Environmental impact of small-bowel capsule endoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: The environmental impact of endoscopy, including small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), has gained attention due to its contribution to the global carbon footprint. This study aimed to evaluate the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (kgCO2e) of SBCE, including devices life cycle and capsule journey. METHODS: SBCE devices (3 brands) were evaluated using life cycle assessment methodology (ISO 14040), including patient travelling, bowel preparation, capsule examination and video recording. A survey was conducted on 120 patients undergoing a SBCE to gather data on their transportation, activities during the procedure, and awareness of pollution generated and on 87 physicians reading capsules. RESULTS: For the 3 different capsules, the weight was 4 g (3.9-5.2% of total), while 43 to 119 g were attributed for packaging (9-97%) including 5 g of deactivation magnets (4-6%) and 11 to 50 g for instruction forms (40%). A full SBCE generated between 19 and 20 kgCO2e, including 0.04 kgCO2e (0.2%) for the capsule itself and 18 kgCO2e related to patient travelling (94.7%). Capsule retrieval would add 0.98 kgCO2e using dedicated devices. Capsule deconstruction revealed components (e.g. Neodymium) that are prohibited from environmental disposal. 76% of patients were not aware of the illegal nature of flushing capsules, and 63% would be willing to retrieve it. Data storage and physician impact were negligible. CONCLUSION: The GHG emission of SBCE is mainly determined by patient travelling. The capsule device itself has a comparably low carbon footprint. Considering capsule components disposal is illegal, retrieval of the capsule seems crucial but increasing device-related emissions.

Curative criteria for endoscopic treatment of colorectal cancer.

As endoscopic treatment enables en bloc resection of T1 colorectal cancers, the risk of recurrence, often assimilated to the risk of lymph node metastases, must be assessed in order to offer patients an additional treatment if this risk is deemed significant. The curative criteria currently used by most guidelines are depth of invasion <1 mm, well or moderately differentiated tumour, absence of lympho-vascular invasion, absence of significant budding and tumour-free resection margins. However, these factors must be assessed by qualified pathologists, as they are difficult to evaluate. Moreover, the combination of these factors leads to unnecessary surgery in over 80 % of patients whose tumours are classified as high risk. Refinement of current criteria and research into new tumour and immunological markers are needed to better predict the actual risk of our patients.

Will Endoscopic-Ultrasound-Guided Choledocoduodenostomy with Electrocautery-Enhanced Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent Placement Replace Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography When Treating Distal Malignant Biliary Obstructions?

Malignant distal biliary obstructions are becoming increasingly common, especially in patients with cancers of the pancreatic head, despite progress in medical oncology research. ERCP is the current gold standard for management of such strictures, but the emergence of EC-LAMS has rendered EUS-CDS both safe and efficient. It is a "game changer"; originally intended for ERCP failure, two randomised clinical trials recently proposed EUS-CDS as a first-intent procedure in palliative settings. For resectable diseases, the absence of iatrogenic pancreatitis associated with a lower rate of postsurgical adverse events (compared with ERCP) leads us to believe that EUS-CDS might be used in first-intent as a pre-operative endoscopic biliary drainage.

Non-metastatic colon cancer: French Intergroup Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatments, and follow-up (TNCD, SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, ACHBT, SFP, AFEF, and SFR).

INTRODUCTION: This article is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of non-metastatic colon cancer (CC), revised in November 2022. METHODS: These guidelines represent collaborative work of all French medical and surgical societies involved in the management of CC. Recommendations were graded in three categories (A, B, and C) according to the level of evidence found in the literature published up to November 2022. RESULTS: Initial evaluation of CC is based on clinical examination, colonoscopy, chest-abdomen-pelvis computed tomography (CT) scan, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) assay. CC is usually managed by surgery and adjuvant treatment depending on the pathological findings. The use of adjuvant therapy remains a challenging question in stage II disease. For high-risk stage II CC, adjuvant chemotherapy must be discussed and fluoropyrimidine monotherapy or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy proposed according to the type and number of poor prognostic features. Oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (FOLFOX or CAPOX) is the current standard for adjuvant therapy of patients with stage III CC. However, these regimens are associated with significant oxaliplatin-induced neurotoxicity. The results of the recent IDEA study provide evidence that 3 months of treatment with CAPOX is as effective as 6 months of oxaliplatin-based therapy in patients with low-risk stage III CC (T1-3 and N1). A 6-month oxaliplatin-based therapy remains the standard of care for high-risk stage III CC (T4 and/or N2). For patients unfit for oxaliplatin, fluoropyrimidine monotherapy is recommended. CONCLUSION: French guidelines for non-metastatic CC management help to offer the best personalized therapeutic strategy in daily clinical practice. Each individual case must be discussed within a multidisciplinary tumor board and then the treatment option decided with the patient.

Prevalence and clinical significance of the muscle retracting sign during endoscopic submucosal dissection of large macronodular colorectal lesions (with videos).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The muscle retracting sign (MRS) can be present during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of macronodular colorectal lesions. The prevalence of MRS and its pathologic and clinical implications is unclear. This study evaluated the effect of MRS on the technical and clinical outcomes of ESD. METHODS: All patients referred for ESD of protruding lesions or granular mixed lesions with >10 mm macronodule granular mixed laterally spreading tumors (LST-GMs) in 2 academic centers from January 2017 to October 2022 were prospectively included. Size of the macronodule was analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcome was the curative resection rate according to MRS status. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection, perforation, secondary surgery rate, and risk factors for MRS. RESULTS: Of 694 lesions, 84 (12%) had MRS (MRS+). The curative resection rate was decreased by MRS (MRS+ 41.6% vs lesions without MRS [MRS-] 81.3%), whereas the perforation (MRS+ 22.6% vs MRS- 9.2%), submucosal cancer (MRS+ 34.9% vs MRS- 9.2%), and surgery (MRS+ 45.2% vs MRS- 6%) rates were increased. The R0 resection rate of MRS+ colonic lesions was lower than that of rectal lesions (53% vs 74.3%). In multivariate analysis, protruding lesions (odds ratio, 2.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-4.80) and macronodules >4 cm (odds ratio, 4.24; 95% confidence interval, 2.23-8.05) were risk factors for MRS. CONCLUSIONS: MRS reduces oncologic outcomes and increases the perforation rate. Consequently, procedures in the colon should be stopped if MRS is detected, and those in the rectum should be continued due to the morbidity of alternative therapy.

Systematic Resection of the Visible Scar After Incomplete Endoscopic Resection of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors.

INTRODUCTION: When initial resection of rectal neuroendocrine tumors (r-NETs) is not R0, persistence of local residue could lead to disease recurrence. This study aimed to evaluate the interest of systematic resection of non-R0 r-NET scars. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all the consecutive endoscopic revisions and resections of the scar after non-R0 resections of r-NETs. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were included. Salvage endoscopic procedure using endoscopic submucosal dissection or endoscopic full-thickness resection showed an R0 rate of near 100%. Residual r-NET was found in 43% of cases. DISCUSSION: In case of non-R0 resected r-NET, systematic scar resection by endoscopic full-thickness resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection seems necessary.

Impact of surgery after endoscopically resected high-risk T1 colorectal cancer: results of an emulated target trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of patients with high-risk T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) resected endoscopically who received either additional surgery or surveillance. METHODS: We used data from routine care to emulate a target trial aimed at comparing 2 strategies after endoscopic resection of high-risk T1 CRC: surgery with lymph node dissection (treatment group) versus surveillance alone (control group). All patients from 14 tertiary centers who underwent an endoscopic resection for high-risk T1 CRC between March 2012 and August 2019 were included. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of cancer recurrence or death at 48 months. RESULTS: Of 197 patients included in the analysis, 107 were categorized in the treatment group and 90 were categorized in the control group. From baseline to 48 months, 4 of 107 patients (3.7%) died in the treatment group and 6 of 90 patients (6.7%) died in the control group. Four of 107 patients (3.7%) in the treatment group experienced a cancer recurrence and 4 of 90 patients (4.4%) in the control group experienced a cancer recurrence. After balancing the baseline covariates by inverse probability of treatment weighting, we found no significant difference in the rate of death and cancer recurrence between patients in the 2 groups (weighted hazard ratio, .95; 95% confidence interval, .52-1.75). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that patients with high-risk T1 CRC initially treated with endoscopic resection may not benefit from additional surgery.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection assisted by adaptive traction: results of the first 54 procedures.

BACKGROUND : Good submucosal exposure is key to successful endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and can be achieved with various traction devices. Nevertheless, these devices have a fixed traction force that tends to decrease as the dissection progresses. In contrast, the ATRACT adaptive traction device increases traction during the procedure. METHODS : In this retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data (from a French database), we analyzed ESD procedures performed with the ATRACT device between April 2022 and October 2022. The device was used consecutively whenever possible. We collected details of lesion characteristics, procedural data, histologic outcomes, and clinical consequences for the patient. RESULTS : 54 resections performed in 52 patients by two experienced operators (46 procedures) and six novices (eight procedures) were analyzed. The ATRACT devices used were the ATRACT-2 (n = 21), the ATRACT 2 + 2 (n = 30), and the ATRACT-4 (n = 3). Four adverse events were observed: one perforation (1.9 %), which was closed endoscopically, and three delayed bleeding events (5.5 %). The R0 rate was 93 %, resulting in curative resection in 91 % of cases. CONCLUSION: ESD using the ATRACT device is safe and effective in the colon and rectum, but can also be used to assist with procedures in the upper gastrointestinal tract. It may be particularly useful in difficult locations.

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.