Endoscopic resection of superficial non‐ampullary duodenal epithelial tumor

Underwater Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Vs Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Superficial Nonampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors in the Western Setting

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.

Can underwater endoscopic mucosal resection be an alternative to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors?

Objectives

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a simpler procedure for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADET) than conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (cEMR). This study aimed to evaluate whether cEMR can be substituted by UEMR for SNADET in terms of effectiveness, safety, and learning curve.

Methods

A total of 157 consecutive patients with 203 SNADETs ≤20 mm in diameter, including 107 lesions resected by cEMR and 96 lesions resected by UEMR, between January 2019 and May 2023, were retrospectively recruited. The treatment outcomes were compared between the cEMR and UEMR groups. The risk factors for incomplete resection by UEMR were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses. Lesions in the UEMR group were divided chronologically into five periods; thereafter, the en bloc resection rate and procedure time were compared.

Results

No significant differences existed between the cEMR and UEMR groups in the mean procedure time (3.9 min vs. 3.6 min, p = 0.1380) or en bloc resection rate (91% vs. 94%, p = 0.4138). No perforation was observed in either group. Tumor size was an independent risk factor for incomplete resection using UEMR (p < 0.01). The history of biopsy was not associated with incomplete resection using UEMR. The en bloc resection rate of UEMR was 100% (20/20) in the first period and ranged from 90% to 100% over all periods.

Conclusion

UEMR is safe and effective for SNADET ≤20 mm, regardless of a history of biopsy, and is easy to learn. Thus, UEMR can serve as an alternative to cEMR.

Conventional versus underwater endoscopic resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Several endoscopic resection methods have been developed as less invasive treatments for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours. This study aimed to compare outcomes of conventional endoscopic mucosal resection and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours, including resection depth and rate of the muscularis mucosa contained under the lesion.

METHODS

This single-centre retrospective cohort study conducted from January 2009 to December 2021 enrolled patients who underwent conventional endoscopic mucosal resection and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours and investigated their clinicopathological outcomes using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Of the 285 superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours, 98 conventional endoscopic mucosal resections and 187 underwater endoscopic mucosal resections were included. After propensity score matching, 64 conventional endoscopic mucosal resections and 64 underwater endoscopic mucosal resections were analysed. The R0 resection rate was significantly higher in underwater endoscopic mucosal resection cases than in conventional endoscopic mucosal resection cases (70.3% vs. 50.0%; P = 0.030). In the multivariate analysis, a lesion diameter > 10 mm (odds ratio 7.246; P = 0.001), being in the 1st-50th treatment period (odds ratio 3.405; P = 0.008), and undergoing conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (odds ratio 3.617; P = 0.016) were associated with RX/R1 resection. Furthermore, in underwater endoscopic mucosal resection cases, the R0 rate was significantly higher for lesions diameter ≤10 mm than >10 mm, and was significantly higher in the 51st-treatment period than in the 1st-50th period. Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection cases showed no significant difference in resection depth and muscularis mucosa containing rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection may be more acceptable than conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours ≤ 10 mm. A steep early learning curve may be acquired for underwater endoscopic mucosal resection. Large multicentre prospective studies need to be conducted to confirm the effectiveness of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection.

Safety of Duodenal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Superficial Non-Ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumor: A Single-Center Study in the United States

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) is associated with a high rate of en bloc resection and low rate of recurrence. However, in the United States, SNADETs are predominantly managed using endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or surgery because the feasibility and safety of duodenal ESD have not yet been established. In this study, we analyzed the outcomes of duodenal ESD for SNADETs. This single-center retrospective study reviewed the data of patients who underwent ESD for SNADETs between June 2018 and August 2023. Baseline patient characteristics, histopathology of the resected lesions, adverse events, and recurrence rates were evaluated. The primary outcome measures were en bloc resection, complications, and recurrence rate. Thirty ESD procedures were performed on 24 patients. All 30 lesions were adenomas, with no cancerous lesions. The en bloc resection rate and R0 resection rates were both 53%. There were no cases of procedure-associated perforation. Post-ESD bleeding was observed in six cases. No ESD-related mortality was observed. The recurrence rate was 14% in 1 year follow up, and 28% the during all follow-up period. ESD is a safe option for SNADET in the United States; however further comparative studies are necessary to determine the optimal procedure for North American populations.

Efficacy and safety of cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial duodenal epithelial neoplasia ≤ 10 mm

Background and study aims Endoscopic treatment strategies for small superficial duodenal epithelial neoplasia (SDET) have not been established, and the R0 resection rates of all previously reported endoscopic techniques are somewhat low. Furthermore, no reports of cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (EMRC), which is reportedly associated with a relatively high R0 resection rate, have been evaluated in sufficient numbers of patients. Therefore, we assessed the efficacy and safety of EMRC for SDETs ≤ 10 mm in a retrospective cohort study. Patients and methods We examined a prospectively maintained database and identified 248 consecutive patients (248 lesions) who had undergone endoscopic resection for SDETs ≤ 10 mm between January 2017 and June 2022. Our treatment strategy was consistent, with EMRC indicated for all SDETs ≤ 10 mm without non-lifting signs. The primary endpoint was the R0 resection rate. Results Overall, 20 lesions had non-lifting signs and were selected for endoscopic submucosal dissection, while the remaining 228 lesions were treated with EMRC. As a result of EMRC, the median tumor size was 5 mm, and the mean procedure time was 5 minutes. Most of the lesions (89.2%) were located in the descending part. The R0 resection rate was 97.4% (222/228 cases), and the en bloc resection rate was 99.6%. Only seven patients(3.1%) experienced adverse events (6 patients, delayed bleeding; 1 patient, acute pancreatitis), which were successfully managed without surgical intervention. Furthermore, no recurrences were observed. Conclusions We have demonstrated that EMRC is an effective and safe treatment for SDETs ≤ 10 mm that do not have non-lifting signs.

Current status and perspectives for endoscopic diagnosis of superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors

In recent years, there have been significant advances in the endoscopic resection (ER) procedures of superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). A preoperative endoscopic diagnosis is thus deemed necessary in determining the indication for subsequent ER. For the histologic and endoscopic diagnosis of SNADETs, understanding the mucin phenotype is inevitable. Recently, two diagnostic algorithms for the differential diagnosis of SNADETs from nonneoplastic lesions under magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging have been proposed. In addition, various endoscopic approaches have been proposed to differentiate low- and high-grade adenomas/carcinomas, including white light endoscopy, magnifying image-enhanced endoscopy, and endocytoscopy. These methods, however, have not been standardized with respect to the classification of their findings and the validation of their diagnostic accuracy. Moreover, there are still concerns with respect to the histologic criteria required to establish a SNADETs diagnosis. Standardization in the histologic and endoscopic diagnosis of SNADETs is needed.

A feasibility study comparing gel immersion endoscopic resection and underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors

BACKGROUND

Although gel immersion endoscopic resection (GIER) is a potential alternative to underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) for superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs), comparisons between the two are currently insufficient.

METHODS

40 consecutive procedures performed in 35 patients were retrospectively reviewed; the primary outcome was procedure time, and the secondary outcomes were en bloc and R0 resection rates, tumor and specimen size, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Lesions were divided into GIER (n = 22) and UEMR groups (n = 18). The median (range) procedure time was significantly shorter in the GIER group than in the UEMR group (2.75 [1-3.5] minutes vs. 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 minutes; P = 0.01). The en bloc resection rate was 100 % in the GIER group, but only 83.3 % in the UEMR group. The R0 resection rate was significantly higher in the GIER group than in the UEMR group (95.5 % vs. 66.7 %; P = 0.03). The median specimen size was larger in the GIER group than in the UEMR group (14 mm vs. 7.5 mm; P < 0.001). The tumor size was not significantly different between the groups and no adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

GIER is efficacious and safe to treat SNADETs, although additional studies are needed.