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 annual case volume on colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection outcomes in a large prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The adoption of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is still limited in the West. A recent randomized trial showed ESD is more effective and only slightly riskier than piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR); reproducibility outside expert centers was questioned. We evaluated the results according to the annual case volume in a multicentric prospective cohort. METHODS: Between 09/2019 and 09/2022, colorectal ESD was consecutively performed at 13 participating centers classified as low-volume (LV), middle-volume (MV), and high-volume (HV). The main procedural outcomes were assessed. Multivariate and propensity score matching (PSM) analyses were performed. RESULTS: 3770 ESDs were included. HV centers treated larger and more often colonic lesions than MV and LV centers. En bloc, R0 and curative resection rates were 95.2%, 87.4%, and 83.2%, respectively, and were higher at HV than at MV and LV centers. HV centers achieved also a faster dissection speed. Delayed bleeding and surgery for complications rates were 5.4% and 0.8%, respectively, without significant differences. The perforation rate (overall: 9%) was higher at MV than at LV and HV centers. Lesion characteristics, but not volume center, were independently associated with both R1 resection and perforation. However, after PSM, R0 rates were significantly higher at HV than at LV centers, and perforation rates were significantly higher at MV than at HV centers. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal ESD can be successfully implemented in the West, even in nonexpert centers. However, difficult lesions must still be referred to experts.

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.

High proficiency of esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection with a "tunnel + clip traction" strategy: a large French multicentric study.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the gold standard for the treatment of precancerous lesions or superficial esophageal cancers. This procedure is currently performed by expert endoscopists only, and poorly standardized. We aimed to assess the technical results and outcomes of a "tunnel + clip" strategy for esophageal ESD procedures performed by less experienced operators for the treatment of superficial neoplasms. METHODS: All consecutive esophageal ESDs performed with the "tunnel + clip" technique for patients with early esophageal cancer in 3 centers were enrolled. Procedural characteristics, clinical outcomes, and complications were recorded. RESULTS: Among 195 esophageal ESD procedures performed, early adenocarcinomas or high-grade dysplasia complicating Barrett's esophagus were predominant (132/195, 67.7%) compared with early squamous cell carcinomas (63/195, 32.3%). The en bloc, R0 and curative resection rates were 100% (195/195), 78.5% (153/195) and 67.2% (131/195), respectively. The mean rate of ESD was 29.7 mm2/min. One (0.5%) perprocedural perforation and 7 (3.6%) postprocedural bleedings occurred, all managed endoscopically. No delayed perforation occurred. Overall, 31 patients (31/195; 15.9%) of patients developed stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: The "tunnel + clip" strategy is safe, and allows to achieve high en bloc, R0 and curative resection rates. This standardized procedure could be used by physicians with little experience and might help spreading esophageal ESD in Western countries.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection combined with clip for closure of gastrointestinal fistulas including those refractory to previous therapy.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) fistula is a life-threatening condition and a therapeutic challenge. Endoscopic approaches include mucosal abrasion, clip closure, or stent diversion, with moderate success rates in the long term. We assessed whether fistula endoscopic submucosal dissection with clip closure (FESDC) could lead to complete resolution of fistulas even after failure of previous endoscopic therapy. METHODS: Patients with GI fistulas, including those with previous failed treatment, were retrospectively included. The primary outcome was long-term (> 3 months) success of fistula healing. Secondary outcomes included technical success, safety, and factors associated with FESDC success. RESULTS: 23 patients (13 refractory 57 %) were included. Tight immediate sealing was achieved in 19 patients (83 %; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 61 %-95 %). Long-term closure was achieved in 14 patients (61 %; 95 %CI 39 %-80 %), with median follow-up of 20 months. Complications occurred in two patients (9 %). Previous local malignancy (P = 0.08) and radiotherapy (P = 0.047) were associated with a higher risk of failure. CONCLUSION: This novel FESDC strategy was demonstrated to be safe and feasible for permanent endoscopic closure of GI fistulas. Further studies are warranted to determine the place of this technique in the management of chronic GI fistula.