Search

1:  ESGE recommends cold snare polypectomy (CSP), to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of diminutive polyps (≤ 5 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends against the use of cold biopsy forceps excision because of its high rate of incomplete resection.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 3:  ESGE recommends CSP, to include a clear margin of normal tissue (1-2 mm) surrounding the polyp, for the removal of small polyps (6-9 mm).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends hot snare polypectomy for the removal of nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps of 10-19 mm in size.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 5:  ESGE recommends conventional (diathermy-based) endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large (≥ 20 mm) nonpedunculated adenomatous polyps (LNPCPs).Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6:  ESGE suggests that underwater EMR can be considered an alternative to conventional hot EMR for the treatment of adenomatous LNPCPs.Weak recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 7:  Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) may also be suggested as an alternative for removal of LNPCPs of ≥ 20 mm in selected cases and in high-volume centers.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE recommends that, after piecemeal EMR of LNPCPs by hot snare, the resection margins should be treated by thermal ablation using snare-tip soft coagulation to prevent adenoma recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 9:  ESGE recommends (piecemeal) cold snare polypectomy or cold EMR for SSLs of all sizes without suspected dysplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. 10:  ESGE recommends prophylactic endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of LNPCPs in the right colon to reduce to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 11:  ESGE recommends that en bloc resection techniques, such as en bloc EMR, ESD, endoscopic intermuscular dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, or surgery should be the techniques of choice in cases with suspected superficial invasive carcinoma, which otherwise cannot be removed en bloc by standard polypectomy or EMR.Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence., Competing Interests: R. Bisschops has been on the advisory boards of Pentax, Medtronic, Fujifilm, Cook, Boston Scientific, and Olympus, and has received speaker’s fees from Pentax, Medtronic, and Fujifilm; his department has received research grants, and organizational support for events from Pentax and Medtronic, and further organizational support for events from Erbe, Ovesco, and Olympus (all within the last 3 years). M.J. Bourke has received research support from Cook Medical and Olympus (2014 to date). E. Dekker has provided consultancy to Olympus and GI supply (several occasions in recent years). M. Dinis-Ribeiro has provided consultancy to Medtronic and Roche (2021 to 2022) and received a research grant from Fujifilm (2021 to 2022). H. Messmann has provided consultancy to Ambu, Boston Scientific, and Olympus (2022 to date); his department has received research support from Olympus and Satisfai (2022 to date). L. Moons has provided consultancy to Boston Scientific and Pentax (2024 to date) and is a member of the Colorectal cancer guideline committee and chair of the Dutch Guideline group on polypectomy in the rectum and colon. M. Pellisé has provided consultancy to Norgine Iberia (2015 to 2019), GI supply (2019), Fujifilm Europe (2021 to date), and Olympus (2022 to date), and received research support from Fujifilm Spain (2019), Fujifilm Europe (2020 to 2021), Casen recordati (2020), and ZuiZ (2021); her department has also received equipment on loan from Fujifilm Europe (2019 to date); she was on the Endoscopy editorial board (2015 to 2021), was ESGE Equity and diversity working group chair (2021 to 2022), councillor for SEED (2016 to 2022), and is president of AEG (2022 to date). G. Rahmi has provided consultancy to Fujifilm and Medtronic (2023 to date). A. Repici has received consultancy fees and research funding from ERBE (2020 to date) and Fujifilm (2018 to date), and speaker’s and consultancy fees, and research funding from Boston Scientific (2019 to date). M. Rutter is a member of the British Society of Gastroenterology and is the current Chair of the Joint Advisory Group for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Y. Takeuchi has provided consultancy to Boston Scientific Japan (2012 to 2022) and has received speaker’s fees from Olympus, Daiichi-Sankyo, Miyarisan Pharmaceutical, Asuka Pharmaceutical, AstraZeneca, EA Pharma, Zeria Pharmaceutical, Fujifilm, Kaneka Medix, Kyorin Pharmaceutical, and the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society. H. Uchima Koecklin has received proctorship and speaker’s fees from ERBE Spain and Olympus Iberia (2022 to 2023). E. Albeniz, A. Amato, H. Awadie, P. Bhandari, M. Ferlitsch, I. Gralnek, C. Hassan R. Jover, D. Libanio, V. Lorenzo-Zuniga, A. Moss, G. Paspatis, A. Probst, M. Risio, L.-M. Rockenbauer, K. Triantafyllou, A. Voiosu, and E. Waldmann declare that they have no conflict of interest., (European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.)

Background: The gender gap in the authorship of scientific research may affect career advancement. Our aim was to assess the potential gender gap in gastrointestinal (GI) journals., Methods: A systematic review was performed of the GI literature and ongoing research in the period 2020-2022. A total 10 GI journals and ongoing research on clinicaltrials.gov were selected for review. The gender gap in first and senior authorship was evaluated for each article and ongoing research project. Associations between the gender gap and possible predictors were measured and results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95%CI., Results: The number of first female authors (FFAs) and senior female authors (SFAs) in published articles were 1408/4207 (33.5%) and 911/4207 (21.7%), respectively. There were 781/2654 (29.4%) female principal investigators (PI)s for the ongoing research. On comparison of non-endoscopic vs. endoscopic topics, the latter were associated with the gender gap (hepatology, OR 2.15 [95%CI 1.83-2.55]; inflammatory bowel disease, OR 2.12 [95%CI 1.60-2.45]; upper and lower GI, OR 1.31 [95%CI 1.18-1.73]); as well as the type of article (original article vs. editorial, OR 1.92 [95%CI 1.58-2.33]). The type of research was also associated with the gender gap (clinical vs. preclinical studies, OR 0.88 [95%CI 0.66-0.91])., Conclusion: Our results demonstrated a correlation between the gender gap and the design and topic of the research. Future strategies for improving equity in career development in GI endoscopy should focus on closing the gender gap in equity of authorship., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: High rates of technical and clinical success were reported for lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) placement for peripancreatic fluid collection (PFC) drainage. However, data on the adverse event (AE) rates are heterogeneous. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence, severity, management, and risk factors of AEs related to the use of LAMSs for drainage of PFCs in a large cohort of patients., Methods: This is a multicenter, international, retrospective review from 15 centers of all patients who underwent placement of LAMSs for the management of PFCs. A nested case-control study was conducted in patients with (case) or without (control) AEs., Results: Three hundred thirty-three procedures in 328 patients were performed (5 patients treated with 2 LAMSs). Technical success was achieved in 321 patients (97.9%). Three hundred four patients were finally included in the study (7 excluded for lost to follow-up information; 10 excluded for deaths unrelated to LAMSs). The rate of clinical success was 89.5%. Seventy-nine LAMS-related AEs occurred in 74 of 304 patients (24.3%), after a mean time of 25.3 days (median, 18 days; interquartile range, 6-30) classified as 20 (25.3%) mild, 54 (68.4%) moderate, or 5 (6.3%) severe. On multivariable analysis compared with control subjects, cases were more likely to have walled-off necrosis (WON) versus pancreatic pseudocysts (odds ratio, 2.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-4.46; P = .028), whereas cases were less likely to have undergone tract (balloon) dilation (yes vs no; odds ratio, .47; 95% confidence interval, .22-.93; P = .034)., Conclusions: Data from this large international retrospective study confirm that the use of LAMSs for management of PFCs has excellent technical and good clinical success rates. The rate of AEs, however, is not negligible and should be carefully considered before using these stents for drainage of PFCs and in particular for WON. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03544008.)., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Inflammatory bowel disease is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer, with estimates ranging 2-18%, depending on the duration of colitis. The management of neoplasia in colitis remains controversial. Current guidelines recommend endoscopic resection if the lesion is clearly visible with distinct margins. Colectomy is recommended if complete endoscopic resection is not guaranteed. We aimed to assess the outcomes of all neoplastic endoscopic resections in inflammatory bowel disease., Methods: This was a multicentre retrospective cohort study of 119 lesions of visible dysplasia in 93 patients, resected endoscopically in inflammatory bowel disease., Results: A total of 6/65 [9.2%] lesions <20 mm in size were treated by ESD [endoscopic submucosal dissection] compared with 59/65 [90.8%] lesions <20 mm treated by EMR [endoscopic mucosal resection]; 16/51 [31.4%] lesions >20 mm in size were treated by EMR vs 35/51 [68.6%] by ESD. Almost all patients [97%] without fibrosis were treated by EMR, and patients with fibrosis were treated by ESD [87%], p < 0.001. In all, 49/78 [63%] lesions treated by EMR were resected en-bloc and 27/41 [65.9%] of the ESD/KAR [knife-assisted resection] cases were resected en-bloc, compared with 15/41 [36.6%] resected piecemeal. Seven recurrences occurred in the cohort. Seven complications occurred in the cohort; six were managed endoscopically and one patient with a delayed perforation underwent surgery., Conclusions: Larger lesions with fibrosis are best treated by ESD, whereas smaller lesions without fibrosis are best managed by EMR. Both EMR and ESD are feasible in the management of endoscopic resections in colitis., (Copyright © 2019 European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background & Aims: Topically applied methylene blue dye chromoendoscopy is effective in improving detection of colorectal neoplasia. When combined with a pH- and time-dependent multimatrix structure, a per-oral methylene blue formulation (MB-MMX) can be delivered directly to the colorectal mucosa., Methods: We performed a phase 3 study of 1205 patients scheduled for colorectal cancer screening or surveillance colonoscopies (50-75 years old) at 20 sites in Europe and the United States, from December 2013 through October 2016. Patients were randomly assigned to groups given 200 mg MB-MMX, placebo, or 100 mg MB-MMX (ratio of 2:2:1). The 100-mg MB-MMX group was included for masking purposes. MB-MMX and placebo tablets were administered with a 4-L polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation. The patients then underwent colonoscopy by an experienced endoscopist with centralized double-reading. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with 1 adenoma or carcinoma (adenoma detection rate [ADR]). We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for differences in detection between the 200-mg MB-MMX and placebo groups. False-positive (resection rate for non-neoplastic polyps) and adverse events were assessed as secondary endpoints., Results: The ADR was higher for the MB-MMX group (273 of 485 patients, 56.29%) than the placebo group (229 of 479 patients, 47.81%) (OR 1.46; 95% CI 1.09-1.96). The proportion of patients with nonpolypoid lesions was higher in the MB-MMX group (213 of 485 patients, 43.92%) than the placebo group (168 of 479 patients, 35.07%) (OR 1.66; 95% CI 1.21-2.26). The proportion of patients with adenomas ≤5 mm was higher in the MB-MMX group (180 of 485 patients, 37.11%) than the placebo group (148 of 479 patients, 30.90%) (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.01-1.83), but there was no difference between groups in detection of polypoid or larger lesions. The false-positive rate did not differ significantly between groups (83 [23.31%] of 356 patients with non-neoplastic lesions in the MB-MMX vs 97 [29.75%] of 326 patients with non-neoplastic lesions in the placebo group). Overall, 0.7% of patients had severe adverse events but there was no significant difference between groups., Conclusions: In a phase 3 trial of patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopies, we found MB-MMX led to an absolute 8.5% increase in ADR, compared with placebo, without increasing the removal of non-neoplastic lesions. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT01694966., (Copyright © 2019 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) bowel preparations are widely used for precolonoscopy bowel cleansing. This phase 3 trial assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the novel 1 L PEG-based NER1006 vs. sodium picosulfate plus magnesium citrate (SP + MC) in day-before dosing., Methods: Patients requiring colonoscopy were randomized (1 : 1) to receive NER1006 or SP + MC. Cleansing was assessed on the Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS) and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) using central readers. Two primary end points were assessed: overall colon cleansing success and high-quality cleansing of the right colon. Intention-to-treat (modified full analysis set [mFAS]) and per protocol (PP) analyses were performed., Results: Of 515 patients, efficacy was analyzed in 501 (NER1006, n = 250; SP + MC, n = 251) and 379 patients (NER1006, n = 172; SP + MC, n = 207) in the mFAS and PP analyses, respectively. Non-inferiority of NER1006 vs. SP + MC was established in the mFAS for both overall cleansing (62.0 % vs. 53.8 %; P  = 0.04) and high-quality cleansing in the right colon (4.4 % vs. 1.2 %; P  = 0.03). Superiority of NER1006 was demonstrated using HCS in the PP set for overall cleansing success (68.0 % vs. 57.5 %; P  = 0.02) and right colon high-quality cleansing (5.2 % vs. 1.0 %; P  = 0.02) and using BBPS in the mFAS for overall cleansing success (58.4 % vs. 45.8 %; P  = 0.003) and right colon high-quality cleansing (4.0 % vs. 0.8 %; P  = 0.02). Mean segmental scores for 4/5 segments were higher with NER1006 ( P  ≤ 0.04). Both treatments were well tolerated, with more mild adverse events for NER1006 (17.0 % vs. 10.0 %; P  = 0.03)., Conclusions: Colon cleansing with NER1006 vs. SP + MC was non-inferior (mFAS) and superior (PP), with acceptable safety.European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT)2014-002186-30TRIAL REGISTRATION: Multicenter, randomized, parallel group, phase 3 study 2014-002186-30 at https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/., Competing Interests: Rafał Filip and Cesare Hassan are DAYB investigators and each received funding from Norgine to attend an Investigators’ Meeting for the DAYB study; Lucy Clayton and Kerry Hylands are employees of Norgine but have no other conflicts of interest; the remaining authors are DAYB investigators but have no other conflicts of interest., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Unlabelled: This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system 1 2 was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence., Main Recommendations: 1 ESGE recommends endoscopic en bloc resection for superficial esophageal squamous cell cancers (SCCs), excluding those with obvious submucosal involvement (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) may be considered in such lesions when they are smaller than 10 mm if en bloc resection can be assured. However, ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the first option, mainly to provide an en bloc resection with accurate pathology staging and to avoid missing important histological features (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 2 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection with a curative intent for visible lesions in Barrett's esophagus (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). ESD has not been shown to be superior to EMR for excision of mucosal cancer, and for that reason EMR should be preferred. ESD may be considered in selected cases, such as lesions larger than 15 mm, poorly lifting tumors, and lesions at risk for submucosal invasion (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for the treatment of gastric superficial neoplastic lesions that possess a very low risk of lymph node metastasis (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). EMR is an acceptable option for lesions smaller than 10 - 15 mm with a very low probability of advanced histology (Paris 0-IIa). However, ESGE recommends ESD as treatment of choice for most gastric superficial neoplastic lesions (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 4 ESGE states that the majority of colonic and rectal superficial lesions can be effectively removed in a curative way by standard polypectomy and/or by EMR (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). ESD can be considered for removal of colonic and rectal lesions with high suspicion of limited submucosal invasion that is based on two main criteria of depressed morphology and irregular or nongranular surface pattern, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm; or ESD can be considered for colorectal lesions that otherwise cannot be optimally and radically removed by snare-based techniques (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence)., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the gold standard technique for performing en bloc resection of large superficial tumors in the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract. Experience in Europe, however, is still limited and ESD is only performed in a few selected centers, with low volumes of cases, no description of training programs, and few published reports. In 2008, a panel of experts gathered in Rotterdam to discuss indications, training, and the wider use of ESD. The panel of experts and participants reached a consensus on five general statements: 1) ESD aims at treating mucosal cancer; 2) treatment aims for R0 resection; 3) ESD should meet quality standards; 4) ESD should be performed following national or European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines or under institutional review board approval; and 5) ESD cases should be registered. Due to the high level of expertise needed to perform the technique safely, ESD should be performed in a step-up approach, starting with lesions presenting in the rectum or in the distal stomach, then colon, proximal stomach, and finally in the esophagus. Registration is advised either at the local site or at a national or ESGE level, and should include information on indication (Paris classification of lesion, location, and histological results prior to treatment), technique used (e. g. type of knife), results (en bloc and R0 resection), complications, and follow-up. The panel also agreed on minimal institutional requirements: good quality imaging, experienced histopathologist following the Japanese criteria (2-mm sections, micrometric invasion, vessel and lymphatic infiltration, etc), and dedicated endoscopic follow-up. Moreover, minimum training requirements were also defined: knowledge in indications and instruments, exposure to experts (currently all in Japan), hands-on experience in a model of isolated pig stomach and in live pigs, and management of complications. The experts did not reach a consensus on a minimum case load, or whether the technique should be restricted to expert centers., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background and Study Aims: Gastric outlet obstruction can occur as a late complication of a variety of cancers. Palliation of the obstructive symptoms is the primary aim of treatment in these patients. Self-expandable metal stents have emerged as a promising treatment option. The purpose of this study was to investigate the short-term (30-day) clinical success and complication rates of a new enteral stent made of nitinol (Boston Scientific WallFlex stent)., Patients and Methods: Between December 2004 and 1 May 2005, 62 patients (35 men, 27 women; mean age 69.9 years) presenting with documented malignancy and symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction underwent endoscopic stenting with the new WallFlex enteral stent at one of the 15 European centers who were the first to have access to this new stent. Data were collected from charts, endoscopy procedure reports, and follow-up clinical visits. The gastric outlet obstruction scoring system (GOOSS) was used to grade the patients' ability to eat., Results: All 62 patients suffered from nausea, vomiting, or inability to eat. A total of 66 enteral stents were placed. The median length of the stenosis was 4 cm. The clinical success rate was 85% on an intention-to-treat basis. An improvement in the GOOSS score of 1 point was considered to be significant (P < 0.001). Oral intake was possible, on average, 1 day after stent placement. The median hospital stay was 6 days. Thirty days' follow-up data were available for 60 patients, 10 of whom developed complications during this period (17%)., Conclusions: In this first European series in which duodenal stenting was performed with the WallFlex enteral stent, the new stent appears to be effective and relatively safe for the palliative treatment of patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction.