Clinical Impact of Piecemeal Resection Concerning the Lateral Spread of Ampullary Adenomas

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.

Endoscopic Papillectomy

Most ampullary lesions (ALs) are sporadic, involve the major papilla, and are premalignant (adenomas). They are often diagnosed as an incidental finding during endoscopy or imaging procedures. Diagnosis and staging of ALs include endoscopic, histologic, and radiological evaluations. Currently, endoscopic papillectomy is the preferred treatment for ALs in most situations. In this article, we will describe the diagnostic work-up and focus on the endoscopic treatment, including indications, technique, outcomes, complications, and follow-up.

Clinical outcomes of endoscopic papillectomy of ampullary adenoma: A multi-center study

BACKGROUND

Ampullary adenoma is a rare premalignant lesion, but its incidence is increasing. Endoscopic papillectomy has become the first treatment of choice for ampullary adenomas due to its safety and effectiveness, thereby replacing surgical resection. However, recurrence rates and adverse events after endoscopic papillectomy were reported in up to 30% of cases.

AIM

To review the long-term outcomes of endoscopic papillectomy and investigate the factors that affect these outcomes.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients who underwent endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary adenoma at five tertiary hospitals between 2013 and 2020. We evaluated clinical outcomes and their risk factors. The definitions of outcomes were as follow: (1) curative resection: complete endoscopic resection without recurrence; (2) endoscopic success: treatment of ampullary adenoma with endoscopy without surgical intervention; (3) early recurrence: reconfirmed adenoma at the first endoscopic surveillance; and (4) late recurrence: reconfirmed adenoma after the first endoscopic surveillance.

RESULTS

A total of 106 patients were included for analysis. Of the included patients, 81 (76.4%) underwent curative resection, 99 (93.4%) had endoscopic success, showing that most patients with non-curative resection were successfully managed with endoscopy. Sixteen patients (15.1%) had piecemeal resection, 22 patients (20.8%) had shown positive/uncertain resection margin, 11 patients (16.1%) had an early recurrence, 13 patients (10.4%) had a late recurrence, and 6 patients (5.7%) had a re-recurrence. In multivariate analysis, a positive/uncertain margin [Odds ratio (OR) = 4.023, P = 0.048] and piecemeal resection (OR = 6.610, P = 0.005) were significant risk factors for early and late recurrence, respectively. Piecemeal resection was also a significant risk factor for non-curative resection (OR = 5.424, P = 0.007). Twenty-six patients experienced adverse events (24.5%).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic papillectomy is a safe and effective treatment for ampullary adenomas. Careful selection and follow-up of patients is mandatory, particularly in cases with positive/uncertain margin and piecemeal resection.

Oral anticoagulants but not antiplatelet agents increase the risk of delayed bleeding after endoscopic papillectomy: a large study in a tertiary referral center

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) is an effective curative treatment in patients with ampullary adenomas. However, EP is burdened by a not-negligible risk of bleeding. The aim of this study was to determine risk factors for delayed bleeding after EP.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a prospectively-collected database was performed, retrieving all EP performed over a 20-year period. Anti-thrombotic treatments were managed according to guidelines. Delayed bleeding was defined as overt gastrointestinal bleeding or drop in haemoglobin level. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify variables related to delayed bleeding.

RESULTS

Three-hundred-seven patients (48.5% male, median age 68-year-old) entered the study; of them, 51 (16.6%) received anti-thrombotic treatments. Delayed bleeding occurred in 44 (14.3%) patients. No difference was observed in patients receiving antiplatelet agents. Multivariate analysis identified oral anticoagulant agents (odd Ratio 4.37 [2.86-5.95]) and procedural bleeding (OR 2.22 [1.10-4.40]) as independently related to delayed bleeding; in patients with no procedural bleeding, oral anticoagulant agents (OR 5.63 [2.25-9.83]) and ampullary tumor size (OR 1.07 [1.01-1.13]) were independently related to delayed bleeding. Patients on anticoagulant agents presented significantly higher need for blood transfusion (16.7 vs. 1.5%); no difference in intensive care unit admission, surgery or mortality was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that patients on oral antiplatelet agents do not present increased risk for post-EP delayed bleeding. EP represents a valid alternative to surgery even in patients on anticoagulant agents, despite significantly increased risk of delayed bleeding. A tailored approach to those cases should be planned.

Clinical practice guidelines for endoscopic papillectomy

The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society has developed the "Clinical Practice Guidelines for Endoscopic Papillectomy (EP)" as a fundamental guideline using scientific approach. EP is a recently spreading therapeutic modality for ampullary tumors ranked as high risk endoscopic technique. Because of the paucity of high level of evidence, strength of recommendations had to be determined by a consensus among specialists. These guidelines, shed light on the following five issues: Indications, Preoperative/intraoperative preparations and techniques, Early adverse events, Therapeutic outcomes and remnants/recurrences, and Follow-up and late adverse events, to guide current clinical practice on EP.

Endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary adenomatous lesions: A literature review

Ampullary adenomatous lesions of the gastrointestinal tract are rare and can be asymptomatic. Therefore, ampullary adenomas with malignant potential require prompt removal, regardless of whether they are adenomatous or carcinomatous lesions. Endoscopic papillectomy is a safe and effective alternative therapy to surgery to treat duodenal papillary lesions in selected patients. Accurate preoperative diagnosis and staging of ampullary adenomatous lesions are critical for predicting prognosis and determining the most appropriate therapeutic approach. Furthermore, the management and prevention of adverse events and endoscopic treatment for remnant or recurrent lesions and surveillance are essential for successful endoscopic management of ampullary adenomatous lesions. This literature review was based on PubMed and MEDLINE and focused on recent advancements in the endoscopic papillectomy technique to provide a comprehensive view of endoscopic papillectomy to treat ampullary adenomatous lesions.

Predictive factor of recurrence after endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary neoplasms

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Recurrence of ampullary neoplasms after endoscopic papillectomy (EP) has not been well elucidated. This study aimed to clarify the predictive factors for recurrences after EP. We also aimed to investigate the retreatment of the recurrent lesions and their outcomes.

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included 96 patients with ampullary neoplasms who underwent EP at four tertiary centers between January 2000 and October 2018.

RESULTS

The pathological diagnoses of resected specimens confirmed adenoma in 62 and adenocarcinoma in 34 patients (six Tis, 24 T1a, three T1b, one inconclusive). Complete resection was confirmed for 79 patients (82.3%). Recurrent lesions were observed in 13 patients (13.5%) during a median follow-up of 3 months (1-36 months) after EP. The predictive factors of recurrence were piecemeal resection, and non-negative horizontal or vertical margin in univariate analysis. Non-negative vertical margin was the only independent predictive factor of recurrence in the multivariate analysis. The recurrent lesions were treated endoscopically in 11 patients. Recurrence after the endoscopic retreatments was observed in one patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Complete resection with negative vertical margin is an important factor in preventing the recurrence of ampullary neoplasms after EP. Endoscopic retreatments are also feasible for recurrent 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.

A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Endoscopic Resection and Surgical Resection in Ampullary Tumors

Background and objectives: This study aimed to elucidate the clinical outcomes of endoscopic resection (ER) through comparison with surgical resection (SR) through a meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: This meta-analysis was performed using 32 studies. The complete resection and recurrence rates of treatment for ampullary tumors were investigated and compared between ER and SR. In addition, complications, including pancreatitis, cholangitis, cholecystitis, perforation, and papillary stenosis, and mortality of ER and SR, respectively, were estimated. Results: The rates of complete resection were 0.812 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.758–0.856) and 0.929 (95% CI 0.739–0.984) in ER and SR, respectively. Recurrence rates were 0.145 (95% CI 0.107–0.193) and 0.126 (95% CI 0.057–0.257) in ER and SR, respectively. There were no significant differences in complete resection and recurrence rates between ER and SR in the meta-regression tests (p = 0.164 and p = 0.844, respectively). The estimated rates of pancreatitis, cholangitis/cholecystitis, perforation, and papillary stenosis were 12.8%, 4.4%, 5.2%, and 4.3% in ER and 9.9%, 5.6%, 2.3%, and 5.6% in SR, respectively. There was no significant difference in complications between ER and SR. The mortality rate of SR was slightly higher than that of ER (0.041, 95% CI 0.015–0.107 vs. 0.031, 95% CI 0.005–0.162). Our results show that ER had no significant differences in terms of complete resection and recurrence rates compared to SR, regardless of tumor behaviors. Conclusions: By comparing the complication and mortality rates between ER and SR, the safety of ER was proven.

Best techniques for endoscopic ampullectomy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Endoscopic ampullectomy has proven its safety and efficacy in multiple studies, making it the favorable option for the management of endoscopic ampullectomy. In this review, we plan to review the basic steps every endoscopist should be familiar with before undertaking endoscopic ampullectomy.

RECENT FINDINGS

In this review, we plan to discuss the indications, preresection evaluation process including endoscopic ultrasound, endoscopic ampullectomy techniques with side-viewing endoscope and endoscopist experience/comfort with the management of the endoscopic ampullectomy complications.

SUMMARY

Things of utmost interest include reviewing all the ampullary biopsy specimens by an expert gastrointestinal pathologist, careful preresection staging, en bloc resection, familiarity with tools and techniques of endoscopic ampullectomy, postresection adverse events & management and postprocedure surveillance.

Insights and updates on endoscopic papillectomy

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) has been established as a useful endoscopic therapy by the efforts of many pancreatobiliary endoscopists and is presently accepted as a reliable alternative therapy to surgery in patients with ampullary adenoma. Moreover, there have been numerous advancements in EP techniques in recent years. Various approaches and attempts toward expanding the indications of endoscopic resection have been reported. Furthermore, the management and prevention of adverse events (AEs) and endoscopic treatment for remnant or recurrent lesions have also been reported. In the present review, we focus on recent advancements in the EP technique, as well as speculate on the future issues of EP.

AREA COVERED

This review of EP encompasses the indications, preoperative assessments, endoscopic techniques, outcomes, and AEs of EP, post-EP surveillance techniques, and treatments for remnant or recurrence lesions.

EXPERT OPINION

The ultimate goal of EP is the complete resection of ampullary tumors, regardless of whether they are adenomatous or carcinomatous lesions, without causing any AEs. Therefore, the most important issue is preoperative evaluation, that is, the accurate diagnosis of lesions contraindicated for EP. In addition, further research on the prevention of AEs is also necessary towards establishing EP as a safe endoscopic procedure.

Methods and outcome of the endoscopic treatment of ampullary tumors

Ampullary tumors are rare neoplasms but increasingly encountered due to an increase in diagnostic procedures, mainly upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Diagnosis, staging, and treatment of these tumors are described and recommendations given based on the most recent literature.

Impact of electrical pulse cut mode during endoscopic papillectomy: Pilot randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic papillectomy is increasingly being used for ampullary adenoma treatment. However, it remains challenging despite increased safety with treatment advances. The ideal power output and electrosurgical current mode for mucosal resection are not established. We aimed to identify the ideal electrical pulse for use during resection.

METHODS

This pilot randomized, single-blind, prospective, multicenter trial, recruited patients with ampullary adenomas and conventional anatomy who were scheduled to undergo endoscopic papillectomy. Endoscopic treatment was performed using a standardized algorithm and patients were randomized for endoscopic papillectomy with Endocut or Autocut. The primary outcome was the incidence of delayed bleeding. Incidence of procedure-related pancreatitis, successful complete resection, pathological findings, and other adverse events were secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were enrolled over a 2-year period. The incidences of delayed bleeding (13.3% vs. 16.7%, P = 1.00) and pancreatitis (27% vs. 30%, P = 0.77) were similar between both groups. The rate of crush artifacts was higher in the Endocut than in the Autocut group (27% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.03). Immediate bleeding when resecting tumors greater than 14 mm in diameter was more common in the Autocut than in the Endocut group (88% vs. 46%, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The Autocut and Endocut modes have similar efficacy and safety for endoscopic papillectomy. The Endocut mode may prevent immediate bleeding in cases with large tumor sizes, although it causes more frequent crush artifacts.

REGISTRY AND THE REGISTRATION NUMBER

The Japanese UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR: 000021382).