual lesion rate for sm1 cancers was 0 %, and for > sm1 cancers was also 0 % if no other risk factors were present. Independent risk factors for lymph node metastasis were poor differentiation and lymphatic permeation (NC-Lymph score). Risk factors for the presence of a residual lesion in the wall were piecemeal resection, poor differentiation, and positive/indeterminate vertical margin (NC-Wall score). CONCLUSIONS : Lymphatic permeation or poor differentiation warrant surgery owing to their high risk of lymph node metastasis, mainly in > sm1 cancers. In the remaining cases, en bloc and R0 resections resulted in a low risk of residual lesions in the wall. Our scores can be a useful tool for the management of patients who undergo noncurative colorectal ESDs.

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.).

Endoscopic management of patients with high-risk colorectal colitis-associated neoplasia: a Delphi study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Current guidelines recommend endoscopic resection of visible and endoscopically resectable colorectal colitis-associated neoplasia (CAN) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, patients with high-risk CAN (HR-CAN) are often not amenable to conventional resection techniques, and a consensus approach for the endoscopic management of these lesions is presently lacking. This Delphi study aims to reach consensus among experts on the endoscopic management of these lesions. METHODS: A 3-round modified Delphi process was conducted to reach consensus among worldwide IBD and/or endoscopy experts (n = 18) from 3 continents. Consensus was considered if ≥75% agreed or disagreed. Quality of evidence was assessed by the criteria of the Cochrane Collaboration group. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on all statements (n = 14). Experts agreed on a definition for CAN and HR-CAN. Consensus was reached on the examination of the colon with enhanced endoscopic imaging before resection, the endoscopic resectability of an HR-CAN lesion, and endoscopic assessment and standard report of CAN lesions. In addition, experts agreed on type of resections of HR-CAN (< 20 mm, >20 mm, with or without good lifting), endoscopic success (technical success and outcomes), histologic assessment, and follow-up in HR-CAN. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first step in developing international consensus-based recommendations for endoscopic management of CAN and HR-CAN. Although the quality of available evidence was considered low, consensus was reached on several aspects of the management of CAN and HR-CAN. The present work and proposed standardization might benefit future studies.

Outcomes of peroral endoscopic myotomy in patients with spastic esophageal motility disorders that do not fulfill Chicago Classification criteria

Introduction: per-oral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) hasbecome a mainstream treatment for achalasia and is apromising therapy in spastic disorders.Methods: this is a retrospective study of prospectively collected data (case series). We present the first results of theuse of POEM in patients with atypical spastic esophagealmotor disorders that do not satisfy current Chicago Classification criteria. Seven consecutive patients with troublesome and persistent symptoms (12-180 months) relatedto atypical spastic esophageal motor dysfunction weresystematically assessed before and after POEM, the extentof which was tailored by manometric findings. In five ofthe patients, other endoscopic or surgical procedures hadfailed.Results: high-resolution manometry (HRM) showed a spasticesophageal body contractile segment in varying positionsand lengths along the esophageal body which did not meet Chicago Classification criteria. After POEM, dysphagia and/or chest pain had either resolved or was greatly reduced.HRM 3-6 months after myotomy showed that the regions ofspastic contraction targeted by myotomy had been ablated.There were no major complications. The clinical responseswere fully maintained up to the most recent assessmentsafter POEM (range 7-44 months).Conclussion: in our seven patients, POEM was a highly effective treatment for patients with troublesome symptoms related to atypical spastic esophageal motility disorders. (AU)

Prevention of delayed post-polypectomy bleeding by prophylactic clipping after endoscopic colorectal polypectomy: a meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This meta-analysis aims to investigate the role of prophylactic clipping after endoscopic colorectal polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in prevention of delayed bleeding (DB) following polypectomy. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of prophylactic clipping versus no clipping on DB since inception to 22nd April 2022. We then performed a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. RESULTS: We included 8 studies with 5648 patients and 10,436 lesions. Prophylactic clipping did not reduce the overall risk of DB compared with no clipping (1.54% vs 2.05%; Log RR, -0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.59, 0.01; P = 0.06). In subgroup analyses, clipping significantly reduced DB rate in polyps ≥ 2 cm (Log RR, -0.63; 95% CI, -1.08, -0.18; P = 0.01), in non-pedunculated polyps (Log RR, -0.63; 95% CI, -1.01, -0.24; P = 0.00), and in large (≥ 2 cm) proximal polyps (Log RR, -0.81; 95% CI, -1.56, 0.05; P = 0.04), but not in polyps < 2 cm (Log RR, 0.01; 95% CI, -.40, 0.42; P = 0.95). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic clipping does not prevent post-polypectomy bleeding after all EMR and should not be performed as a routine practice. Although prophylactic clipping may reduce DB rate following resection of large proximal polyps and non-pedunculated polyps, more high-quality studies are needed to determine the effects of factors such as polyp location, polyp morphology, antithrombotic drug use and complete or partial closure on the effectiveness of prophylactic clipping.

Clip closure to prevent adverse events after EMR of proximal large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: After EMR, prophylactic clipping is often performed to prevent clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB) and other adverse events (AEs). Prior evidence syntheses have lacked sufficient power to assess clipping in relevant subgroups or in nonbleeding AEs. We performed a meta-analysis of individual patient data (IPD) from randomized trials assessing the efficacy of clipping to prevent AEs after EMR of proximal large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) ≥20 mm. METHODS: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and PubMed from inception to May 19, 2021. Two reviewers screened citations in duplicate. Corresponding authors of eligible studies were invited to contribute IPD. A random-effects 1-stage model was specified for estimating pooled effects, adjusting for patient sex and age and for lesion location and size, whereas a fixed-effects model was used for traditional meta-analyses. RESULTS: From 3145 citations, 4 trials were included, representing 1248 patients with proximal LNPCPs. The overall rate of CSPEB was 3.5% and 9.0% in clipped and unclipped patients, respectively. IPD were available for 1150 patients, in which prophylactic clipping prevented CSPEB with an odds ratio (OR) of .31 (95% confidence interval [CI], .17-.54). Clipping was not associated with perforation or abdominal pain, with ORs of .78 (95% CI, .17-3.54) and .67 (95% CI, .20-2.22), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic clipping is efficacious in preventing CSPEB after EMR of proximal LNPCPs. Therefore, clip closure should be considered a standard component of EMR of LNPCPs in the proximal colon.

Preventing Postendoscopic Mucosal Resection Bleeding of Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Lesions.

The most common major adverse event of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB), with an incidence of 6%-7% in large lesions. Repeat colonoscopy, blood transfusions, or other interventions are often needed. The associated direct costs are much higher than those of an uncomplicated EMR. In this review, we discuss the aspects related to CSPEB of large nonpedunculated polyps, such as risk factors, predictive models, and prophylactic measures, and we highlight evidence for preventive treatment options and explore new methods for bleeding prophylaxis. We also provide recommendations for steps that can be taken before, during, and after EMR to minimize bleeding risk. Finally, this review proposes future directions to reduce CSPEB incidence.