AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Endoscopic Eradication Therapy of Barrett's Esophagus and Related Neoplasia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) can be effective in eradicating BE and related neoplasia and has greater risk of harms and resource use than surveillance endoscopy. This clinical practice guideline aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the use of EET in BE and related neoplasia. METHODS: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to assess evidence and make recommendations. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients, conducted an evidence review, and used the Evidence-to-Decision Framework to develop recommendations regarding the use of EET in patients with BE under the following scenarios: presence of (1) high-grade dysplasia, (2) low-grade dysplasia, (3) no dysplasia, and (4) choice of stepwise endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or focal EMR plus ablation, and (5) endoscopic submucosal dissection vs EMR. Clinical recommendations were based on the balance between desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 5 recommendations for the use of EET in BE and related neoplasia. Based on the available evidence, the panel made a strong recommendation in favor of EET in patients with BE high-grade dysplasia and conditional recommendation against EET in BE without dysplasia. The panel made a conditional recommendation in favor of EET in BE low-grade dysplasia; patients with BE low-grade dysplasia who place a higher value on the potential harms and lower value on the benefits (which are uncertain) regarding reduction of esophageal cancer mortality could reasonably select surveillance endoscopy. In patients with visible lesions, a conditional recommendation was made in favor of focal EMR plus ablation over stepwise EMR. In patients with visible neoplastic lesions undergoing resection, the use of either endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection was suggested based on lesion characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This document provides a comprehensive outline of the indications for EET in the management of BE and related neoplasia. Guidance is also provided regarding the considerations surrounding implementation of EET. Providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient preferences. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted to guide future research opportunities.

Cold Versus Hot Snare Endoscopic Resection of Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: Randomized Controlled German CHRONICLE Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is standard therapy for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm. It has been suggested recently that polyp resection without current (cold resection) may be superior to the standard technique using cutting/coagulation current (hot resection) by reducing adverse events (AEs), but evidence from a randomized trial is missing. METHODS: In this randomized controlled multicentric trial involving 19 centers, nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm were randomly assigned to cold or hot EMR. The primary outcome was major AE (eg, perforation or postendoscopic bleeding). Among secondary outcomes, major AE subcategories, postpolypectomy syndrome, and residual adenoma were most relevant. RESULTS: Between 2021 and 2023, there were 396 polyps in 363 patients (48.2% were female) enrolled for the intention-to-treat analysis. Major AEs occurred in 1.0% of the cold group and in 7.9% of the hot group (P = .001; odds ratio [OR], 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03-0.54). Rates for perforation and postendoscopic bleeding were significantly lower in the cold group, with 0% vs 3.9% (P = .007) and 1.0% vs 4.4% (P = .040). Postpolypectomy syndrome occurred with similar frequency (3.1% vs 4.4%; P = .490). After cold resection, residual adenoma was found more frequently, with 23.7% vs 13.8% (P = .020; OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.12-3.38). In multivariable analysis, lesion diameter of ≥4 cm was an independent predictor both for major AEs (OR, 3.37) and residual adenoma (OR, 2.47) and high-grade dysplasia/cancer for residual adenoma (OR, 2.92). CONCLUSIONS: Cold resection of large, nonpedunculated colorectal polyps appears to be considerably safer than hot EMR; however, at the cost of a higher residual adenoma rate. Further studies have to confirm to what extent polyp size and histology can determine an individualized approach. German Clinical Trials Registry (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien), Number DRKS00025170.

Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Vs Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Superficial Nonampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors in the Western Setting.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) is established as the primary treatment modality for superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs), but recently underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) has emerged as a potential alternative. The majority of previous studies focused on Asian populations and small lesions (≤20 mm). We aimed to compare the efficacy and outcomes of U-EMR vs C-EMR for SNADETs in a Western setting. METHODS: This was a retrospective multinational study from 10 European centers that performed both C-EMR and U-EMR between January 2013 and July 2023. The main outcomes were the technical success, procedure-related adverse events (AEs), and the residual/recurrent adenoma (RRA) rate, evaluated on a per-lesion basis. We assessed the association between the type of endoscopic mucosal resection and the occurrence of AEs or RRAs using mixed-effects logistic regression models (propensity scores). Sensitivity analyses were performed for lesions ≤20 mm or >20 mm. RESULTS: A total of 290 SNADETs submitted to endoscopic resection during the study period met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed (C-EMR: n = 201, 69.3%; U-EMR: n = 89, 30.7%). The overall technical success rate was 95.5% and comparable between groups. In logistic regression models, compared with U-EMR, C-EMR was associated with a significantly higher frequency of overall delayed AEs (odds ratio [OR], 4.95; 95% CI, 2.87-8.53), postprocedural bleeding (OR, 7.92; 95% CI, 3.95-15.89), and RRAs (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.49-5.37). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results when solely considering either small (≤20 mm) or large (>20 mm) lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with C-EMR, U-EMR was associated with a lower rate of overall AEs and RRAs, regardless of lesion size. Our results confirm the possible role of U-EMR as an effective and safe technique in the management of SNADETs.

Snare Tip Soft Coagulation vs Argon Plasma Coagulation vs No Margin Treatment After Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyp Resection: a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Thermal treatment of the defect margin after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions reduces the recurrence rate. Both snare tip soft coagulation (STSC) and argon plasma coagulation (APC) have been used for thermal margin treatment, but there are few data directly comparing STSC with APC for this indication. METHODS: We performed a randomized 3-arm trial in 9 US centers comparing STSC with APC with no margin treatment (control) of defects after EMR of colorectal nonpedunculated lesions ≥15 mm. The primary end point was the presence of residual lesion at first follow-up. RESULTS: There were 384 patients and 414 lesions randomized, and 308 patients (80.2%) with 328 lesions completed ≥1 follow-up. The proportion of lesions with residual polyp at first follow-up was 4.6% with STSC, 9.3% with APC, and 21.4% with control subjects (no margin treatment). The odds of residual polyp at first follow-up were lower for STSC and APC when compared with control subjects (P = .001 and P = .01, respectively). The difference in odds was not significant between STSC and APC. STSC took less time to apply than APC (median, 3.35 vs 4.08 minutes; P = .019). Adverse event rates were low, with no difference between arms. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial STSC and APC were each superior to no thermal margin treatment after EMR. STSC was faster to apply than APC. Because STSC also results in lower cost and plastic waste than APC (APC requires an additional device), our study supports STSC as the preferred thermal margin treatment after colorectal EMR. (Clinicaltrials.gov, Number NCT03654209.).

Prevalence of Endoscopically Curable Low-Risk Cancer Among Large (≥20 mm) Nonpedunculated Polyps in the Right Colon.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection is increasingly promoted for the treatment of all large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) to cure potential low-risk cancers (superficial submucosal invasion without additional high-risk histopathologic features). The effect of a universal en bloc strategy on oncologic outcomes for the treatment of LNPCPs in the right colon is unknown. We evaluated this in a large Western population. METHODS: A prospective cohort of patients referred for endoscopic resection (ER) of LNPCPs was analyzed. Patients found to have cancer after ER and those referred directly to surgery were included. The primary outcome was to determine the proportion of right colon LNPCPs with low-risk cancer. RESULTS: Over 180 months until June 2023, 3294 sporadic right colon LNPCPs in 2956 patients were referred for ER at 7 sites (median size 30 [interquartile range 15] mm). A total of 63 (2.1%) patients were referred directly to surgery, and cancer was proven in 56 (88.9%). A total of 2851 (96.4%) of 2956 LNPCPs underwent ER (median size 35 [interquartile range 20] mm), of which 75 (2.6%) were cancers. The overall prevalence of cancer in the right colon was 4.4% (n = 131 of 2956). Detailed histopathologic analysis was possible in 115 (88%) of 131 cancers (71 after ER, 44 direct to surgery). After excluding missing histopathologic data, 23 (0.78%) of 2940 sporadic right colon LNPCPs were low-risk cancers. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of right colon LNPCPs referred for ER containing low-risk cancer amenable to endoscopic cure was <1%, in a large, multicenter Western cohort. A universal endoscopic submucosal dissection strategy for the management of right colon LNPCPs is unlikely to yield improved patient outcomes given the minimal impact on oncologic outcomes. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, Numbers: NCT01368289, NCT02000141.

Safety and efficacy of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for 10-20 mm colorectal serrated lesions (SEA CLEAR study).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colorectal serrated lesions (SLs) are precursors of colorectal carcinoma via the serrated neoplasia pathway. However, the success rate of endoscopic resection of large SLs is low. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) for SLs sized 10-20 mm. METHODS: This two-center prospective observational study included patients with at least one SL sized 10-20 mm. We resected the SLs by UEMR and performed tattooing at the resection site. Surveillance colonoscopy was performed 12 months postoperatively to evaluate local recurrence. The primary outcome was the complete resection rate of UEMR, which was defined as en bloc resection with no serrated tissue in the four marginal biopsies and histologically negative margins. RESULTS: UEMR was performed for 65 SLs in 58 patients, with a median lesion size of 14 mm. The en bloc, R0 resection, and complete resection rates were 87.7% (57/65), 61.5% (40/65), and 60.0% (39/65), respectively. Adverse events included 1 (1.5%) immediate bleeding and 1 (1.5%) delayed perforation. Surveillance colonoscopy was performed in 50 patients with 57 scars, and the rates of identification for tattoos and scars were 94.7% (54/57) and 100% (57/57), respectively. The recurrence rate was 5.3% (3/57), and all three recurrent lesions were completely resected endoscopically. CONCLUSIONS: This two-center prospective study demonstrated that UEMR for SLs sized 10-20 mm was comparable to previous conventional endoscopic mucosal resection outcomes.

Recurrence rate after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection of <20 mm non-pedunculated colorectal lesions: should we worry about the risk?

INTRODUCTION: There is scarce data focused on recurrence neoplasia rate (RR) after piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (pEMR) of 10-19 mm non-pedunculated colorectal lesions (NPL). We aimed to analyze the RR after pEMR of 10-19 mm NPL, identify risk factors for its development and compare it with RR after pEMR of ≥ 20 mm NPL. METHODS: Retrospective cohort-study including all ≥10 mm NPL resected by pEMR in our center between 2018-2022 with an early repeat colonoscopy (ERC). RR was defined as recurrence neoplasia identified in the ERC EMR scar with virtual chromoendoscopy or histological confirmation. RESULTS: A total of 444 NPL were assessed, 124 (27.9%) with 10-19 mm. In the ERC, performed a median of 6 months after pEMR, RR was significantly lower for 10-19 mm NPL compared to ≥ 20 mm NPL (13/124 vs 68/320, p = 0.005). In subgroup analysis, RR after pEMR of 15-19 mm NPL was significantly higher compared to 10-14 mm NPL (13/98 vs 0, p = 0.041) but not significantly different compared to ≥ 20 mm NPL (13/98 vs 68/320, p = 0.073). In multivariable analysis, size of NPL (HR 1.501, 95% CI 1.012-2.227, p = 0.044) was the only independent risk factor identified for RR for 10-19 mm NPL. CONCLUSION: Although the early RR after pEMR of 10-19 mm NPL is significantly lower compared to ≥ 20 mm NPL, it is non-negligible (10.5%) and appears to be the highest among 15-19 mm NPL. The size of the lesion was the only independent risk factor for RR. Our findings should be accounted in the selection of the most appropriate post-polypectomy endoscopic surveillance.

Assessing risk stratification in long-term outcomes of rectal neuroendocrine tumors following endoscopic resection: a multicenter retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: While endoscopic resection of rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) has significantly increased, long-term data on risk factors for recurrence are still lacking. Our aim is to analyze the long-term outcomes of patients with rectal NETs after endoscopic resection through risk stratification. METHODS: In this multicenter retrospective study, we included patients who underwent endoscopic resection of rectal NETs from 2009 to 2018 and were followed for ≥12 months at five university hospitals. We classified the patients into three risk groups according to the clinicopathological status of the rectal neuroendocrine tumors: low, indeterminate, and high. The high-risk group was defined if the tumors have any of the followings: size ≥ 10 mm, lymphovascular invasion, muscularis propria or deeper invasion, positive resection margins, or mitotic count ≥2/10. RESULTS: A total of 346 patients were included, with 144 (41.6%), 121 (35.0%), and 81 (23.4%) classified into the low-, indeterminate-, and high-risk groups, respectively. Among the high-risk group, seven patients (8.6%) received salvage treatment 28 (27-67) days after the initial endoscopic resection, with no reported extracolonic recurrence. Throughout the follow-up period, 1.1% (4/346) of patients experienced extracolonic recurrences at 56.5 (54-73) months after the initial endoscopic resection. Three of these patients (75%) were in the high-risk group and did not undergo salvage treatment. The risk of extracolonic recurrence was significantly higher in the high-risk group compared to the other groups (p = 0.039). CONCLUSION: Physicians should be concerned about the possibility of metastasis during long-term follow-up of high-risk patients and consider salvage treatment.

The usefulness of traction-assisted endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary early tumors(with video).

Objective Endoscopic papillectomy(EP) is a minimally invasive treatment for early ampullary tumors. However, the optimal method is unclear. The aim of this study is to explore the efficacy and safety of traction-assisted EP treatments for ampullary early tumors.Methods We retrospective analyzed the patients with ampullary adenoma or early adenocarcinoma underwent endoscopic papillectomy between January 2010 and August 2023, including patient characteristics, lesion size, papilla type, pathological diagnosis and lesion surrounding conditions, en-bloc resection rate, complete resection rate, procedure time, complications, recurrences.Results During the study period, a total of 106 patients with ampullary adenoma or early adenocarcinoma underwent EP. The number of patients in traction group (clip combined with dental floss traction, CDT-EP) and non-traction group (hot snare papillectomy, HSP or endoscopic mucosal resection, EMR) were 45 and 61 respectively. The traction group has a higher en-bloc resection rate and complete resection rate than the non-traction group (92.86% vs. 68.85%, p = 0.003; 90.48% vs. 60.66%, p = 0.001), and the procedure time is slightly shorter[(1.57 ± 1.93)min vs. (1.98 ± 1.76)min, p = 0.039]. The complications and recurrence in the traction group were lower than those in the non-traction group (7.14% vs. 19.72%, p = 0.076; 7.14% vs. 11.78%, p = 0.466), and all complications were successfully treated by endoscopy or conservative medical treatment. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of patient characteristics, papilla type, pathological diagnosis and lesion surrounding conditions (p > 0.050), but there were differences in lesion size[(13 ± 1.09)mm vs. (11 ± 1.65)mm, p = 0.002]. The recurrence rate of the traction group is lower than that of the non-traction group, but the difference is not significant(7.14% vs. 13.11%, p = 0.335), and the non-traction group mainly has early recurrence. Further analysis shows that the size of the lesion, whether en-bloc resection or not, and the method of resection as independent risk factors for incomplete resection (OR = 1.732, p = 0.031; OR = 3.716, p = 0.049; OR = 2.120, p = 0.027).Conclusions CDT- EP, HSP and EMR are all suitable methods for the treatment of ampullary adenoma or early adenocarcinoma. Assisted traction technology can reduce the operation difficulty of large and difficult to expose lesions, thereby improving the efficacy and safety of EP.

Endoscopic underwater detection and resection of anal squamous intraepithelial lesions in non-anesthetized patients - a feasibility study and comparison with standard surgical treatment.

BACKGROUND: Anal squamous intraepithelial lesions (ASILs) correspond to premalignant changes preceding the development of anal squamous cell carcinoma. OBJECTIVE: To describe a new endoscopic technique to detect and remove ASILs in non-anesthetized patients and compare it with standard surgical treatment. METHODS: For endoscopic treatment, high resolution (HR) flexible endoscopes with a distal attachment were used. Underwater inspection of the anal canal was performed in near-focus mode with white light and narrow-band imaging. Detected lesions were resected with a diathermia snare after local injection of xylocaine/adrenaline. We did a retrospective comparison of all patients who underwent endoscopic or standard surgical treatment for ASILs at Ersta hospital in Stockholm between 2018 and 2020. Patient files were reviewed for number of lesions, treatments until macroscopic radicality, degree of dysplasia, bleeding, pain and other complications. RESULTS: Endoscopic (n = 37) and surgical (n = 43) treatment displayed comparable number of lesions per patient (p = .37). The number of procedures until macroscopic radicality was higher for endoscopy than surgery (p = .04). However, in endoscopic follow up of 12 of the surgically treated patients, residual ASIL was found in 10 cases. Post-procedural bleeding requiring healthcare occurred in two endoscopy patients and one surgically treated patient. CONCLUSIONS: Underwater resection using a HR flexible endoscope in non-anesthetized is a new, feasible and well tolerated method for ASILs treatment. Its efficacy and risk of complications seem comparable to standard surgical treatment while avoiding general anesthesia. However, minor lesions might be overlooked at surgery.

Combined endoscopic mucosal resection and full-thickness resection for large colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Combined endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with endoscopic Full thickness resection (EFTR) is an emerging technique that has been developed to target colorectal polyps larger than 2 cm. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate this technique for the resection of large colorectal lesions. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases from inception through August 2023, to identify studies that reported on hybrid FTR. A random-effects model was employed to calculate the overall pooled technical success, macroscopic complete resection, free vertical margins resection rate, adverse events, and recurrence on follow up. RESULTS: A total of 8 Study arms with 244 patients (30% women) were included in the analysis. The pooled technical success rate was 97% (95% CI 88%-100%, I2 = 79.93%). The pooled rate of macroscopic complete resection was achieved in 95% (95% CI 90%-99%, I2 = 49.98) with a free vertical margins resection rate 88% (95% CI, 78%-96%, I2 = 63.32). The overall adverse events rate was 2% (95% CI 0%-5%, I2 = 11.64) and recurrence rate of 6% (95% CI 2%-12%, I2=20.32). CONCLUSION: Combined EMR with EFTR is effective and safe for resecting large, and complex colorectal adenomas, offering a good alternative for high surgical risk patients. Regional heterogeneity was observed, indicating that outcomes may be impacted by differences in operator expertise and industry training certification across regions. Comparative studies that directly compare combined EMR with EFTR against alternative methods such as ESD and surgical resection are needed.

Adverse Events after Different Endoscopic Resection Procedures for Small and Intermediate-Sized Colorectal Polyps.

INTRODUCTION: Cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) have been developed recently, in addition to conventional methods, but adverse events of each method have not been fully clarified. We compared the outcomes of each method for the appropriate choice. METHODS: Patients who underwent CSP, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR)/hot snare polypectomy (HSP), or UEMR for small and intermediate-sized colorectal polyps between April 2017 and June 2020 were retrospectively examined. The rate of adverse events and recurrences due to each method were determined as the main outcomes. Clinical factors related to adverse events were examined. RESULTS: A total of 1,025 patients with 3,163 polyps underwent polypectomy using any of the methods. CSP, EMR/HSP, and UEMR were performed for 704 (22.2%), 2,145 (67.8%), and 314 polyps (9.9%), and the median size for each method was 4, 6, and 7 mm, respectively. Delayed bleeding for CSP, EMR/HSP, and UEMR was 0%, 0.2%, and 0.6% (p = 0.15), and perforation was 0%, 0.1%, and 0%, respectively (p = 0.62). Recurrence after CSP, EMR/HSP, and UEMR was 0.3%, 0.09%, and 1.3%, respectively (p < 0.01). Recurrence for UEMR was significantly higher in the early stage of procedure introduction (p = 0.015). Oral anticoagulants were the risk factor for delayed bleeding (p < 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference regarding adverse events among each method for small and intermediate-sized polyps, although the recurrence rate after UEMR was higher than other methods.

Onset Time and Characteristics of Postprocedural Bleeding after Endoscopic Resection of Colorectal Lesions: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.

INTRODUCTION: Postprocedural bleeding is a major adverse event after endoscopic resection of colorectal lesions, but the optimal surveillance time after endoscopy is unclear. In this study, we determined onset time and characteristics of postprocedural bleeding events. METHODS: We retrospectively screened patients who underwent endoscopic resection of colorectal lesions at three German hospitals between 2010 and 2019 for postprocedural bleeding events using billing codes. Only patients who required re-endoscopy were included for analysis. For identified patients, we collected demographic data, clinical courses, characteristics of colorectal lesions, and procedure-related variables. Factors associated with late-onset bleeding were determined by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: From a total of 6,820 patients with eligible billing codes, we identified 113 cases with postprocedural bleeding after endoscopic mucosal (61.9%) or snare resection (38.1%) that required re-endoscopy. The median size of the culprit lesion was 20 mm (interquartile range 14-30 mm). The median onset time of postprocedural bleeding was day 3 (interquartile range: 1-6.5 days), with 48.7% of events occurring within 48 h. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrates that a continued intake of antiplatelet drugs (OR: 3.98, 95% CI: 0.89-10.12, p = 0.025) and a flat morphology of the colorectal lesion (OR: 2.98, 95% CI: 1.08-8.01, p = 0.031) were associated with an increased risk for late postprocedural bleeding (>48 h), whereas intraprocedural bleeding was associated with a decreased risk (OR: 0.12, 95% CI: 0.04-0.50, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Significant postprocedural bleeding can occur up to 18 days after endoscopic resection of colorectal lesions, but was predominantly observed within 48 h. Continued intake of antiplatelet drugs and a flat polyp morphology are associated with risk for late postprocedural bleeding.

Feasibility and Safety of Endoscopic Control for Patients with Serrated Polyposis Syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Despite advances in endoscopic treatment, patients with serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) occasionally require surgery due to numerous or unresectable polyps, recurrence, and treatment-related adverse events. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 43 patients with SPS undergoing diagnosis and treatment at Omori Red Cross Hospital from 2011 to 2022. Resection of all polyps ≥3 mm in size was planned during the clearing phase; endoscopic control was defined as complete, endoscopic polyp removal. During the surveillance phase, patients underwent annual colonoscopy and resection of newly detected polyps ≥3 mm in size. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients (88%) achieved endoscopic control, two (5%) required surgery after endoscopic treatment because of colorectal cancer (CRC), and three (7%) have not yet achieved endoscopic control and are planning treatment. Endoscopic control was achieved with a median of four colonoscopies at 8 months. Ten polyps (median value) were resected per patient during the clearing phase. Three polyps ≥50 mm in size, six located in the appendiceal orifice, and seven with severe fibrosis could be resected by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). All patients underwent treatment with a combination of cold snare polypectomy (CSP), endoscopic mucosal resection/hot polypectomy, and/or ESD. No case required surgery due to difficulty with endoscopic treatment. Delayed bleeding was observed in 2 cases (0.3%). Twenty-one patients underwent colonoscopies during the surveillance phase. Fifty-three polyps were resected using CSP; no CRC, sessile serrated lesions with dysplasia, or advanced adenoma were detected. CONCLUSION: SPS can be effectively, efficiently, and safely controlled with appropriate endoscopic management.

Endoscopic resection for non-ampullary duodenal subepithelial lesions: a retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and pre-cutting endoscopic mucosal resection (pEMR) in treating non-ampullary duodenal subepithelial lesions (NADSELs) and to evaluate the clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) before endoscopic resection (ER). METHODS: In this retrospective single-centre cohort study, we compared the clinical outcomes of patients with NADSELs who underwent ESD or pEMR between January 2014 and June 2023. The accuracies of EUS in determining the pathological type and origin of the lesions were evaluated using postoperative histopathology as the gold standard. RESULTS: Overall, 56 patients with NADSELs underwent ER in this study, including 16 and 40 treated with pEMR and ESD, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of en bloc resection rate, complete (R0) resection rate, perioperative complication rate, and postoperative hospital length of stay (P > 0.05). However, the pEMR group had significantly shorter median operational (13.0 min vs. 30.5 min, P < 0.001) and mean fasting (1.9 days vs. 2.8 days, P = 0.006) time and lower median hospital costs (¥12,388 vs. ¥19,579, P = 0.002). The accuracies of EUS in determining the pathological type and origin of the lesions were 76.8% and 94.6%, respectively, compared with histopathological evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: EUS can accurately predict the origin of NADSELs. Suitable lesions determined to originate from the submucosa or more superficial layers using EUS can be treated using pEMR as it shortens the operational and recovery time, reduces hospitalisation costs, and achieves an R0 resection rate similar to ESD.

Feasibility and safety of endoscopic resection for the jejunoileal lesions.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic resection (ER) for jejunoileal lesions (JILs) has been technically challenging. We aimed to characterize the clinicopathologic characteristics, feasibility, and safety of ER for JILs. METHOD: We retrospectively investigated 52 patients with JILs who underwent ER from January 2012 to February 2022. We collected and analyzed clinicopathological characteristics, procedure-related parameters, outcomes, and follow-up data. RESULTS: The mean age was 49.4 years. Of the 52 JILs, 33 ileal tumors within 20 cm from the ileocecal valve were resected with colonoscopy, while 19 tumors in the jejunum or the ileum over 20 cm from the ileocecal valve received enteroscopy resection. The mean procedure duration was 49.0 min. The en bloc resection and en bloc with R0 resection rates were 86.5% and 84.6%, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) included one (1.9%) major AE (delayed bleeding) and five (9.6%) minor AEs. During a median follow-up of 36.5 months, two patients had local recurrence (3.8%), while none had metastases. The 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) were 92.9% and 94.1%, respectively. Compared with the enteroscopy group, overall AEs were significantly lower in the colonoscopy group (P < 0.05), but no statistical differences were observed in RFS (P = 0.412) and DSS (P = 0.579). There were no significant differences in AEs, RFS, and DSS between the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and the endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) group. CONCLUSIONS: ER of JILs has favorable short-term and long-term outcomes. Both ESD and EMR can safely and effectively resect JILs in appropriately selected cases.

Low-power pure-cut hot snare polypectomy for colorectal polyps 10-14 mm in size: a multicenter retrospective study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Hot snare excision using electrocautery is widely used for large colorectal polyps (>10 mm); however, adverse events occur due to deep thermal injury. Colorectal polyps measuring 10-14 mm rarely include invasive cancer. Therefore, less invasive therapeutic options for this size category are demanding. We have developed hot snare polypectomy with low-power pure-cut current (LPPC HSP), which is expected to contribute to less deep thermal damage and lower risk of adverse events. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LPPC HSP for 10-14 mm colorectal polyps, compared with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). METHODS: In this multicenter, retrospective, observational study, clinical outcomes of EMR and LPPC HSP for 10-14 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps between January 2021 and March 2022 were compared using propensity score matching. RESULTS: We identified 203 EMR and 208 LPPC HSP cases. After propensity score matching, the baseline characteristics between the groups were comparable, with 120 pairs. The en bloc and R0 resection rates were not significantly different between EMR and LPPC HSP groups (95.8% vs 97.5%, P = 0.72; 90.0% vs 91.7%, P = 0.82). The rates of delayed bleeding and perforation did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with conventional EMR, LPPC HSP showed a similar resection ability without an increase in adverse events. These results suggest that LPPC HSP is a safe and effective treatment for 10-14 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps.

Clinical outcomes and learning curve of Tip-in endoscopic mucosal resection for 15-25 mm colorectal neoplasms among non-experts.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Tip-in endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has a high en bloc resection rate for large colorectal neoplasms. However, non-experts' performance in Tip-in EMR has not been investigated. We investigated whether Tip-in EMR can be achieved effectively and safely even by non-experts. METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive patients who underwent Tip-in EMR for 15-25 mm colorectal nonpedunculated neoplasms at a Japanese tertiary cancer center between January 2014 and December 2020. Baseline characteristics, treatment outcomes, learning curve of non-experts, and risk factors of failing self-achieved en bloc resection were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 597 lesions were analyzed (438 by experts and 159 by non-experts). The self-achieved en bloc resection (69.8% vs 88.6%, P < 0.001) and self-achieved R0 resection (58.3% vs 76.5%, P < 0.001) rates were significantly lower in non-experts with <10 cases of experience than in experts, but not in non-experts with >10 cases. Adverse event (P = 0.165) and local recurrence (P = 0.892) rates were not significantly different between experts and non-experts. Risk factors of failing self-achieved en bloc resection were non-polypoid morphology (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.6-7.3, P = 0.001), lesions with an underlying semilunar fold (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.6-7.3, P < 0.001), positive non-lifting sign (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.2-8.0, P = 0.023), and non-experts with an experience of ≤10 cases (OR 3.6, 95% CI 2.1-6.3, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The clinical outcomes of Tip-in EMR for 15-25 mm lesions performed by non-experts were favorable.

Conventional versus underwater endoscopic resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Several endoscopic resection methods have been developed as less invasive treatments for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours. This study aimed to compare outcomes of conventional endoscopic mucosal resection and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours, including resection depth and rate of the muscularis mucosa contained under the lesion. METHODS: This single-centre retrospective cohort study conducted from January 2009 to December 2021 enrolled patients who underwent conventional endoscopic mucosal resection and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours and investigated their clinicopathological outcomes using propensity score matching. RESULTS: Of the 285 superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours, 98 conventional endoscopic mucosal resections and 187 underwater endoscopic mucosal resections were included. After propensity score matching, 64 conventional endoscopic mucosal resections and 64 underwater endoscopic mucosal resections were analysed. The R0 resection rate was significantly higher in underwater endoscopic mucosal resection cases than in conventional endoscopic mucosal resection cases (70.3% vs. 50.0%; P = 0.030). In the multivariate analysis, a lesion diameter > 10 mm (odds ratio 7.246; P = 0.001), being in the 1st-50th treatment period (odds ratio 3.405; P = 0.008), and undergoing conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio 3.617; P = 0.016) were associated with RX/R1 resection. Furthermore, in underwater endoscopic mucosal resection cases, the R0 rate was significantly higher for lesions diameter ≤10 mm than >10 mm, and was significantly higher in the 51st-treatment period than in the 1st-50th period. Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection cases showed no significant difference in resection depth and muscularis mucosa containing rate. CONCLUSIONS: Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection may be more acceptable than conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours ≤ 10 mm. A steep early learning curve may be acquired for underwater endoscopic mucosal resection. Large multicentre prospective studies need to be conducted to confirm the effectiveness of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection.

Frontiers in Endoscopic Treatment for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.

BACKGROUND: The 3rd edition of the evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) 2021 from the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology states that the treatment strategy for potassium-competitive acid blocker (PCAB)-refractory GERD remains unclear. Furthermore, even if GERD improves with the administration of an acid secretion inhibitor, it is feared that GERD may flare up after discontinuation of the drug, resulting in some cases in which patients are forced to take vonoprazan semipermanently (the so-called PCAB-dependent cases). From a global perspective, PCAB is not yet used in all countries and regions, and measures that can be taken now for cases in which a conventional proton pump inhibitor (PPI) is inadequately effective need to be devised. SUMMARY: Endoscopic treatment for GERD may be effective in cases where conventional proton pump inhibitors are ineffective; however, there are insufficient long-term studies to corroborate this, and its cost effectiveness is unknown. Other treatment options for PCAB or PPI-refractory GERD include surgical procedures (Nissen and Toupet operations), which have a longer history than endoscopic treatment for GERD. However, their long-term results are not as good as those of acid secretion inhibitors, and they are not cost effective. Endoscopic treatment for GERD may fill gaps in inadequate surgical treatment. In April 2022, endoscopic anti-reflux mucosal resections (ARMS [anti-reflux mucosectomy] and ESD-G [endoscopic submucosal dissection for GERD]) were approved for reimbursement, making endoscopic treatment of GERD possible throughout Japan. KEY MESSAGES: It is important to identify the background factors in cases in which endoscopic treatments are effective.