Endoscopic Ampullectomy of Benign Ampullary Lesions: Outcomes From a Single Center Study

Updates on the Management of Ampullary Neoplastic Lesions

Ampullary neoplastic lesions (ANLs) represent a rare cancer, accounting for about 0.6-0.8% of all gastrointestinal malignancies, and about 6-17% of periampullary tumors. They can be sporadic or occur in the setting of a hereditary predisposition syndrome, mainly familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). Usually, noninvasive ANLs are asymptomatic and detected accidentally during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). When symptomatic, ANLs can manifest differently with jaundice, pain, pancreatitis, cholangitis, and melaena. Endoscopy with a side-viewing duodenoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) play a crucial role in the ANL evaluation, providing an accurate assessment of the size, location, and characteristics of the lesions, including the staging of the depth of tumor invasion into the surrounding tissues and the involvement of local lymph nodes. Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) has been recognized as an effective treatment for ANLs in selected patients, providing an alternative to traditional surgical methods. Originally, EP was recommended for benign lesions and patients unfit for surgery. However, advancements in endoscopic techniques have broadened its indications to comprise early ampullary carcinoma, giant laterally spreading lesions, and ANLs with intraductal extension. In this paper, we review the existing evidence on endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of ampullary neoplastic lesions.

Long-term recurrence after endoscopic versus surgical ampullectomy of sporadic ampullary adenomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Ampullary adenomas are treated both surgically and endoscopically, however, data comparing both techniques are lacking. We aimed to compare long-term recurrence of benign sporadic adenomas after endoscopic (EA) and surgical ampullectomy (SA).

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of multiple databases (until December 29, 2020) was performed to identify studies reporting outcomes of EA or SA of benign sporadic ampullary adenomas. The outcome was recurrence rate at 1 year, 2-year, 3 year and 5 years after EA and SA.

RESULTS

A total of 39 studies with 1753 patients (1468 EA [age 61.1 ± 4.0 years, size 16.1 ± 4.0 mm], 285 SA [mean age 61.6 ± 4.48 years, size 22.7 ± 5.4 mm]) were included in the analysis. At year 1, pooled recurrence rate of EA was 13.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 10.5-15.9], I² = 31%) as compared to SA 14.1% (95% CI 9.5-20.3 I² = 15.8%) (p = 0.82). Two (12.5%, [95% CI, 8.9-17.2] vs. 14.3 [95% CI, 9.1-21.6], p = 0.63), three (13.3%, [95% CI, 7.3-21.6] vs. 12.9 [95% CI, 7.3-21.6], p = 0.94) and 5 years (15.7%, [95% CI, 7.8-29.1] vs. 17.6% [95% CI, 6.2-40.8], p = 0.85) recurrence rate were comparable after EA and SA. On meta-regression, age, size of lesion or enbloc and complete resection were not significant predictors of recurrence.

CONCLUSION

EA and SA of sporadic adenomas have similar recurrence rates at 1, 2, 3 and 5 years of follow up.

Surgical ampullectomy: A comprehensive review

Tumours of the ampulla of Vater are relatively uncommon lesions of the digestive system. They are typically diagnosed at an earlier stage than other types of tumours in this region, due to their tendency to invoke symptoms by obstructing the bile duct or pancreatic duct. Consequently, many are potentially curable by excision. Surgical ampullectomy (SA) (or transduodenal ampullectomy) for an ampullary tumour was first described in 1899, but was soon surpassed by pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), which offered a more extensive resection resulting in a lower risk of recurrence. Ongoing innovation in endoscopic techniques over recent decades has led to the popularization of endoscopic papillectomy (EP), particularly for adenomas and even early cancers. The vast majority of resectable ampullary tumours are now treated using either PD or EP. However, SA continues to play a role in specific circumstances. Many authors have suggested specific indications for SA based on their own data, practices, or interpretations of the literature. However, certain issues have attracted controversy, such as its use for early ampullary cancers. Consequently, there has been a lack of clarity regarding indications for SA, and no evidence-based consensus guidelines have been produced. All studies reporting SA have employed observational designs, and have been heterogeneous in their methodologies. Accordingly, characteristics of patients and their tumours have differed substantially across treatment groups. Therefore, meaningful comparisons of clinical outcomes between SA, PD and EP have been elusive. Nevertheless, it appears that suitably selected cases of ampullary tumours subjected to SA may benefit from favourable peri-operative and long-term outcomes with very low mortality and significantly long survival, hence its role in this setting warrants further clarification, while it can also be useful in the management of specific benign entities. Whilst the commissioning of a randomised controlled trial seems unlikely, well-designed observational studies incorporating adjustments for confounding variables may become the best available comparative evidence for SA, potentially informing the eventual development of consensus guidelines. In this comprehensive review, we explore the role of SA in the modern management of ampullary lesions.

Endoscopic management of ampullary tumors: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends against diagnostic/therapeutic papillectomy when adenoma is not proven.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasound and abdominal magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for staging of ampullary tumors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends endoscopic papillectomy in patients with ampullary adenoma without intraductal extension, because of good results regarding outcome (technical and clinical success, morbidity, and recurrence).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends en bloc resection of ampullary adenomas up to 20-30 mm in diameter to achieve R0 resection, for optimizing the complete resection rate, providing optimal histopathology, and reduction of the recurrence rate after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests considering surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas when endoscopic resection is not feasible for technical reasons (e. g. diverticulum, size > 4 cm), and in the case of intraductal involvement (of > 20 mm). Surveillance thereafter is still mandatory.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends direct snare resection without submucosal injection for endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting to reduce the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends long-term monitoring of patients after endoscopic papillectomy or surgical ampullectomy, based on duodenoscopy with biopsies of the scar and of any abnormal area, within the first 3 months, at 6 and 12 months, and thereafter yearly for at least 5 years.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Safety of Endoscopic Snare Ampullectomy for Adenomatous Ampullary Lesions: Focus on Pancreatic Stent Placement to Prevent Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Ampullary tumors, although relatively uncommon, are increasingly diagnosed due to ongoing progress in imaging technology and the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Endoscopic ampullectomy (EA) has become the preferred treatment option over surgery due to its lower morbidity for benign ampullary adenomas. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and outcome of EA in 30 patients with benign-appearing ampullary lesions with particular emphasis on the accuracy of preampullectomy histology and technical details of the pancreatic duct drainage to prevent postprocedural pancreatitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data from a cohort of 30 patients who underwent EA were retrospectively analyzed. Histologic characteristics of the ampullomas, accuracy of histology of pre-EA biopsy specimen, safety of the procedure, recurrence rate, as well as the clinical outcome of all patients, are analyzed and discussed.

RESULTS

Endoscopic resection was successful as a definitive treatment in 25 patients (83.3%). Five patients required additional surgery. In 8 patients, a definitive histologic specimen revealed an adenocarcinoma (3 in situ and 5 invasive). The diagnostic accuracy obtained by preresection biopsy specimen was low (0.70). Pancreatic duct stent placement after snare resection was unsuccessful in 9 patients, and 3 of them developed pancreatitis after EA.

CONCLUSIONS

EA appears to be a relatively safe alternative to surgery as the first therapeutic option for selected patients with benign-appearing ampullary adenomas. A correct preoperative evaluation by endoscopic ultrasound and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography can help to define the anatomy of the pancreatic duct to improve the success rate of pancreatic stent placement which seems to offer a protective role in the prevention of postprocedural pancreatitis.