Use of the Ovesco remOVE DC cutter to trim a metal biliary stent with excess length in the duodenum allowing biliary access for ERCP

Use of endoscopic submucosal dissection or full-thickness resection device to treat residual colorectal neoplasia after endoscopic resection: a multicenter historical cohort study

INTRODUCTION : Residual colorectal neoplasia (RCN) after previous endoscopic mucosal resection is a frequent challenge. Different management techniques are feasible including endoscopic full-thickness resection using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) system and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of these two techniques for the treatment of such lesions. METHODS : All consecutive patients with RCN treated either using the FTRD or by ESD were retrospectively included in this multicenter study. The primary outcome was the R0 resection rate, defined as an en bloc resection with histologically tumor-free lateral and deep margins. RESULTS : 275 patients (median age 70 years; 160 men) who underwent 177 ESD and 98 FTRD procedures for RCN were included. R0 resection was achieved in 83.3 % and 77.6 % for ESD and FTRD, respectively (P = 0.25). Lesions treated by ESD were however larger than those treated by FTRD (P < 0.001). The R0 rates for lesions of 20-30 mm were 83.9 % and 57.1 % in the ESD and FTRD groups, respectively, and for lesions of 30-40 mm were 93.6 % and 33.3 %, respectively. On multivariable analysis, ESD procedures were associated with statistically higher en bloc and R0 resection rates after adjustment for lesion size (P = 0.02 and P < 0.001, respectively). The adverse event rate was higher in the ESD group (16.3 % vs. 5.1 %), mostly owing to intraoperative perforations. CONCLUSION:  ESD is effective in achieving R0 resection for RCN whatever the size and location of the lesions. When residual lesions are smaller than 20 mm, the FTRD is an effective alternative.

Prevalence and endoscopic treatment outcomes of upper gastrointestinal neoplasms in familial adenomatous polyposis

BACKGROUND

Although upper gastrointestinal (GI) neoplasms are not rare in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), few studies have focused on them and the long-term outcomes of their treatment by endoscopy. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the prevalence and endoscopic treatment outcomes of upper GI neoplasms in patients with FAP.

METHODS

Among 215 patients diagnosed with FAP between January 1991 and December 2019, 208 who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy were eligible. The clinical features and endoscopic treatment outcomes of upper GI neoplasms were retrospectively investigated and analyzed.

RESULTS

Among the enrolled patients, 113 (54.3%) had one or more upper GI neoplasms: gastric adenoma (n = 34), gastric cancer (n = 7), nonampullary duodenal adenoma (n = 86), and ampullary adenoma (n = 53). Among patients with gastric neoplasms (n = 37), 24 (64.9%) underwent treatment (endoscopic treatment: 22, surgery: 2). No tumor-related mortality occurred during median follow-up of 106 months (interquartile range [IQR] 63-174). Endoscopic treatment was performed in 47 (54.7%) of 86 patients with nonampullary duodenal adenoma and in 32 (60.4%) of 53 patients with ampullary adenoma. No patient underwent surgery for duodenal neoplasms, and no tumor-related mortality occurred during median follow-up of 88 months (IQR 42-145). The proportion of patients with increased Spigelman stage at 2 years after the initial diagnosis or treatment was significantly higher in untreated group than in the group treated for duodenal neoplasms (27.3% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic surveillance in FAP patients is important for the detection and treatment of upper GI neoplasms in early stage. In particular, endoscopic therapy for duodenal neoplasms can reduce the severity of duodenal polyposis.