Effectiveness of endoscopic resection for colorectal neoplasms in ulcerative colitis: a multicenter registration study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) are at risk of developing colorectal cancer. The feasibility of endoscopic resection (ER) for UC-associated neoplasia has been suggested, but its efficacy and safety remain unclear. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of ER for colorectal neoplasms in patients with UC. METHODS: This was a retrospective, multicenter cohort study of patients with UC who initially underwent ER or surgery for colorectal neoplasms between April 2015 and March 2021. Patients who had prior colorectal neoplastic lesions were excluded. RESULTS: Among 213 men and 123 women analyzed, the mean age at UC onset was 41.6 years, and the mean age at neoplasia diagnosis was 56.1 years for 240 cases of total colitis, 59 cases of left-sided colitis, 31 cases of proctitis, and 6 cases of segmental colitis. EMR was performed for 142 lesions, and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was performed for 96 lesions. The perforation rate was 2.5% for all 238 lesions removed by ER and 6.3% for the 96 lesions removed by ESD. Among 146 ER lesions followed up with endoscopy, the local recurrence rate was 2.7%. The incidence of metachronous neoplasia after ER was 6.1%. All patients were followed a median of 34.7 months after initial treatment, and 5 died (all surgical cases). Overall survival was significantly higher in the ER group than in the surgery group (P = .0085). CONCLUSIONS: ER for colorectal neoplasms in UC may be acceptable in selected cases, although follow-up for metachronous lesions is necessary.

Continuous use of antithrombotic medications during peri-endoscopic submucosal dissection period for colorectal lesions: A propensity score matched study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The aim of this study was to elucidate the continuous use of antithrombotic medications during the peri-colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) period. METHODS: This study included 468 patients with colorectal epithelial neoplasms treated by ESD, consisting of 82 under antithrombotic medications and 386 patients without the medications. Among patients taking antithrombotic medications, antithrombotic agents were continued during the peri-ESD period. Clinical characteristics and adverse events were compared after propensity score matching. RESULTS: Before and after propensity score matching, post-colorectal ESD bleeding rate was higher in patients continuing antithrombotic medications (19.5% and 21.6%, respectively) than in those not taking antithrombotic medications (2.9% and 5.4%, respectively). In the Cox regression analysis, continuation of antithrombotic medications was associated with post-ESD bleeding risk (hazard ratio, 3.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-11.6; P < 0.05) compared with patients without antithrombotic therapy. All patients who experienced post-ESD bleeding were successfully treated by endoscopic hemostasis procedure or conservative therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Continuation of antithrombotic medications during the peri-colorectal ESD period increases the risk of bleeding. However, the continuation may be acceptable under careful monitoring for post-ESD bleeding.

Resectability of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for duodenal tumor: A single-center, retrospective pilot study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) has been attracting much attention as treatment for patients with nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (NADETs). We aim to compare treatment outcomes, including submucosal resectability, between patients undergoing U-EMR and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) for NADET. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 38 patients with NADET treated by U-EMR or C-EMR. In the resected specimens, we measured the horizontal length, the vertical distance from the muscularis mucosa to the margin at the deepest site, and the overall submucosal area. The submucosal index (SMI) was defined as the overall submucosal area divided by the largest horizontal length. These values and other treatment outcomes were compared between NADETs resected by U-EMR and C-EMR. RESULTS: The median size of lesions was 7 mm with a range of 3-13 mm. Although the incidence of adverse events and the rates of en bloc and R0 resection were not different in the two groups, the median procedure time was significantly shorter in the U-EMR group (11 min vs 13 min; P = 0.045). The median submucosal depth at the deepest site (1.22 mm vs 1.08 mm; P = 0.38) and the median SMI (0.44 vs 0.41; P = 0.42) were not different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The resectability between NADETs treated by U-EMR and C-EMR was comparable. These results, together with the shorter procedure time required for U-EMR, suggest that U-EMR may have the potential to be the first choice for small to medium-sized NADET.