Search

Background: Liver cirrhosis and esophageal cancer share several risk factors, such as alcohol intake and overweight. Endoscopic resection is the gold standard treatment for superficial tumors. Portal hypertension and coagulopathy may increase the bleeding risk in these patients. This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of endoscopic resection for early esophageal neoplasia in patients with cirrhosis or portal hypertension. Methods: This retrospective multicentric international study included consecutive patients with cirrhosis or portal hypertension who underwent endoscopic resection in the esophagus from January 2005 to March 2021. Results: 134 lesions in 112 patients were treated, in 101 (77%) cases by endoscopic submucosal dissection. Most patients (128/134 cases, 96%) had liver cirrhosis, with esophageal varices in 71 procedures. To prevent bleeding, 7 patients underwent a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, 8 had endoscopic band ligation (EBL) before resection, 15 received vasoactive drugs, 8 a platelet transfusion and 9 underwent EBL during the resection procedure. The complete macroscopic resection rate, en-bloc resection rate and curative resection rate were 92%, 86%, and 63%, respectively. Three perforations, 8 delayed bleedings, 8 sepsis, 6 cirrhosis decompensations within 30 days and 22 esophageal strictures occurred. No adverse event required surgery. In univariate analyses, cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection was associated with more delayed bleeding (p=0.01). Conclusions: In case of liver cirrhosis or portal hypertension, endoscopic resection of early esophageal neoplasia in patients appears to be effective and should be considered in expert centres with choice of resection technique following ESGE guidelines without undertreatment.

ESGE suggests conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD; marking and mucosal incision followed by circumferential incision and stepwise submucosal dissection) for most esophageal and gastric lesions. ESGE suggests tunneling ESD for esophageal lesions involving more than two-thirds of the esophageal circumference. ESGE recommends the pocket-creation method for colorectal ESD, at least if traction devices are not used. The use of dedicated ESD knives with size adequate to the location/thickness of the gastrointestinal wall is recommended. It is suggested that isotonic saline or viscous solutions can be used for submucosal injection. ESGE recommends traction methods in esophageal and colorectal ESD and in selected gastric lesions. After gastric ESD, coagulation of visible vessels is recommended, and post-procedural high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (or vonoprazan). ESGE recommends against routine closure of the ESD defect, except in duodenal ESD. ESGE recommends corticosteroids after resection of > 50 % of the esophageal circumference. The use of carbon dioxide when performing ESD is recommended. ESGE recommends against the performance of second-look endoscopy after ESD. ESGE recommends endoscopy/colonoscopy in the case of significant bleeding (hemodynamic instability, drop in hemoglobin > 2 g/dL, severe ongoing bleeding) to perform endoscopic hemostasis with thermal methods or clipping; hemostatic powders represent rescue therapies. ESGE recommends closure of immediate perforations with clips (through-the-scope or cap-mounted, depending on the size and shape of the perforation), as soon as possible but ideally after securing a good plane for further dissection.

Main recommendationsESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based).ESGE does not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection.ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the treatment of choice for most superficial esophageal squamous cell and superficial gastric lesions.For Barrett’s esophagus (BE)-associated lesions, ESGE suggests the use of ESD for lesions suspicious of submucosal invasion (Paris type 0-Is, 0-IIc), for malignant lesions > 20 mm, and for lesions in scarred/fibrotic areas.ESGE does not recommend routine use of ESD for duodenal or small-bowel lesions.ESGE suggests that ESD should be considered for en bloc resection of colorectal (but particularly rectal) lesions with suspicion of limited submucosal invasion (demarcated depressed area with irregular surface pattern or a large protruding or bulky component, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm) or for lesions that otherwise cannot be completely removed by snare-based techniques.ESGE recommends that an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with histology no more advanced than intramucosal cancer (no more than m2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma), well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion or ulceration, should be considered a very low risk (curative) resection, and no further staging procedure or treatment is generally recommended.ESGE recommends that the following should be considered to be a low risk (curative) resection and no further treatment is generally recommended: an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with superficial submucosal invasion (sm1), that is well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion, of size ≤ 20 mm for an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma or ≤ 30 mm for a stomach lesion or of any size for a BE-related or colorectal lesion, and with no lymphovascular invasion, and no budding grade 2 or 3 for colorectal lesions.ESGE recommends that, after an endoscopically complete resection, if there is a positive horizontal margin or if resection is piecemeal, but there is no submucosal invasion and no other high risk criteria are met, this should be considered a local-risk resection and endoscopic surveillance or re-treatment is recommended rather than surgery or other additional treatment.ESGE recommends that when there is a diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion, or deeper infiltration than sm1, or positive vertical margins, or undifferentiated tumor, or, for colorectal lesions, budding grade 2 or 3, this should be considered a high risk (noncurative) resection, and complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments should be considered on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE recommends scheduled endoscopic surveillance with high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based) with biopsies of only the suspicious areas after a curative ESD.

Main Recommendations 1 ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as the best tool to characterize subepithelial lesion (SEL) features (size, location, originating layer, echogenicity, shape), but EUS alone is not able to distinguish among all types of SEL.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2 ESGE suggests providing tissue diagnosis for all SELs with features suggestive of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) if they are of size > 20 mm, or have high risk stigmata, or require surgical resection or oncological treatment.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) or mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) equally for tissue diagnosis of SELs ≥ 20 mm in size.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends against surveillance of asymptomatic gastrointestinal (GI) tract leiomyomas, lipomas, heterotopic pancreas, granular cell tumors, schwannomas, and glomus tumors, if the diagnosis is clear.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5 ESGE suggests surveillance of asymptomatic esophageal and gastric SELs without definite diagnosis, with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at 3–6 months, and then at 2–3-year intervals for lesions 20 mm in size that are not resected, ESGE suggests surveillance with EGD plus EUS at 6 months and then at 6–12-month intervals.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for type 1 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (g-NENs) if they grow larger than 10 mm. The choice of resection technique should depend on size, depth of invasion, and location in the stomach.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 ESGE suggests considering removal of histologically proven gastric GISTs smaller than 20 mm as an alternative to surveillance. The decision to resect should be discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting. The choice of technique should depend on size, location, and local expertise.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 8 ESGE suggests that, to avoid unnecessary follow-up, endoscopic resection is an option for gastric SELs smaller than 20 mm and of unknown histology after failure of attempts to obtain diagnosis.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 9 ESGE recommends basing the surveillance strategy on the type and completeness of resection. After curative resection of benign SELs no follow-up is advised, except for type 1 gastric NEN for which surveillance at 1–2 years is advised.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 10 For lower or upper GI NEN with a positive or indeterminate margin at resection, ESGE recommends repeating endoscopy at 3–6 months and another attempt at endoscopic resection in the case of residual disease.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided digestive anastomosis (EUS-A) is a new alternative under evaluation in patients presenting with afferent limb syndrome (ALS) after Whipple surgery. The aim of the present study is to analyze the safety and effectiveness of EUS-A in ALS. METHODS: This is an observational multicenter study. All patients ≥18 years old with previous Whipple surgery presenting with ALS who underwent an EUS-A using a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) between 2015 and 2021 were included. The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as resolution of the ALS or ALS-related cholangitis. Furthermore, technical success, adverse event rate, and mortality were evaluated. RESULTS: Forty-five patients (mean age: 65.5 ± 10.2 years; 44.4% male) were included. The most common underlying disease was pancreatic cancer (68.9%). EUS-A was performed at a median of 6 weeks after local tumor recurrence. The most common approach used was the direct/freehand technique (66.7%). Technical success was achieved in 95.6%, with no differences between large (≥15 mm) and small LAMS (97.4% vs. 100%, P = 0.664). Clinical success was retained in 91.1% of patients. A complementary treatment by dilation of the stent followed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography through the LAMS was performed in three cases (6.7%). There were six recurrent episodes of cholangitis (14.6%) and two procedure-related adverse events (4.4%) after a median follow-up of 4 months. Twenty-six patients (57.8%) died during the follow-up due to disease progression. CONCLUSION: EUS-A is a safe and effective technique in the treatment of malignant ALS, achieving high clinical success with an acceptable recurrence rate. ispartof: DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY vol:34 issue:7 pages:1433-1439 ispartof: location:Australia status: published

Background Different surveillance strategies for patients with low-risk branch-duct (BD) intraductal papillary neoplasm (IPMN) have been described. The aim of this study was to describe the natural history of low-risk BD-IPMN, and to identify risk factors for the development of worrisome features (WF)/high-risk stigmata (HRS) and of pancreatic malignancies. Methods This was a multicentre retrospective study of patients with BD-IPMN who were under active surveillance between January 2006 and December 2015. Patients were eligible if they had a low-risk lesion and had a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Outcomes were development of WF/HRS or cytologically/histologically confirmed malignant IPMN. Results Of 837 patients included, 168 (20 per cent) developed WF/HRS. At the end of the observation time, 132 patients (79 per cent) with WF/HRS were still under surveillance without progression to pancreatic cancer. Factors associated with the development of WF or HRS in multivariable analysis included localized nodules (versus diffuse: hazard ratio (HR) 0.43, 95 per cent c.i. 0.26 to 0.68), cyst size 15–19 mm (versus less than 15 mm: HR 1.88, 1.23 to 2.87) or at least 20 mm (versus less than 15 mm: HR 3.25, 2.30 to 4.60), main pancreatic duct size over 3 mm (versus 3 mm or less: HR 2.17, 1.41 to 3.34), and symptoms at diagnosis (versus no symptoms: HR 2.29, 1.52 to 3.45). Surveillance in an endoscopy-oriented centre was also associated with increased detection of WF or HRS (versus radiology-oriented: HR 2.46, 1.74 to 3.47). Conclusion Conservative management of patients with low-risk BD-IPMN is safe and feasible.

Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is an inflammatory disorder characterized by inflammation and fibrosis, resulting in a progressive and irreversible destruction of exocrine and endocrine pancreatic tissue. Clinicians should attempt to classify patients into one of the six etiologic groups according to the TIGARO classification system. MRI/MRCP, if possible with secretin enhancement, is considered the imaging modality of choice for the diagnosis of early-stage disease.In CP, pain is the most disabling symptom, with a significant impact on quality of life. Pain should be assessed using the Izbicki score and preferably treated using the "pain ladder" approach. In painful CP, endoscopic therapy (ET) can be considered as early as possible. This procedure can be combined with extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in the presence of large (4 mm), obstructive stone(s) in the pancreatic head, and with ductal stenting in the presence of a single main pancreatic duct (MPD) stricture in the pancreatic head with a markedly dilated MPD. Pancreatic stenting should be pursued for at least 12 months in patients with persistent pain relief. On-demand stent exchange should be the preferred strategy. The simultaneous placement of multiple, side-by-side, pancreatic stents can be recommended in patients with MPD strictures persisting after 12 months of single plastic stenting. We recommend surgery in the following cases: a) technical failure of ET ; b) early (6 to 8 weeks) clinical failure ; c) definitive biliary drainage at a later time point; d) pancreatic ductal drainage when repetitive ET is considered unsuitable for young patients; e) resection of an inflammatory pancreatic head when pancreatic cancer cannot be ruled out; f) duodenal obstruction. Duodenopancreatectomy or oncological distal pancreatectomy should be considered for patients with suspected malignancy. Pediatricians should be aware of and systematically search for CP in the differential diagnosis of chronic abdominal pain. As malnutrition is highly prevalent in CP patients, patients at nutritional risk should be identified in order to allow for dietary counseling and nutritional intervention using oral supplements. Patients should follow a healthy balanced diet taken in small meals and snacks, with normal fat content. Enzyme replacement therapy is beneficial to symptomatic patients, but also in cases of subclinical insufficiency. Regular follow-up should be considered in CP patients, primarily to detect subclinical maldigestion and the development of pancreatogenic diabetes. Screening for pancreatic cancer is not recommended in CP patients, except in those with the hereditary form.

Laparoscopic surgery is associated with reduced surgical trauma, therefore with acute-phase response of lower magnitude as compared with open surgery. We hypothesized that NOTES might induce reduced immune response as compared with laparoscopy.To compare acute-phase reactants in a controlled trial of laparoscopic peritoneoscopy and ultrasonography versus transgastric or transcolonic NOTES peritoneoscopy and intraperitoneal endoscopic US.Eighteen pigs were divided in 3 groups: laparoscopy, transgastric and transcolonic NOTES. Serum levels of IL-6 and TNF-α were determined preoperatively and at day 2. Serum levels of haptoglobin and IL-6 mRNA levels from isolated white blood cells were measured by RT-PCR at days 0, 1, 2 and 7. Necropsy was performed at sacrifice, with peritoneal fluid microbiological analysis, macroscopic and microscopic examinations on gastrotomy/colotomy or abdominal wall closure sites, liver and parietal peritoneum biopsy sites and any area suggestive of infection.The groups were similar with regards to peritoneoscopy completeness, ultrasonographic examination and biopsies. The duration of NOTES procedures was significantly longer than laparoscopic procedures. Minor complications were observed in most animals by macroscopic and microscopic examination, but NOTES procedures were associated with severe complications in 3 pigs (fistula, abscess, mortality). No significant differences in acute-phase reactants levels were found between groups.No significant difference in the acute-phase reactants could be demonstrated between surgical and NOTES procedures. NOTES was however associated with more severe septic complications. Optimal closure remains a challenge and better devices are needed to avoid them.

The following on the treatments of adenocarcinomas in Barrett's esophagus contains commentaries on endo mucosal resection; choice between other ablative therapies; the remaining genetic abnormalities following stepwise endoscopic mucosal resection and possible recurrences; the Fotelo-Fotesi PDT; the CT TNM classification of early stages of Barrett's carcinoma; the indications of lymphadenectomy in intramucosal cancer; the differences in lymph node yield in transthoracic versus transhiatal dissection; video-assisted lymphadenectomy; and the importance of the length of proximal esophageal resectipon; and indications of sentinel node dissection.