Search

Esophagectomy and lymphadenectomy have been the standard of care for patients at high risk (HR) of lymph node metastasis following a diagnosis of early esophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) after endoscopic resection (ER). However, recent cohorts suggest lymph node metastasis risk is lower than initially estimated, suggesting organ preservation with close endoscopic follow-up is a viable option. We report on the 3- and 5-year risk of lymph node/distant metastasis among patients diagnosed with early HR-T1 OAC undergoing endoscopic follow-up. Patients diagnosed with HR-T1a or T1b OAC following ER at a tertiary referral center were identified and retrospectively analyzed from clinical records between 2010 and 2021. Patients were included if they underwent endoscopic follow-up after resection and were divided into HR-T1a, low risk (LR)-T1b and HR-T1b cohorts. After ER, 47 patients underwent endoscopic follow-up for early HR OAC. In total, 39 patients had an R0 resection with a combined 3- and 5-year risk of LN/distant metastasis of 6.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.8–25] and 10.9% (95% CI, 3.6–30.2%), respectively. There was no significant difference when stratifying by histopathological subtype (P  = 0.64). Among those without persistent luminal disease on follow-up, the 5-year risk was 4.1% (95% CI, 0.6–26.1). Two patients died secondary to OAC with an all-cause 5-year survival of 57.5% (95% CI, 39.5–71.9). The overall risk of LN/distant metastasis for early HR T1 OAC was lower than historically reported. Endoscopic surveillance can be a reasonable approach in highly selected patients with an R0 resection and complete luminal eradication, but clear, evidence-based surveillance guidelines are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background This study evaluated the proportion of patients with residual neoplasia after endoscopic resection (ER) for Barrett's neoplasia with confirmed tumor-positive vertical resection margin (R1v). Methods This retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing ER for Barrett's neoplasia with histologically documented R1v since 2008 in the Dutch Barrett Expert Centers. We defined R1v as cancer cells touching vertical resection margins and Rx as nonassessable margins. Reassessment of R1v specimens was performed by experienced pathologists until consensus was reached regarding vertical margins. Results 101/110 included patients had macroscopically complete resections (17 T1a, 84 T1b), and 99/101 (98%) ER specimens were histologically reassessed, with R1v confirmed in 74 patients (75%), Rx in 16%, and R0 in 9%. Presence/absence of residual neoplasia could be assessed in 66/74 patients during endoscopic reassessment (52) and/or in the surgical resection specimen (14), and 33/66 (50%) had residual neoplasia. Residual neoplasia detected during endoscopy was always endoscopically visible and biopsies from a normal-appearing ER scar did not detect additional neoplasia. Of 25 patients who underwent endoscopic follow-up (median 37 months [interquartile range 12–50]), 4 developed local recurrence (16.0%), all detected as visible abnormalities. Conclusions After ER with R1v, 50% of patients had no residual neoplasia. Histological evaluation of ER margins appears challenging, as in this study 75% of documented R1v cases were confirmed during reassessment. Endoscopic reassessment 8–12 weeks after ER seems to accurately detect residual neoplasia and can help to determine the most appropriate strategy for patients with R1v. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Main Recommendations: MR1 ESGE recommends the following standards for Barrett esophagus (BE) surveillance: – a minimum of 1-minute inspection time per cm of BE length during a surveillance endoscopy – photodocumentation of landmarks, the BE segment including one picture per cm of BE length, and the esophagogastric junction in retroflexed position, and any visible lesions – use of the Prague and (for visible lesions) Paris classification – collection of biopsies from all visible abnormalities (if present), followed by random four-quadrant biopsies for every 2-cm BE length. Strong recommendation, weak quality of evidence. MR2 ESGE suggests varying surveillance intervals for different BE lengths. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 1 cm and < 3 cm, BE surveillance should be repeated every 5 years. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 3 cm and < 10 cm, the interval for endoscopic surveillance should be 3 years. Patients with BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 10 cm should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance endoscopies. For patients with an irregular Z-line/columnar-lined esophagus of < 1 cm, no routine biopsies or endoscopic surveillance are advised. Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR3 ESGE suggests that, if a patient has reached 75 years of age at the time of the last surveillance endoscopy and/or the patient's life expectancy is less than 5 years, the discontinuation of further surveillance endoscopies can be considered. Weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence. MR4 ESGE recommends offering endoscopic eradication therapy using ablation to patients with BE and low grade dysplasia (LGD) on at least two separate endoscopies, both confirmed by a second experienced pathologist. Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR5 ESGE recommends endoscopic ablation treatment for BE with confirmed high grade dysplasia (HGD) without visible lesions, to prevent progression to invasive cancer. Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR6 ESGE recommends offering complete eradication of all remaining Barrett epithelium by ablation after endoscopic resection of visible abnormalities containing any degree of dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. MR7 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection as curative treatment for T1a Barrett's cancer with well/moderate differentiation and no signs of lymphovascular invasion. Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR8 ESGE suggests that low risk submucosal (T1b) EAC (i. e. submucosal invasion depth ≤ 500 µm AND no [lympho]vascular invasion AND no poor tumor differentiation) can be treated by endoscopic resection, provided that adequate follow-up with gastroscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and computed tomography (CT)/positrion emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is performed in expert centers. Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR9 ESGE suggests that submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma with deep submucosal invasion (tumor invasion > 500 µm into the submucosa), and/or (lympho)vascular invasion, and/or a poor tumor differentiation should be considered high risk. Complete staging and consideration of additional treatments (chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy and/or surgery) or strict endoscopic follow-up should be undertaken on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion. Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR10 a ESGE recommends that the first endoscopic follow-up after successful endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) of BE is performed in an expert center. Strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence. b ESGE recommends careful inspection of the neo-squamocolumnar junction and neo-squamous epithelium with high definition white-light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy during post-EET surveillance, to detect recurrent dysplasia. Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. c ESGE recommends against routine four-quadrant biopsies of neo-squamous epithelium after successful EET of BE. Strong recommendation, low level of evidence. d ESGE suggests, after successful EET, obtaining four-quadrant random biopsies just distal to a normal-appearing neo-squamocolumnar junction to detect dysplasia in the absence of visible lesions. Weak recommendation, low level of evidence. e ESGE recommends targeted biopsies are obtained where there is a suspicion of recurrent BE in the tubular esophagus, or where there are visible lesions suspicious for dysplasia. Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. MR11 After successful EET, ESGE recommends the following surveillance intervals: – For patients with a baseline diagnosis of HGD or EAC: at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped. – For patients with a baseline diagnosis of LGD: at 1, 3, and 5 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped. Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intratumor heterogeneity (ITH) drives neoplastic progression and therapeutic resistance. We used the bioinformatics tools 'expanding ploidy and allele frequency on nested subpopulations' (EXPANDS) and PyClone to detect clones that are present at a ≥ 10% frequency in 1,165 exome sequences from tumors in The Cancer Genome Atlas. 86% of tumors across 12 cancer types had at least two clones. ITH in the morphology of nuclei was associated with genetic ITH (Spearman's correlation coefficient, ρ = 0.24-0.41; P < 0.001). Mutation of a driver gene that typically appears in smaller clones was a survival risk factor (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.15, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.71-2.69). The risk of mortality also increased when >2 clones coexisted in the same tumor sample (HR = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.20-1.87). In two independent data sets, copy-number alterations affecting either 75% of a tumor's genome predicted reduced risk (HR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.08-0.29). Mortality risk also declined when >4 clones coexisted in the sample, suggesting a trade-off between the costs and benefits of genomic instability. ITH and genomic instability thus have the potential to be useful measures that can universally be applied to all cancers., Cancers are a mosaic of clones with varying population sizes, different genetic makeups and distinct phenotypic characteristics (1-4). This intratumor heterogeneity provides the fuel for the engine of natural selection [...]

Introduction: There is no consensus if nor when a native nephrectomy should be performed in the workup for kidney transplantation in ADPKD patients. In our PKD Expertise Center, a restrictive approach is pursued in which nephrectomy is performed only in patients with severe complaints, i.e., in case of serious volume-related complaints, lack of space for the allograft, recurrent cyst infections, persistent cyst bleedings, or chronic refractory pain. We analyzed in a retrospective cohort study whether this approach is justified. Methods: All ADPKD patients who received kidney transplantation between January 2000 and January 2019 were reviewed. Patients were subdivided into three groups: no nephrectomy (no-Nx), nephrectomy performed before (pre-Tx), or after kidney transplantation (post-Tx). Simultaneous nephrectomy together with transplantation were not performed in our center. Results: 391 patients (54 ± 9 years, 55% male) were included. The majority of patients did not undergo a nephrectomy (n = 257, 65.7%). A nephrectomy was performed pre-Tx in 114 patients (29.2%). After Tx, nephrectomy was performed in only 30 patients (7.7%, median 4.4 years post-Tx). Surgery-related complication rates did not differ between both groups (38.3% pre-Tx vs. 27.0% post-Tx, p = 0.2), nor were there any differences in 10-year patient survival (74.4% pre-Tx vs. 80.7% post-Tx vs. 67.6% no-Nx, p = 0.4), as well as in 10-year death-censored graft survival (84.4% pre-Tx vs. 85.5% post-Tx vs. 90.0% no-Nx, p = 0.9). Conclusions: This study indicates that with a restrictive nephrectomy policy in the workup for kidney transplantation, only a part of ADPKD patients need a native nephrectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gastric cancer is one of the most frequent causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Gastric atrophy (GA) and gastric intestinal metaplasia (IM) of the mucosa of the stomach have been found to increase the risk of gastric cancer and are considered precancerous lesions. Therefore, the early detection of GA and IM may have a valuable role in histopathological risk assessment. However, GA and IM are difficult to confirm endoscopically and, following the Sydney protocol, their diagnosis depends on the analysis of glandular morphology and on the identification of at least one well-defined goblet cell in a set of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) -stained biopsy samples. To this end, the precise segmentation and classification of glands from the histological images plays an important role in the diagnostic confirmation of GA and IM. In this paper, we propose a digital pathology end-to-end workflow for gastric gland segmentation and classification for the analysis of gastric tissues. The proposed GAGL-VTNet, initially, extracts both global and local features combining multi-scale feature maps for the segmentation of glands and, subsequently, it adopts a vision transformer that exploits the visual dependences of the segmented glands towards their classification. For the analysis of gastric tissues, segmentation of mucosa is performed through an unsupervised model combining energy minimization and a U-Net model. Then, features of the segmented glands and mucosa are extracted and analyzed. To evaluate the efficiency of the proposed methodology we created the GAGL dataset consisting of 85 WSI, collected from 20 patients. The results demonstrate the existence of significant differences of the extracted features between normal, GA and IM cases. The proposed approach for gland and mucosa segmentation achieves an object dice score equal to 0.908 and 0.967 respectively, while for the classification of glands it achieves an F1 score equal to 0.94 showing great potential for the automated quantification and analysis of gastric biopsies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Colon cancer is a clinically diverse disease. This heterogeneity makes it difficult to determine which patients will benefit most from adjuvant therapy and impedes the development of new targeted agents [...]

1: ESGE suggests performing segmental biopsies (at least two from each segment), which should be placed in different specimen containers (ileum, cecum, ascending, transverse, descending, and sigmoid colon, and rectum) in patients with clinical and endoscopic signs of colitis.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 2: ESGE recommends taking two biopsies from the right hemicolon (ascending and transverse colon) and, in a separate container, two biopsies from the left hemicolon (descending and sigmoid colon) when microscopic colitis is suspected.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 3: ESGE recommends pancolonic dye-based chromoendoscopy or virtual chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsies of any visible lesions during surveillance endoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 4: ESGE suggests that, in high risk patients with a history of colonic neoplasia, tubular-appearing colon, strictures, ongoing therapy-refractory inflammation, or primary sclerosing cholangitis, chromoendoscopy with targeted biopsies can be combined with four-quadrant non-targeted biopsies every 10 cm along the colon. Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that, if pouch surveillance for dysplasia is performed, visible abnormalities should be biopsied, with at least two biopsies systematically taken from each of the afferent ileal loop, the efferent blind loop, the pouch, and the anorectal cuff.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 6: ESGE recommends that, in patients with known ulcerative colitis and endoscopic signs of inflammation, at least two biopsies be obtained from the worst affected areas for the assessment of activity or the presence of cytomegalovirus; for those with no evident endoscopic signs of inflammation, advanced imaging technologies may be useful in identifying areas for targeted biopsies to assess histologic remission if this would have therapeutic consequences. Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 7: ESGE suggests not biopsying endoscopically visible inflammation or normal-appearing mucosa to assess disease activity in known Crohn's disease.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 8: ESGE recommends that adequately assessed colorectal polyps that are judged to be premalignant should be fully excised rather than biopsied.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 9: ESGE recommends that, where endoscopically feasible, potentially malignant colorectal polyps should be excised en bloc rather than being biopsied. If the endoscopist cannot confidently perform en bloc excision at that time, careful representative images (rather than biopsies) should be taken of the potential focus of cancer, and the patient should be rescheduled or referred to an expert center.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 10: ESGE recommends that, in malignant lesions not amenable to endoscopic excision owing to deep invasion, six carefully targeted biopsies should be taken from the potential focus of cancer.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1: ESGE recommends that, where there is a suspicion of eosinophilic esophagitis, at least six biopsies should be taken, two to four biopsies from the distal esophagus and two to four biopsies from the proximal esophagus, targeting areas with endoscopic mucosal abnormalities. Distal and proximal biopsies should be placed in separate containers.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 2: ESGE recommends obtaining six biopsies, including from the base and edge of the esophageal ulcers, for histologic analysis in patients with suspected viral esophagitis.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 3: ESGE recommends at least six biopsies are taken in cases of suspected advanced esophageal cancer and suspected advanced gastric cancer.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 4: ESGE recommends taking only one to two targeted biopsies for lesions in the esophagus or stomach that are potentially amenable to endoscopic resection (Paris classification 0-I, 0-II) in order to confirm the diagnosis and not compromise subsequent endoscopic resection.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 5: ESGE recommends obtaining two biopsies from the antrum and two from the corpus in patients with suspected Helicobacter pylori infection and for gastritis staging.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 6: ESGE recommends biopsies from or, if endoscopically resectable, resection of gastric adenomas.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7: ESGE recommends fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles equally for sampling of solid pancreatic masses.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests performing peroral cholangioscopy (POC) and/or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition in indeterminate biliary strictures. For proximal and intrinsic strictures, POC is preferred. For distal and extrinsic strictures, EUS-guided sampling is preferred, with POC where this is not diagnostic.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE suggests obtaining possible non-neoplastic biopsies before sampling suspected malignant lesions to prevent intraluminal spread of malignant disease.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. 10: ESGE suggests dividing EUS-FNA material into smears (two per pass) and liquid-based cytology (LBC), or the whole of the EUS-FNA material can be processed as LBC, depending on local experience.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tertiary lymphoid structures (TLS) are ectopic aggregates of lymphoid cells in inflamed, infected, or tumoral tissues that are easily recognized on an H&E histology slide as discrete entities, distinct from lymphocytes. TLS are associated with improved cancer prognosis but there is no standardised method available to quantify their presence. Previous studies have used immunohistochemistry to determine the presence of specific cells as a marker of the TLS. This has now been proven to be an underestimate of the true number of TLS. Thus, we propose a methodology for the automated identification and quantification of TLS, based on H&E slides. We subsequently determined the mathematical criteria defining a TLS. TLS regions were identified through a deep convolutional neural network and segmentation of lymphocytes was performed through an ellipsoidal model. This methodology had a 92.87% specificity at 95% sensitivity, 88.79% specificity at 98% sensitivity and 84.32% specificity at 99% sensitivity level based on 144 TLS annotated H&E slides implying that the automated approach was able to reproduce the histopathologists' assessment with great accuracy. We showed that the minimum number of lymphocytes within TLS is 45 and the minimum TLS area is 6,245μm2. Furthermore, we have shown that the density of the lymphocytes is more than 3 times those outside of the TLS. The mean density and standard deviation of lymphocytes within a TLS area are 0.0128/μm2 and 0.0026/μm2 respectively compared to 0.004/μm2 and 0.001/μm2 in non-TLS regions. The proposed methodology shows great potential for automated identification and quantification of the TLS density on digital H&E slides. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: Barrett's esophagus is associated with increased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma. The optimal management of low‐grade dysplasia arising in Barrett's esophagus remains controversial. We performed a retrospective study from a tertiary referral center for Barrett's esophagus neoplasia, to estimate time to progression to high‐grade dysplasia/esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with confirmed low‐grade dysplasia compared with those with downstaged low‐grade dysplasia from index presentation and referral. We analyzed risk factors for progression. Methods: We analyzed consecutive patients with low‐grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus referred to a single tertiary center (July 2006–October 2018). Biopsies were reviewed by at least two expert pathologists. Results: One hundred and forty‐seven patients referred with suspected low‐grade dysplasia were included. Forty‐two of 133 (32%) of all external referrals had confirmed low‐grade dysplasia after expert histopathology review. Multivariable analysis showed nodularity at index endoscopy (P < 0.05), location of dysplasia (P = 0.05), and endoscopic therapy after referral (P = 0.09) were associated with progression risk. At 5 years, 59% of patients with confirmed low‐grade dysplasia had not progressed versus 74% of patients in the cohort downstaged to non‐dysplastic Barrett's esophagus. Conclusion: Our data show variability in the diagnosis of low‐grade dysplasia. The cumulative incidence of progression and time to progression varied across subgroups. Confirmed low‐grade dysplasia had a shorter progression time compared with the downstaged group. Nodularity at index endoscopy and multifocal low‐grade dysplasia were significant risk factors for progression. It is important to differentiate these high‐risk subgroups so that decisions on surveillance/endotherapy can be personalized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]