Search

Appendiceal tumors are incidentally detected in 0.5% cases of appendectomy for acute appendicitis and occur in approximately 1% of all appendectomies. Here, we report two cases of appendiceal collision tumors in two asymptomatic women. In both cases, imaging revealed right-lower-quadrant abdominal masses, which were laparoscopically resected. In both cases, histological examinations revealed an appendiceal collision tumor comprising a low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm and well-differentiated neuroendocrine neoplasm (NEN). For complete oncological control, right hemicolectomy was performed in one patient for the aggressive behavior of NEN; however, histology revealed no metastasis. The other patient only underwent appendectomy. No further treatment was recommended. According to the latest guidelines, exact pathology needs to be defined. Proper management indicated by a multidisciplinary team is fundamental.

Background and study aims Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a complex procedure with a relatively high rate of adverse events. Data on training of operators and fulfillment of quality indicators in Italy are scarce. The goal of this study was to assess the overall quality of ERCP in Italy compared to international standards. Patients and methods This was a prospective, observational study from different Italian centers performing ERCP. Operators answered a questionnaire, then recorded data on ERCPs over a 1-to 3-month period. Results Nineteen Italian centers participated in the study. The most common concern of operators about training was the lack of structured programs. Seven/19 centers routinely used conscious sedation for ERCP. Forty-one experienced operators and 21 trainees performed 766 ERCPs: a successful deep biliary cannulation in native-papilla patients was achieved in 95.1 % of cases; the post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) rate was 5.4 % in native-papilla patients; cholangitis rate was 1.0 %; bleeding and perforation occurred in 2.7 % and 0.4 % of the patients, respectively. Conclusions This study revealed that, overall, ERCP is performed in the participating Italian centers meeting good quality standards, but structured training and sedation practice are still subpar. The bleeding and perforation rate slightly exceeded the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy indicator targets but they are comparable to the reported rates from other international surveys.

Background: Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (pEMR) is routinely employed for large laterally spreading tumors (LSTs). Recurrence rates following pEMR are still unclear, especially when cap-assisted EMR (EMR-c) is performed. We assessed the recurrence rates and recurrence risk factors post-pEMR for large colorectal LSTs, including both wide-field EMR (WF-EMR) and EMR-c., Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent pEMR for colorectal LSTs ≥20 mm at our institution between 2012 and 2020. Patients had a post-resection follow-up period of at least 3 months. A risk factor analysis was carried out using the Cox regression model., Results: The analysis included 155 pEMR: 51 WF-EMR and 104 EMR-c, with a median lesion size of 30 (range: 20-80) mm and a median endoscopic follow up of 15 (range: 3-76) months. Overall, disease recurrence occurred in 29.0% of cases; there was no significant difference in recurrence rates between WF-EMR and EMR-c. Recurrent lesions were safely managed by endoscopic removal, and at risk analysis lesion size was the only significant risk factor for recurrence (mm; hazard ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.06, P=0.02)., Conclusions: Recurrence of large colorectal LSTs after pEMR occurs in 29% of cases. This rate is mainly dependent on lesion size, and the use of a cap during pEMR has no effect on recurrence. Prospective controlled trials are needed to validate these results., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest: None, (Copyright: © Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology.)

The possible involvement, although limited to the diagnostic phase of the procedure, of nonmedical staff (particularly endoscopy nurses) in lower digestive endoscopy has recently been suggested. Computer-based simulators have demonstrated objective evaluation of technical skills in digestive endoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate basic colonoscopy skills of endoscopy nurses (naive operators), as compared with junior physician staff and senior endoscopists, through a virtual reality colonoscopy simulator. In this single-center, prospective, nonrandomized study, 3 groups of digestive endoscopy operators (endoscopy nurses, junior doctors [<150 previous colonoscopies], expert doctors [>500 previous colonoscopies and >200/year]) completed six diagnostic cases generated by an endoscopic simulator (AccuTouch, Immersion Medical, Gaithersburg, MD). The performance parameters, collected by the simulator, were compared between groups. Five parameters have been considered for statistical analysis: time spent to reach the cecum; pain of any degree; severe/extreme pain; amount of insufflated air; percentage of visualized mucosa. Statistical analysis to compare the three groups has been performed by means of Wilcoxon test for two independent samples and by means of Kruskal-Wallis test for three independent samples (p < .05). Sixteen operators have been studied (six endoscopy nurses, five junior doctors, and five senior doctors); 96 colonoscopic procedures have been evaluated. Statistically significant differences between experts and naive operators were observed regarding time to reach the cecum and induction of severe/extreme pain, with both Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon test (p < .05); all other comparisons did not reach statistical significance. Although, as expected, expert doctors exceeded both junior doctors and naive operators in some relevant quality parameters of simulated diagnostic colonoscopies, the results obtained by less expert performers--and particularly by nursing staff--appear satisfactory as in regards to most of the considered quality parameters and suggest a potential value of this device in effectively teaching basic lower digestive endoscopy to beginners in a relatively short time.

Familial colorectal cancer constitutes a heterogeneous group of patients in whom the underlying molecular mechanism is still unknown. Predisposition to a such neoplasms in this setting seems to be due to common low-penetrance genetic components, but the role of genetic testing in clinical practice has to be determined. Although screening guidelines in this moderate-risk population are empiric, data obtained in epidemiologic, meta-analyses and cohort studies and, more recently, the increased risk of advanced adenomas in first degree relatives who underwent screening colonoscopy support the need to include these individuals in specific screening programs. However, data to determine what test to use, how often to use and which organizational strategy to implement are needed. At present, screening uptake in this population is less than optimal; offering the opportunity to access to screening and improving screening uptake is a first significant step.