Search

This article discusses the impact of annual case volume on the outcomes and safety of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) procedures. The study included 3770 colorectal ESDs performed in 13 participating centers. The results showed that high-volume centers had higher rates of en bloc resection, R0 resection, and curative resection compared to middle-volume and low-volume centers. The duration of the procedure was also shorter in high-volume centers. However, the study found that the volume of the center was not a significant risk factor for complications such as perforation. Overall, the study suggests that colorectal ESD can be successfully implemented in non-expert settings, but challenging cases should still be referred to experts. [Extracted from the article]

This article discusses a prospective multicenter study on the use of the ATRACT traction device in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The ATRACT device, which uses a pulley system to increase traction during the procedure, was used in 50 ESDs performed on patients with colorectal lesions measuring 4 to 10 cm. The study found that the device was effective and safe, with high en bloc and R0 resection rates. The study also reported high resection speeds compared to previous strategies. However, the authors note that larger studies are needed to confirm these results in non-expert centers. [Extracted from the article]

This article discusses the diagnostic performance of two classifications, the Japan NBI Expert Team (JNET) classification and the CONECCT classification, for large colorectal laterally spreading lesions treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection. The study found that the JNET classification had a low diagnostic accuracy for predicting submucosal cancer risk, while the CONECCT classification had a high sensitivity for predicting submucosal invasive carcinoma. The authors recommend using the CONECCT classification to avoid undertreatment of submucosal invasive carcinoma. [Extracted from the article]

This article proposes a framework for developing predictive models of end-of-life product flows, highlighting the importance of conducting thorough analyses before developing waste management and end-of-life product flow strategies. The framework emphasizes the importance of recognizing the nature and quality of the available data and finding a balance between model development time and detail requirements. It is designed to adapt to source material heterogeneity and address varying data availability scenarios, such as the presence or absence of radio frequency identification chips. A case study for the city of Gatineau is presented, showcasing the framework's application through agent-based simulation models in a geographic information systems environment. The study focuses on creating models of municipal solid waste generation based on socioeconomic and demographic factors and collection data to accurately predict the quantity and quality of waste streams, enabling municipalities to assess the environmental impact of their waste management strategies., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Biomass gasification as a renewable energy technology has been a widely explored research and development area. The efficient and economic removal of harmful components, particularly tars, in raw syngas from the biomass gasifier is still a major challenge. In this study, a novel two-stage fluidized bed pilot-scale gasifier has been developed to enhance the steam-oxygen biomass gasification to generate low-tar syngas; while, a prototype hot syngas cleanup system has been designed, built and tested to further reduce the tar content and purify the syngas from the biomass gasifier for downstream applications. The results showed that the tar removal efficiency by a catalytic tar cracker using an iron-based bauxite residue derived catalyst prepared in-house can reach 82.8-98.0% at reaction temperatures of 678-801°C, and 90.6-98.0% at 784-801°C, respectively. Furthermore, the tar content of the cleaned syngas can be as low as 0.10-0.65 g/Nm 3 when the raw syngas tar content is 2.59-27.71 g/Nm 3 . In the case of syngas composition, H 2 content ranged from 32.7% to 48.0%, CH 4 from 2.8% to 4.8%, CO from 26.3% to 35.7%, and CO 2 from 18.4% to 33.9%. The H 2 /CO molar ratio varies from 1.0 to 1.8, requiring the application of the water-gas shift reaction to increase the H 2 /CO ratio to 3 for downstream methanation to produce renewable natural gas., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The adoption of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is still limited in the West. A recent randomized trial showed that ESD is more effective and only slightly riskier than piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection; reproducibility outside expert centers was questioned. We evaluated the results according to the annual case volume in a multicentric prospective cohort., Methods: Between September 2019 and September 2022, colorectal ESD was consecutively performed at 13 participating centers classified as low volume (LV), middle volume (MV), and high volume (HV). The main procedural outcomes were assessed. Multivariate and propensity score matching analyses were performed., Results: Three thousand seven hundred seventy ESDs were included. HV centers treated larger and more often colonic lesions than MV and LV centers. En bloc , R0, and curative resection rates were 95.2%, 87.4%, and 83.2%, respectively, and were higher at HV than at MV and LV centers. HV centers also achieved a faster dissection speed. Delayed bleeding and surgery for complications rates were 5.4% and 0.8%, respectively, without significant differences. The perforation rate (overall: 9%) was higher at MV than at LV and HV centers. Lesion characteristics, but not volume center, were independently associated with both R1 resection and perforation. However, after propensity score matching, R0 rates were significantly higher at HV than at LV centers, and perforation rates were significantly higher at MV than at HV centers., Discussion: Colorectal ESD can be successfully implemented in the West, even in nonexpert centers. However, difficult lesions must still be referred to experts., (Copyright © 2024 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Background & Aims: Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) is established as the primary treatment modality for superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs), but recently underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) has emerged as a potential alternative. The majority of previous studies focused on Asian populations and small lesions (≤20 mm). We aimed to compare the efficacy and outcomes of U-EMR vs C-EMR for SNADETs in a Western setting., Methods: This was a retrospective multinational study from 10 European centers that performed both C-EMR and U-EMR between January 2013 and July 2023. The main outcomes were the technical success, procedure-related adverse events (AEs), and the residual/recurrent adenoma (RRA) rate, evaluated on a per-lesion basis. We assessed the association between the type of endoscopic mucosal resection and the occurrence of AEs or RRAs using mixed-effects logistic regression models (propensity scores). Sensitivity analyses were performed for lesions ≤20 mm or >20 mm., Results: A total of 290 SNADETs submitted to endoscopic resection during the study period met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed (C-EMR: n = 201, 69.3%; U-EMR: n = 89, 30.7%). The overall technical success rate was 95.5% and comparable between groups. In logistic regression models, compared with U-EMR, C-EMR was associated with a significantly higher frequency of overall delayed AEs (odds ratio [OR], 4.95; 95% CI, 2.87-8.53), postprocedural bleeding (OR, 7.92; 95% CI, 3.95-15.89), and RRAs (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.49-5.37). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results when solely considering either small (≤20 mm) or large (>20 mm) lesions., Conclusions: Compared with C-EMR, U-EMR was associated with a lower rate of overall AEs and RRAs, regardless of lesion size. Our results confirm the possible role of U-EMR as an effective and safe technique in the management of SNADETs., (Copyright © 2025 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: We aimed to evaluate the feasibility, safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for recurrent rectal neoplastic lesions after transanal microsurgery of superficial rectal neoplasms., Methods: Multicenter retrospective study., Main Outcomes: recurrence at first endoscopic follow-up, En bloc, R0 and curative resections., Results: 39 patients were included. 71 % percent of lesions were located in the lower rectum, 57 % reached the pectineal line. 67 % were laterally spreading tumor granular type, 33 % were protruding lesions. Median size was 41 mm (IQR 30 - 60). Median operation time was 70 min (IQR 35 - 97). 92 % were successfully resected en bloc. R0 and curative resection rates were 77 % and 71 %, respectively. Perirectal fat was visualized in 10 patients, none of them required surgery. One significant hematochezia (3 %), two stenosis (6 %) and one untreatable anal incontinence (3 %) occurred. Median hospital stay after endoscopic submucosal dissection was 2 days (IQR 1-2). Median period for the first endoscopy follow-up was 6 months (IQR 4-8). A single post endoscopic submucosal dissection recurrence adenoma was found during follow-up (3 %), occurring after a non-en bloc resection., Conclusion: Endoscopic submucosal dissection is a good option for safely achieving high rates of complete en bloc resection in cases of recurrent superficial rectal tumor after transanal microsurgery., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest - Ali Jaafar has no conflict of interest. - Xavier Dray is co-founder and shareholder of Augmented Endoscopy. He has received consultant fees from Norgine and Provepharm. He has received lecture fees from Fujifilm, Medtronic, MSD, Norgine, Pfizer and Sandoz. - Jeremie Jacques has received workshop fees from Olympus, Fujifilm, Erbe, Pentax and Boston. He has received hospitality from Janssen and Abbvie. - Romain Legros has received workshop fees from Olympus, Fujifilm, Erbe, Pentax and Boston. - Sarah Leblanc has received workshop fees from Olympus and Boston. She has received congresses fees from Fujifilm. She is laboratory board for Alfasigma. - Vincent Lepilliez has received workshops fees from Olympus. He has refunded fees from Medtronic on JFHOD 2023. - Arthur Berger has received fees from Fujifilm, Norgine, Creo medical and Janssen. - Edouard Chabrun has received workshops fees from Norgine. - Yann Le Baleur is expert training consultant for Ovesco Endoscopy and Duomed. - Mathieu Pioche is co-founder of A-TRACT. He has received ESD formation fees from Olympus, Pentax and Erbe. He has received formation fees from Norgine and Provepharm. - Maximilien Barret is consulting for Medtronic, Sanofi and Fujifilm. He has participated in boards for Norgine and Ambu. He has received interventions fees from Dr. Falk Pharma. He organized training sessions for Olympus. He participated in research funding for Pentax - Timothee Wallenhorst, Thibault Degand and Felix Corre had no conflict of interest. - Marion Schaefer has received lecture and workshops fees from Boston scientific, workshop fees from Duomed Endoscopy and Erbe, lecture fees from Norgine, Alfasigma and Ferring. She is consulting for Abbvie. She has received hospitality from Cook, Olympus, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Cousin, Ipsen and Takeda., (Copyright © 2024 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Background: The ileocecal valve (ICV) is considered to be one of the most difficult locations for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of traction-assisted ESD in this situation., Methods: All patients who underwent traction-assisted ESD for an ICV lesion at three centers were identified from a prospective ESD database. En bloc and R0 rates were evaluated. Factors associated with non-R0 resection were explored., Results: 106 patients with an ICV lesion were included. The median lesion size was 50 mm (interquartile range 38-60) and 58.5% (62/106) invaded the terminal ileum. The en bloc and R0 resection rates were 94.3% and 76.4%, respectively. Factors associated with non-R0 resection were lesions covering ≥75% of the ICV (odds ratio [OR] 0.21. 95%CI 0.06-0.76; P=0.02), and involving the anal lip (OR 0.36, 95%CI 0.13-0.99; P=0.04) or more than two sites on the ICV (OR 0.27, 95%CI 0.07-0.99; P=0.03)., Conclusion: Traction-assisted ESD for treatment of ICV lesions was a safe and feasible option. Large lesions and anal lip involvement appeared to be factors predictive of difficulty., Competing Interests: C. Yzet is a consultant and lecturer for Abbvie, Takeda, Jansen, Amgen, and Galapagos. T. Wallenhorst has received honoraria for ESD training sessions from Olympus and Fujifilm, and lectures for Mayoli. J. Jacques has provided ESD training sessions for Olympus, Fuji, Erbe, Pentax Medical, and Lumendi, and lectures for Abbvie, Janssen, and Norgine. J. Rivory has received honoraria for training sessions in endoscopy and endoscopic resection from Olympus and Cook Medical. M. Schaefer has received honoraria for training session from Boston Scientific, and has received invitations to congresses from Olympus, Cook, Cousin Medical, Boston, Pentax, Abbvie, MSD, Amgen, and Norgine. M. Pioche has received honoraria for training sessions in endoscopy and endoscopic resection from Olympus, Cook Medical, Boston Scientific, and Pentax Medical; honoraria for training sessions in endoscopic characterization from Norgine and Provepharm; invitation to UEGW from AlfaSigma; and owns a patent for the Hospices Civils de Lyon IPEFIX device. M. Figueiredo, F. Rostain, L.J. Masgnaux, J. Grimaldi, R. Legros, P. Lafeuille, J. Albouys, and F. Subtil declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Traction has become the reference strategy for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). One of its major limitations is that the force of traction decreases as dissection progresses. The ATRACT traction device (ATRACT Device and Co, Lyon, France) uses a pulley system to increase traction during the procedure, making it easier and faster. A retrospective study of 54 cases showed interesting results in terms of efficacy and safety throughout the digestive tract. We sought to confirm these initial results with a prospective study of resections of colorectal lesions., Methods: In this prospective multicenter study, 5 experienced operators from 3 different centers each performed 10 procedures using the ATRACT device consecutively for all conventional colorectal ESDs measuring between 4 and 10 cm in conventional locations (no recurrent lesions, appendicular, of the ileocecal valve, in contact with the pectinate line, or measuring more than two-thirds of the circumference)., Results: Between November 2022 and April 2023, 50 ESDs were performed in 49 patients. On average, the main diameter of the lesions was 66.6 mm, with a surface area of 3066 mm 2 . The mean operating time was 55.2 minutes, resulting in a mean resection speed of 61.4 mm 2 /min. En bloc and R0 resection rates were 100% and 98%, respectively. Resections were curative in 94% of cases. Four (8%) perforations occurred, all of which were closed endoscopically without the need for surgery. One (2%) case of delayed hemorrhage was noted. To date, this is the series with the highest resection speeds in the literature for colorectal ESD. For comparison, previous studies reported a speed of 23.5 mm 2 /min using the "pocket" strategy and a speed of 39.1 mm 2 /min using the double-clip traction technique. These results need to be confirmed in larger studies and in nonexpert centers., Conclusions: This prospective evaluation confirms the efficacy and safety of the adaptive traction strategy with the ATRACT device for colorectal ESD with high resection speed., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: J. Grimaldi: Cofounder of ATRACT Device and Co. L.-J. Masgnaux: Cofounder of ATRACT Device and Co. J. Rivory: Cofounder of ATRACT Device and Co; training sessions in endoscopy for Olympus, Cook Medical, and Boston scientific. R. Legros: Cofounder of ATRACT Device and Co; training sessions in endoscopy for Olympus, Fuji, and Erbe. T. Wallenhorst: Training sessions in endoscopy for Olympus and Fujifilm. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection (cESD) in the esophagus has been reported to be feasible in small Eastern case series. We assessed the outcomes of cESD in the treatment of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in Western countries., Methods: We conducted an international study at 25 referral centers in Europe and Australia using prospective databases. We included all patients with ESCC treated with cESD before November 2022. Our main outcomes were curative resection according to European guidelines and adverse events., Results: A total of 171 cESDs were performed on 165 patients. En bloc and R0 resections rates were 98.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95.0-99.4) and 69.6% (95% CI, 62.3-76.0), respectively. Curative resection was achieved in 49.1% (95% CI, 41.7-56.6) of the lesions. The most common reason for noncurative resection was deep submucosal invasion (21.6%). The risk of stricture requiring 6 or more dilations or additional techniques (incisional therapy/stent) was high (71%), despite the use of prophylactic measures in 93% of the procedures. The rates of intraprocedural perforation, delayed bleeding, and adverse cardiorespiratory events were 4.1%, 0.6%, and 4.7%, respectively. Two patients died (1.2%) of a cESD-related adverse event. Overall and disease-free survival rates at 2 years were 91% and 79%., Conclusions: In Western referral centers, cESD for ESCC is curative in approximately half of the lesions. It can be considered a feasible treatment in selected patients. Our results suggest the need to improve patient selection and to develop more effective therapies to prevent esophageal strictures., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: E. R. de Santiago: Consultant for Olympus and Apollo Endosurgery; speaker for Norgine and Casen Recordati. R. E. Pouw: Consultant for Medtronic BV and MicroTech Europe; speaker for Pentax. B. L. A. M. Weusten: Consultant and speaker for Pentax Medical; research grant support from Pentax Medical and Aqua Medical. J. Jacques: Consultant for Olympus, Pentax, Fujifilm, and ERBE Medical; speaker for Janssen. D. Libânio: Speaker for Olympus and Fujifilm Europe. M. Dinis-Robeiro: Consultant for Roche and Medtronic. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships. A. Herreros-de-Tejada: Consultant for Boston Scientific; speaker for Norgine, Creo Medical, Olympus, and Sonoscape., (Copyright © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: J. Rivory, J. Jacques, R. Legros, T. Wallenhorst, and M. Pioche are co-funders of the ATRACT device, and also consultants for Olympus, Pentax, Erbe, and Boston for training in ESD. L.-J. Masgnaux is the inventor of the ATRACT device. The Ipefix patent is the property of the institution Hospices civils de Lyon. J. Albouys declares that he has no conflict of interest.

BACKGROUND : Good submucosal exposure is key to successful endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and can be achieved with various traction devices. Nevertheless, these devices have a fixed traction force that tends to decrease as the dissection progresses. In contrast, the ATRACT adaptive traction device increases traction during the procedure. METHODS : In this retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data (from a French database), we analyzed ESD procedures performed with the ATRACT device between April 2022 and October 2022. The device was used consecutively whenever possible. We collected details of lesion characteristics, procedural data, histologic outcomes, and clinical consequences for the patient. RESULTS : 54 resections performed in 52 patients by two experienced operators (46 procedures) and six novices (eight procedures) were analyzed. The ATRACT devices used were the ATRACT-2 (n = 21), the ATRACT 2 + 2 (n = 30), and the ATRACT-4 (n = 3). Four adverse events were observed: one perforation (1.9 %), which was closed endoscopically, and three delayed bleeding events (5.5 %). The R0 rate was 93 %, resulting in curative resection in 91 % of cases. CONCLUSION:  ESD using the ATRACT device is safe and effective in the colon and rectum, but can also be used to assist with procedures in the upper gastrointestinal tract. It may be particularly useful in difficult locations., Competing Interests: L.-J. Masgnaux, J. Grimaldi, J. Rivory, T. Wallenhorst, R. Legros, J. Jacques, and M. Pioche are cofounders of A-TRACT Device & Co. T. Ponchon, C. Yzet, A. Lupu, and F. Rostain declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: The muscle retracting sign (MRS) can be present during endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of macronodular colorectal lesions. The prevalence of MRS and its pathologic and clinical implications is unclear. This study evaluated the effect of MRS on the technical and clinical outcomes of ESD., Methods: All patients referred for ESD of protruding lesions or granular mixed lesions with >10 mm macronodule granular mixed laterally spreading tumors (LST-GMs) in 2 academic centers from January 2017 to October 2022 were prospectively included. Size of the macronodule was analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcome was the curative resection rate according to MRS status. Secondary outcomes were R0 resection, perforation, secondary surgery rate, and risk factors for MRS., Results: Of 694 lesions, 84 (12%) had MRS (MRS+). The curative resection rate was decreased by MRS (MRS+ 41.6% vs lesions without MRS [MRS-] 81.3%), whereas the perforation (MRS+ 22.6% vs MRS- 9.2%), submucosal cancer (MRS+ 34.9% vs MRS- 9.2%), and surgery (MRS+ 45.2% vs MRS- 6%) rates were increased. The R0 resection rate of MRS+ colonic lesions was lower than that of rectal lesions (53% vs 74.3%). In multivariate analysis, protruding lesions (odds ratio, 2.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-4.80) and macronodules >4 cm (odds ratio, 4.24; 95% confidence interval, 2.23-8.05) were risk factors for MRS., Conclusions: MRS reduces oncologic outcomes and increases the perforation rate. Consequently, procedures in the colon should be stopped if MRS is detected, and those in the rectum should be continued due to the morbidity of alternative therapy., Competing Interests: Disclosure The following authors disclosed financial relationships: J. Albouys: support for meeting from Amgen; consulting for Boston Scientific; remunerated lecture for Fujifilm; and ESD training for Erbe. M. Schaefer: Consultant for AbbVie; honoraria from Alfasigma, Boston Scientific, Duomed Endoscopy, Erbe Medical, Ferring, and Norgine; and meeting support from Boston Scientific, Cook, Cousin Endoscopy, Erbe, Ipsen, Janssen, Medtronic, Olympus, MSD, and Takeda R. Legros: training event for Pentax Medical, Fujifilm, Erbe, Olympus; and consulting for Boston Scientific. P. Leclercq: speaker fee and advisory board for Medtronic; speaker fee for Erbe; and travel grant from Olympus. M. Dahan: remunerated lecture for MSD; meeting support from Amgen; and training event for Fujifilm. A. Guyot: remunerated lecture for MSD. P. Carrier: consulting for AbbVie; support for meeting from Ipsen; and remunerated lecture for Gilead. V. Loustaud-Ratti: consulting for AbbVie and Gilead; and remunerated lecture for Ipsen. H. Lepetit: remunerated lecture for Fujifilm; and ESD training for Erbe. S. Geyl: remunerated lecture for AbbVie, Galapagos, and Ipsen; and support for meeting from Janssen and Takeda. T. Wallenhorst: training event for Fujifilm and Olympus; and support for meeting from AbbVie. M. Pioche: training event for Olympus, Fujifilm, and Viatris; and educational purposes for Boston Scientific, Olympus, Norgine, and AlfaSigma. J. Jacques: training event for Pentax Medical, Fujifilm, Erbe, and Olympus; and consulting for Boston Scientific. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Clinically significant delayed bleeding (CSDB) is a frequent, and sometimes severe, adverse event after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We evaluated risk factors of CSDB after colorectal ESD., Methods: We analyzed a prospective registry of 940 colorectal ESDs performed from 2013 to 2022. The incidence of bleeding was evaluated up to 30 days. Risk factors for delayed bleeding were evaluated by multivariate logistic regression. A Korean scoring model was tested, and a new risk-scoring model was developed and internally validated., Results: CSDB occurred in 75 patients (8.0%). The Korean score performed poorly in our cohort, with a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.567. In the multivariate analysis, risk factors were age ≥75 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.63; 95%CI 0.97-2.73; 1 point), use of antithrombotics (OR 1.72; 95%CI 1.01-2.94; 1 point), rectal location (OR 1.51; 95%CI 0.92-2.48; 1 point), size >50 mm (OR 3.67; 95%CI 2.02-7.14; 3 points), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of III or IV (OR 2.26; 95%CI 1.32-3.92; 2 points). The model showed fair calibration and good discrimination, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.751 (95%CI 0.690-0.812). The score was used to define two groups of patients, those with low-medium risk (0 to 4 points) and high risk (5 to 8 points) for CSDB (respective bleeding rates 4.1% and 17.5%)., Conclusion: A score based on five simple and meaningful variables was predictive of CSDB., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Malignant distal biliary obstructions are becoming increasingly common, especially in patients with cancers of the pancreatic head, despite progress in medical oncology research. ERCP is the current gold standard for management of such strictures, but the emergence of EC-LAMS has rendered EUS-CDS both safe and efficient. It is a "game changer"; originally intended for ERCP failure, two randomised clinical trials recently proposed EUS-CDS as a first-intent procedure in palliative settings. For resectable diseases, the absence of iatrogenic pancreatitis associated with a lower rate of postsurgical adverse events (compared with ERCP) leads us to believe that EUS-CDS might be used in first-intent as a pre-operative endoscopic biliary drainage.

Background: Endoscopic resection of adenomas prevents colorectal cancer, but the optimal technique for larger lesions is controversial. Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has a low adverse event (AE) rate but a variable recurrence rate necessitating early follow-up. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can reduce recurrence but may increase AEs., Objective: To compare ESD and EMR for large colonic adenomas., Design: Participant-masked, parallel-group, superiority, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03962868)., Setting: Multicenter study involving 6 French referral centers from November 2019 to February 2021., Participants: Patients with large (≥25 mm) benign colonic lesions referred for resection., Intervention: The patients were randomly assigned by computer 1:1 (stratification by lesion location and center) to ESD or EMR., Measurements: The primary end point was 6-month local recurrence (neoplastic tissue on endoscopic assessment and scar biopsy). The secondary end points were technical failure, en bloc R0 resection, and cumulative AEs., Results: In total, 360 patients were randomly assigned to ESD ( n  = 178) or EMR ( n  = 182). In the primary analysis set ( n  = 318 lesions in 318 patients), recurrence occurred after 1 of 161 ESDs (0.6%) and 8 of 157 EMRs (5.1%) (relative risk, 0.12 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.96]). No recurrence occurred in R0-resected cases (90%) after ESD. The AEs occurred more often after ESD than EMR (35.6% vs. 24.5%, respectively; relative risk, 1.4 [CI, 1.0 to 2.0])., Limitation: Procedures were performed under general anesthesia during hospitalization in accordance with the French health system., Conclusion: Compared with EMR, ESD reduces the 6-month recurrence rate, obviating the need for systematic early follow-up colonoscopy at the cost of more AEs., Primary Funding Source: French Ministry of Health., Competing Interests: Disclosures: Disclosures can be viewed at www.acponline.org/authors/icmje/ConflictOfInterestForms.do?msNum=M23-1812.

Competing Interests: A patent for the device has been requested by our institution.

Competing Interests: J. Rivory, J. Jacques, R. Legros, T. Wallenhorst, and M. Pioche are co-funders of the ATRACT device, and also consultants for Olympus, Pentax, Erbe, and Boston for training in ESD. L.-J. Masgnaux is the inventor of the ATRACT device. The Ipefix patent is the property of the institution Hospices civils de Lyon. J. Albouys declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: All authors are founders of the company A-TRACT Device and Co and a patent has been demanded by our institution for the A-TRACT 2 + 2.

Competing Interests: Our institution Hospices civils de Lyon has registered a patent on this device with a project of start up creation.

Competing Interests: The authors are founders of the A-TRACT company.

Competing Interests: M. Schaefer and J. Jacques have received honoraria from ERBE Medical for educational purposes.

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.