Gastric cancer detection rates using GI endoscopy with serologic risk stratification: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Efforts have been made to develop an endoscopic screening system incorporating serologic gastric cancer (GC) risk stratification (ABC classification) alongside annual population-based GC screening using barium. We conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to compare GC detection rates between the Ba-Endo group, which underwent annual barium tests for primary screening followed by detailed endoscopic examinations, and the ABC-Endo group, where endoscopy intervals were determined based on individual gastric cancer risk in the ABC classification. METHODS: In total, 1206 individuals from Yurihonjo and Nikaho City, Akita Prefecture, were randomized through the minimization method using sex and age as allocation factors. The intervention study was conducted for both groups over 5 years. The Ba-Endo group received annual barium tests, and the ABC-Endo group underwent EGD at different intervals: group A, EGD only at entry; group B, EGD once every 3 years; group C, EGD once every 2 years; and group D, EGD every year. RESULTS: There were 24 detected GC lesions, with a GC detection rate of 1.9%. GC detection rates in the Ba-Endo and ABC-Endo groups were 2.0% and 1.8%, respectively, with no significant differences between groups (P = 1.0). However, the rate of GC cured by endoscopic resection alone was 41.6% in the Ba-Endo group and was significantly higher at 90.9% in the ABC-Endo group (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences between the Ba-Endo and ABC-Endo groups in GC detection rates. However, the rate of detected GCs that could be cured by endoscopic resection alone was significantly higher in the ABC-Endo group. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000005962.).

Efficacy of endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device for small rectal neuroendocrine tumor: study protocol of a multicenter open-label randomized control trial (BANDIT trial).

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic resection is widely accepted as a local treatment for rectal neuroendocrine tumors sized ≤ 10 mm. However, there is no consensus on the best method for the endoscopic resection of rectal neuroendocrine tumors. As a simplified endoscopic procedure, endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device (ESMR-L) indicates a histologically complete resection rate comparable to that of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We hypothesized that ESMR-L than ESD would be preferred for rectal neuroendocrine tumors. Hence, this trial aimed to verify whether ESMR-L is non-inferior to ESD in terms of histologically complete resection rate. METHODS: This is a prospective, open-label, multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial of two parallel groups, conducted at the Shizuoka Cancer Center and 31 other institutions in Japan. Patients with a lesion endoscopically diagnosed as a rectal neuroendocrine tumor ≤ 10 mm are eligible for inclusion. A total of 266 patients will be recruited and randomized to undergo either ESD or ESMR-L. The primary endpoint is the rate of en bloc resection with histologically tumor-free margins (R0 resection). Secondary endpoints include en bloc resection rate, procedure time, adverse events, hospitalization days, total devices and agents cost, adverse event rate between groups with and without resection site closure, outcomes between expert and non-expert endoscopists, and factors associated with R0 resection failure. The sample size is determined based on the assumption that the R0 resection rate will be 95.2% in the ESD group and 95.3% in the ESMR-L group, with a non-inferiority margin of 8%. With a one-sided significance level of 0.05 and a power of 80%, 226 participants are required. Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, 266 patients will be included in this study. DISCUSSION: This is the first multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing ESD and ESMR-L for the R0 resection of rectal neuroendocrine tumors ≤ 10 mm. This will provide valuable information for standardizing endoscopic resection methods for rectal neuroendocrine tumors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Japan Registry of Clinical Trials, jRCTs042210124. Registered on Jan 6, 2022.

Efficacy of Cricoid Pressure Application during Esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Patients with Poor Gastric Wall Extension.

INTRODUCTION: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) requires adequate air infusion. However, cases of poor gastrointestinal wall extension due to frequent eructation have been reported. Sufficient gastrointestinal wall extension can be achieved by applying cricoid pressure during EGD. Herein, we evaluated the frequency of cases with poor gastrointestinal wall extension and the efficacy and safety of applying cricoid pressure during EGD. METHODS: This interventional study included patients who underwent EGD between January 2020 and December 2020 at the JA Akita Koseiren Yuri Kumiai General Hospital. Cases wherein folds of the greater curvature of the upper gastric body were not sufficiently extended during EGD were considered to have poor gastrointestinal wall extension. In such cases, air infusion was performed while applying cricoid pressure. This procedure was considered effective when gastric wall extension was achieved. RESULTS: A total of 2,000 patients were enrolled and underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy; however, five were excluded because of upper gastrointestinal tract stenosis. Observation of gastric wall extension of the greater curvature in the upper gastric body with normal air insufflation was difficult in 113 (5.7%) cases. Applying cricoid pressure was effective in 93 (82.3%) patients with poor gastric wall extension. Sufficient gastric wall extension was achieved within an average of 12.8 s in cases where cricoid pressure application was effective. No adverse events were associated with cricoid pressure application. CONCLUSIONS: Cricoid pressure application for patients with poor gastric wall extension during EGD is useful for ensuring a sufficient field of view during observation of the gastric body.

Randomized controlled trial of remimazolam compared with placebo in Japanese patients undergoing colonoscopy: A phase III, investigator-initiated trial.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted an investigator-initiated clinical trial in which remimazolam was used to achieve sedation in patients undergoing colonoscopy. METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III investigator-initiated trial included patients who underwent colonoscopy under sedation achieved with remimazolam (initial dose: 3 mg; additional doses: 1 mg) or normal saline (placebo). The primary endpoint was the sedation success rate during colonoscopy, defined as successful sedation (modified observer's alertness/sedation [MOAA/S] score ≤4 prior to colonoscopy), the successful completion of the colonoscopy, and no more than five additional doses of remimazolam per 15 min during the procedure. RESULTS: The sedation success rate was 95.0% (38/40 patients) in the remimazolam group and 0.0% (0/11 patients) in the placebo group (p<0.01). The time from the end of the procedure to awakening was 0.0 (interquartile range: 0.0-0.0) min in both groups. The time from the end of the procedure to ambulation was 5.0 min (interquartile range: 0.0-10.0 min) in the remimazolam group and 0.0 min (interquartile range: 0.0-0.0 min) in the placebo group (p=0.02). No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: The use of remimazolam to achieve sedation in Japanese patients undergoing colonoscopy was more effective than the use of a placebo. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered in the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (registration number: jRCT2031200360).

Randomized controlled trial of remimazolam compared with placebo in Japanese patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: Phase III investigator-initiated clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of remimazolam against normal saline (placebo) as a sedative agent for endoscopy in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, investigator-initiated phase III controlled trial. METHODS: We included 48 Japanese patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. For the procedure, an initial remimazolam dose of 3 mg and additional doses of 1 mg were administered, as determined in the phase II clinical study. The primary study end-point was the successful sedation rate during gastrointestinal endoscopy, determined as a Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation score ≤4 before the start of endoscopy, the completion of gastrointestinal endoscopy, and two or fewer additional doses per 6 min. RESULTS: The successful endoscopy sedation rates were 91.9% and 9.1% in the remimazolam and placebo groups, respectively (P < 0.01). The time from the end of endoscopy to arousal was 0.0 (0.0-0.0) min for both groups. The number of additional doses required to achieve sedation was lower in the remimazolam group than that in the placebo group (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Remimazolam demonstrated a significantly higher sedation effect during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in Japanese patients with safe and fast recovery compared with placebo.

Comparison of remimazolam and midazolam for sedation during colonoscopy in Japanese patients: A propensity score matching analysis.

Objectives: To compare the efficacy and safety of sedation with midazolam and remimazolam for colorectal endoscopy. Methods: This single-center, two-arm, post-hoc analysis of the REM-IICTJP01 study investigated the efficacy and safety of remimazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopic sedation. We enrolled 40 and 208 patients who underwent colonoscopy under remimazolam and midazolam sedation, respectively, during the same period. The primary outcome was the time from the end of the colonoscopy until discharge. The secondary outcomes included the time from the end of the colonoscopy until awakening, dosage, and adverse events. Propensity score matching was employed to eliminate the effect of confounding factors. Results: Thirty-seven patients in each group were matched. After propensity matching, the time to awakening after colonoscopy was 28.0 (13.0-37.0) min in the midazolam group and 0 (0-0) min in the remimazolam group; moreover, the time till discharge was 40.0 (35.0-46.5) min in the midazolam group and 0 (0-5.0) min in the remimazolam group, both of which were significantly shorter in the remimazolam group (p < 0.01). The number of additional doses was 0 (0-0) and 2 (1-3) in the midazolam and remimazolam groups, respectively. The total dose was 2.0 (2.0-3.5) and 6.0 (5.0-7.0) mg in the midazolam and remimazolam groups, respectively. Conclusions: Remimazolam yielded significantly faster times to awakening and discharge safely compared to midazolam.