Endoscopic papillectomy, single-centre experience. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:3234-3239. [PMID: 24928230 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-014-3596-5]

Prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting to reduce the risk of post-ampullectomy pancreatitis: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of 1858 patients

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting (PPDS) in preventing post-ampullectomy pancreatitis (PAP) at the time of endoscopic ampullectomy (EA) has been reported, however, results are conflicting. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis looking at the use of PPDS in reducing PAP as well as overall post-ampullectomy complications.

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched through May 2023 for studies reporting on EA. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled proportions and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of PAP, with and without PPDS. Pooled rates of adverse events including perforation, delayed bleeding, cholangitis, and procedure related mortality were assessed. Random effects model was used for our meta-analysis and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistics.

RESULTS

Thirty-four studies (14 case series, 18 cohort studies and 2 randomized controlled trials) with 1868 patients were included. The overall pooled rate of PAP was 12.3% (CI 10.3-14.5). We found no statistically significant difference in rates of PAP among patients with PPDS, 11.9% (CI 8.9-15.7) and without PPDS, 16.6% (CI 13.4-20.4), RR 0.8 (CI 0.51-1.28), p = 0.4. In terms of severe PAP, we found no difference between the two groups. The overall pooled rates of successful en-bloc and piecemeal resection were 74.8% (CI 67.3-81.1) and 25.1% (CI 19-32.4). Additionally, pooled rates of ampullary stenosis, post procedural bleeding, perforation, cholangitis, and procedure related mortality were 3.6%, 11.1%, 4.2%, 3.5%, and 1.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis shows that PPDS at the time of EA does not offer a significant protective effect against PAP. While the incidence of PAP was higher among the no PPDS group, it is plausible that this is more likely due to variation among studies in terms of lesion size, length/size of pancreatic stent used and etiology of ampullary lesions. Future well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to validate our findings.

New Method of Papillectomy May Decrease Recurrence: Anchoring Method versus Conventional Method

Background/Objectives: Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) is the preferred treatment for ampullary tumors because it has fewer side effects than surgical removal. This study retrospectively compared a new anchoring EP method (A-EP) with the conventional (C-EP) approach. Methods: Ninety-nine patients who underwent EP at a single medical institution between 2009 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. In all patients, the indications for EP were pathological adenoma with <10 mm of biliary invasion and a tumor diameter <30 mm on endoscopic ultrasonography. The exclusion criteria were antiplatelet/anticoagulant use, previous upper GI surgery, or prior biliary/pancreatic endoscopic therapy. One expert endoscopist performed the two types of EPs, A-EP and C-EP. Results: Sixty-two patients underwent A-EP, and 37 underwent C-EP. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics, such as sex, age, tumor size, and ductal invasion on endoscopic ultrasound. The A-EP group had higher en bloc resection rates (95.2% vs. 78.4%, p = 0.010). Although the difference was not statistically significant, it tended towards fewer incidences of pancreatitis (p = 0.081) and duct stricture (p = 0.081). The recurrence rate was lower in the A-EP group (8.1% vs. 37.8%, p = 0.000). There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the follow-up period (A-EP vs. C-EP, 725 vs. 1045 days, p = 0.109) or the days of recurrence (A-EP vs. C-EP, 341 vs. 562 days, p = 0.551). Conclusions: A-EP showed better outcomes than C-EP in terms of en bloc resection and recurrence rates, providing evidence for the efficacy of this novel EP method.

Impact of pancreatic and biliary stent on post-endoscopic papillectomy complications: A single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) is recommended as the first-line therapy for ampullary tumors, despite a relatively high incidence of complications. Pancreatic and/or biliary stents are placed at the endoscopist's discretion to prevent post-EP complications. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of different stents.

METHODS

A total of 117 patients who underwent EP and met the criteria between June 2006 and October 2022 were enrolled in the study. These patients were divided into a pancreatic stent group (PS group, n = 47), a biliary stent group (BS group, n = 38), and a two-stent group (PBS [PS and BS] group, n = 32). Relevant clinical data were collected and compared among the three groups. Multivariate logistic analyses were performed to explore risk factors for post-EP complications.

RESULTS

The incidence of all complications was 37.6% (44/117). Pancreatitis and hemorrhage were the two most common complications with incidence rates of 14.5% (17/117) and 17.9% (21/117). The incidence rates of post-EP pancreatitis were 10.6% (5/47), 23.7% (9/38), and 9.4% (3/32) in the PS group, BS group, and PBS group, respectively, with no significant differences. There were also no significant differences in other complications among the three groups. Age (odds ratio [OR]: 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91-0.99; P = 0.022) was independently associated with post-EP pancreatitis while tumor size (OR: 1.66; 95% CI: 1.06-2.60; P = 0.028) was independently associated with post-EP hemorrhage.

CONCLUSIONS

While pancreatic stenting is the first choice to prevent post-EP pancreatitis, biliary stenting could also be considered as a substitute for patients with difficulties in pancreatic cannulation. Two-stent (biliary and pancreatic stent) placement is unnecessary unless it is required due to other concerns.

Endoscopic Management of Ampullary Adenomas in Familial Adenomatous Polyposis Syndrome: A Systematic Review with Pooled Analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic papillectomy is a viable therapy in ampullary lesions. Prior studies have reported on outcomes of sporadic ampullary lesions, and only small cohort studies have reported outcomes associated with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) syndrome.

AIMS

We performed a systematic review with pooled analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of EP for treating ampullary adenomas in FAP.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature search of major databases from inception to May 2020. Studies that included patients with endoscopically resected ampullary lesions and FAP were eligible. The rate of technical success, en bloc resection, piecemeal resection, recurrence, and adverse events was pooled by means of a random-effects model to obtain a proportion with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Six studies, including a total of 99 patients, were included in our final analysis. Patient age ranged from 28 to 91 years. Pooled technical success was 90.3% (CI 76.9-96.3%, I² = 31%). Rate of en bloc resection was 60.6% (CI 47.9-72.0%, I² = 0%). Recurrence rate was 25.4% (5.7-65.9%, I² = 82%). The post-procedural pancreatitis rate was 14.7% of which 68% (51 of 75) utilized prophylactic pancreatic stenting. Other adverse events included bleeding (9.2%) and perforation (4%).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic papillectomy offers high technical success but remains challenging in patients with FAP, particularly due to high recurrence rates.

Role of endoscopy in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis

Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is a hereditary disease that, without intervention, will cause nearly all patients to develop colorectal cancer by the age of 45. However, even after prophylactic colorectal surgery the eventual development of duodenal adenomas leads to an additional risk of duodenal and ampullary cancers. Endoscopy is an essential part of the multidisciplinary management of FAP to aid the early identification or prevention of advanced gastrointestinal malignancy. This review article details the current evidence and consensus guidance available regarding the role of endoscopic surveillance and treatment strategies for FAP.

Endoscopic management of duodenal adenomatosis in familial adenomatous polyposis-A case-based review

Adenomatous polyposis (AP) diseases, including familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), attenuated FAP (AFAP), and MUTYH‐associated polyposis (MAP), are the second most common hereditary causes of colorectal cancer. A frequent extra‐colonic manifestation of AP disease is duodenal polyposis, which may lead to duodenal cancer in up to 18% of AP patients. Endoscopic surveillance is recommended at 0.5‐ to 5‐year intervals depending on the extent of polyp growth and histological progression. Although the Spigelman classification is traditionally used to determine surveillance intervals, it lacks information on the (peri‐)ampullary site, where 50% of duodenal carcinomas are located. Hence, information on the papilla has recently been added as a prognostic marker. Patients with duodenal adenoma(s) ≥10 mm and ampullary adenomas of any size are suggested to be referred to an expert center for endoscopic therapy, particularly endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic ampullectomy. Nonetheless, despite the logic of this approach, the long‐term efficacy of endoscopic therapy is still to be demonstrated.

External drainage of bile and pancreatic juice after endoscopic submucosal dissection for duodenal neoplasm: Feasibility study (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for superficial duodenal epithelial tumors (SDETs) is technically difficult and has a high risk of adverse events. Endoscopic nasobiliary and nasopancreatic duct drainage (ENBPD) may reduce the risk of delayed adverse events by preventing exposure of the post-ESD mucosal defect to bile and pancreatic juice. This study was performed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of ENBPD after duodenal ESD.

METHODS

Patients who underwent ESD for SDETs from July 2010 to March 2020 were included. We collected data on the success rate of ENBPD, adverse events due to insertion of a side-viewing endoscope, and pancreatitis after ENBPD. We also collected the clinical outcomes of duodenal ESD, including the incidence rate of delayed adverse events (defined as bleeding or perforation found after the endoscopic procedure).

RESULTS

Among 70 patients without complete closure of the post-ESD mucosal defect, ENBPD was successfully performed in all 25 patients including 21 cases inserted immediately after ESD and four cases inserted later. There were no adverse events associated with ENBPD procedure intraoperatively, while pancreatitis after ENBPD occurred in four patients (16.0%). No patients who underwent immediate ENBPD required intervention for an intra-abdominal abscess or delayed perforation, whereas 3 of 49 patients (6.1%) who did not undergo immediate ENBPD required surgery or drainage of an abscess.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic nasobiliary and nasopancreatic duct drainage is technically feasible and might provide effective prophylaxis for delayed adverse events, even if a large mucosal defect is present after ESD.

Therapeutic Outcomes and Risk Factors for Complications of Endoscopic Papillectomy: A Retrospective Analysis of a Single-Center Study

Purpose

Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) has been accepted as a viable alternative therapy to surgery in benign duodenal papillary lesions. However, postoperative complications limit its widespread clinical application. This study aimed to evaluate the overall safety of the EP procedure and identify significant risk factors of post-EP complications.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively collected 76 patients who had undergone EP in Chinese PLA General Hospital from 2016 to 2019 and graded their postoperative complications. We assessed twelve patient-, disease- or procedure-related variables to identify risk factors related to the occurrence of post-EP complications using both univariate and multivariate analyses.

Results

Among the 76 patients included in this study, the incidence of entire post-EP complications was 36.8%, most of which were in a mild form. In both univariate and multivariate analyses, the pathologic tumor types, especially high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HIN), and the placement of stents were significantly associated with the occurrence of post-EP complications. Patients with HIN tumors were more likely to have post-EP pancreatitis, bleeding, and overall complications (odds ratio (OR) 11.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.91–62.5, P = 0.001; OR 6.52, 95% CI 1.45–46.77, P = 0.027; OR 9.81, 95% CI 2.75–44.04, P = 0.001, respectively). Pancreatic stent placement may contribute to the occurrence of post-EP pancreatitis (OR 7.61, 95% CI 1.37–64.53, P = 0.033). While biliary stent placement was found negatively related to the occurrence of post-EP bleeding and overall complications (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0–0.37, P = 0.016; OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01–0.99, P = 0.05, respectively).

Conclusion

EP is a safe procedure for papillary lesion treatment with a low rate and generally mild postoperative complications. Two factors are significantly associated with the occurrence of complications. The selection of eligible patients and suitable procedures is important to reduce the complication rate and severity.

Endoscopic management of ampullary tumors: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends against diagnostic/therapeutic papillectomy when adenoma is not proven.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasound and abdominal magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) for staging of ampullary tumors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends endoscopic papillectomy in patients with ampullary adenoma without intraductal extension, because of good results regarding outcome (technical and clinical success, morbidity, and recurrence).Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends en bloc resection of ampullary adenomas up to 20-30 mm in diameter to achieve R0 resection, for optimizing the complete resection rate, providing optimal histopathology, and reduction of the recurrence rate after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests considering surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas when endoscopic resection is not feasible for technical reasons (e. g. diverticulum, size > 4 cm), and in the case of intraductal involvement (of > 20 mm). Surveillance thereafter is still mandatory.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends direct snare resection without submucosal injection for endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting to reduce the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic papillectomy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends long-term monitoring of patients after endoscopic papillectomy or surgical ampullectomy, based on duodenoscopy with biopsies of the scar and of any abnormal area, within the first 3 months, at 6 and 12 months, and thereafter yearly for at least 5 years.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Endoscopic Papillectomy for Ampullary Adenomas: Different Outcomes in Sporadic Tumors and Those Associated with Familial Adenomatous Polyposis

BACKGROUND

Ampullary adenomas are rare and potentially malignant. Surgery was the standard treatment but endoscopic papillectomy (EP) is a possible alternative.

AIM

We retrospectively evaluated the principal clinical outcomes of EP in all patients referred to our unit also dividing sporadic ampullary adenoma (SAA) from familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP)-associated adenomas.

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic papillectomy because of ampullary adenoma were considered. The primary outcome was the technical success of EP. Secondary outcomes included the number of procedures, the adverse event rate, the recurrence rate, the concordance of histology pre- and post-EP, and the evaluation of factors related to technical success.

RESULTS

Between January 2001 and December 2015, sixty-two patients were included (21 FAP and 41 SAA). Technical success was achieved in 75.8% and was different in the two groups (FAP 95.2%, SAA 65.8%, p 0.025). Intraductal invasion was negatively associated with technical success (41.7% vs. 84.0%; p 0.005). The intestinal subtype was predictive of success (79.7% vs. 0%; p 0.012) as well as en bloc resection (90.3% vs. 61.3%; p 0.016). Adverse events were reported in 14 patients (22.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

EP is an effective and safe procedure and is a viable alternative to surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03494543.

Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis: Endoscopic and Surgical Resection for Ampullary Lesions

Ampullary lesions (ALs) can be treated by endoscopic (EA) or surgical ampullectomy (SA) or pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). However, EA carries significant risk of incomplete resection while surgical interventions can lead to substantial morbidity. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis for R0, adverse-events (AEs) and recurrence between EA, SA and PD. Electronic databases were searched from 1990 to 2018. Outcomes were calculated as pooled means using fixed and random-effects models and the Freeman-Tukey-Double-Arcsine-Proportion-model. We identified 59 independent studies. The pooled R0 rate was 76.6% (71.8-81.4%, I2 = 91.38%) for EA, 96.4% (93.6-99.2%, I2 = 37.8%) for SA and 98.9% (98.0-99.7%, I2 = 0%) for PD. AEs were 24.7% (19.8-29.6%, I2 = 86.4%), 28.3% (19.0-37.7%, I2 = 76.8%) and 44.7% (37.9-51.4%, I2 = 0%), respectively. Recurrences were registered in 13.0% (10.2-15.6%, I2 = 91.3%), 9.4% (4.8-14%, I2 = 57.3%) and 14.2% (9.5-18.9%, I2 = 0%). Differences between proportions were significant in R0 for EA compared to SA (p = 0.007) and PD (p = 0.022). AEs were statistically different only between EA and PD (p = 0.049) and recurrence showed no significance for EA/SA or EA/PD. Our data indicate an increased rate of complete resection in surgical interventions accompanied with a higher risk of complications. However, studies showed various sources of bias, limited quality of data and a significant heterogeneity, particularly in EA studies.

Novel endoscopic papillectomy for reducing postoperative adverse events (with videos)

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic adenoma can potentially transform into adenocarcinoma, so it is recommended to be resected surgically or endoscopically. Endoscopic papillectomy is one of the main treatments for papillary adenoma, and bleeding, perforation, and pancreatitis are the most frequent and critical adverse events that restrict its wider use. There is no standard procedure for endoscopic papillectomy yet. The procedure is relevant to postoperative adverse events.

AIM

To reduce the postoperative adverse event rates and improve patients’ postoperative condition, we developed a standard novel procedure for endoscopic papillectomy.

METHODS

The novel endoscopic papillectomy had two main modifications based on the conventional method: The isolation of bile from pancreatic juice with a bile duct stent and wound surface protection with metal clips and fibrin glue. We performed a single-center retrospective comparison study on the novel and conventional methods to examine the feasibility of the novel method for reducing postoperative adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 76 patients, of whom 23 underwent the novel procedure and 53 underwent the conventional procedure, were retrospectively evaluated in this study. The postoperative bleeding and pancreatitis rates of the novel method were significantly lower than those of the conventional method (0 vs 20.75%, P = 0.028, and 17.4% vs 41.5%, P = 0.042, respectively). After applying the novel method, the most critical adverse event, perforation, was entirely prevented, compared to a prevalence of 5.66% with the conventional method. Several postoperative symptoms, including fever, rapid pulse, and decrease in hemoglobin level, were significantly less frequent in the novel group (P = 0.042, 0.049, and 0.014, respectively). Overall, the total adverse event rate of the novel method was lower (0 vs 24.5%, P = 0.007) than that of the conventional method.

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent the novel procedure had lower postoperative adverse event rates. This study demonstrates the potential efficacy and safety of the novel endoscopic papillectomy in reducing postoperative adverse events.

A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Endoscopic Resection and Surgical Resection in Ampullary Tumors

Background and objectives: This study aimed to elucidate the clinical outcomes of endoscopic resection (ER) through comparison with surgical resection (SR) through a meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: This meta-analysis was performed using 32 studies. The complete resection and recurrence rates of treatment for ampullary tumors were investigated and compared between ER and SR. In addition, complications, including pancreatitis, cholangitis, cholecystitis, perforation, and papillary stenosis, and mortality of ER and SR, respectively, were estimated. Results: The rates of complete resection were 0.812 (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.758–0.856) and 0.929 (95% CI 0.739–0.984) in ER and SR, respectively. Recurrence rates were 0.145 (95% CI 0.107–0.193) and 0.126 (95% CI 0.057–0.257) in ER and SR, respectively. There were no significant differences in complete resection and recurrence rates between ER and SR in the meta-regression tests (p = 0.164 and p = 0.844, respectively). The estimated rates of pancreatitis, cholangitis/cholecystitis, perforation, and papillary stenosis were 12.8%, 4.4%, 5.2%, and 4.3% in ER and 9.9%, 5.6%, 2.3%, and 5.6% in SR, respectively. There was no significant difference in complications between ER and SR. The mortality rate of SR was slightly higher than that of ER (0.041, 95% CI 0.015–0.107 vs. 0.031, 95% CI 0.005–0.162). Our results show that ER had no significant differences in terms of complete resection and recurrence rates compared to SR, regardless of tumor behaviors. Conclusions: By comparing the complication and mortality rates between ER and SR, the safety of ER was proven.

Insights and updates on endoscopic papillectomy

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) has been established as a useful endoscopic therapy by the efforts of many pancreatobiliary endoscopists and is presently accepted as a reliable alternative therapy to surgery in patients with ampullary adenoma. Moreover, there have been numerous advancements in EP techniques in recent years. Various approaches and attempts toward expanding the indications of endoscopic resection have been reported. Furthermore, the management and prevention of adverse events (AEs) and endoscopic treatment for remnant or recurrent lesions have also been reported. In the present review, we focus on recent advancements in the EP technique, as well as speculate on the future issues of EP.

AREA COVERED

This review of EP encompasses the indications, preoperative assessments, endoscopic techniques, outcomes, and AEs of EP, post-EP surveillance techniques, and treatments for remnant or recurrence lesions.

EXPERT OPINION

The ultimate goal of EP is the complete resection of ampullary tumors, regardless of whether they are adenomatous or carcinomatous lesions, without causing any AEs. Therefore, the most important issue is preoperative evaluation, that is, the accurate diagnosis of lesions contraindicated for EP. In addition, further research on the prevention of AEs is also necessary towards establishing EP as a safe endoscopic procedure.

Study Protocol of the ESAP Study: Endoscopic Papillectomy vs. Surgical Ampullectomy vs. Pancreaticoduodenectomy for Ampullary Neoplasm-A Pancreas2000/EPC Study

Background: Lesions of the Ampulla of Vater are a rare condition and represent <10% of peri-ampullary neoplasms. Nevertheless, ampullary adenomas have the potential for malignant transformation to ampullary carcinomas by an adenoma-to-carcinoma sequence. Thus, adequate patient selection and complete resection (R0) of non-invasive ampullary lesions either by endoscopic papillectomy (EP), surgical ampullectomy (SA), or pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is essential. Although PD was traditionally performed, recent studies reported considerable efficacy and fewer complications following EP and SA. Since consistent comparative data are lacking, the Endoscopic Papillectomy vs. Surgical Ampullectomy vs. Pancreaticoduodectomy (ESAP) study will provide evidence for a therapeutic standard and post procedure morbidity in ampullary lesions. Methods: International multicenter retrospective study. Adult patients (>18 years of age) who underwent SA or PD for ampullary neoplasm between 2004 and 2018 or EP between 2007 and 2018 will be evaluated. Main inclusion criteria are ampullary lesions strictly located to the ampulla. This includes adenoma, adenocarcinoma (T1 and T2), neuroendocrine tumors, gastrointestinal stroma tumors and other rare conditions. Exclusion criteria are peri-ampullary lesions, e.g., from the duodenal wall or the head of the pancreas, and interventions for tumor stages higher than T2. The main objective of this study is to analyze rates of complete resection (R0), recurrence and necessity for complementary interventions following EP, SA, and PD. Treatment-quality for each procedure will be defined by morbidity, mortality and complication rates and will be compared between EP, SA, and PD. Secondary objectives include outcome for patients with incomplete resection or initially understated tumors, lesions of the minor papilla, hereditary syndromes, neuroendocrine tumors, mesenchymal lesions, and other rare conditions. Additionally, we will analyze therapy by argon plasma coagulation and radiofrequency ablation. Furthermore, outcome in curative and palliative interventions can be distinguished. Conclusion: The ESAP study will provide evidence for therapeutic algorithms and data for the implementation of guidelines in the treatment of different types of ampullary tumors, including recurrent, or incomplete resected lesions.

Impact of electrical pulse cut mode during endoscopic papillectomy: Pilot randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic papillectomy is increasingly being used for ampullary adenoma treatment. However, it remains challenging despite increased safety with treatment advances. The ideal power output and electrosurgical current mode for mucosal resection are not established. We aimed to identify the ideal electrical pulse for use during resection.

METHODS

This pilot randomized, single-blind, prospective, multicenter trial, recruited patients with ampullary adenomas and conventional anatomy who were scheduled to undergo endoscopic papillectomy. Endoscopic treatment was performed using a standardized algorithm and patients were randomized for endoscopic papillectomy with Endocut or Autocut. The primary outcome was the incidence of delayed bleeding. Incidence of procedure-related pancreatitis, successful complete resection, pathological findings, and other adverse events were secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were enrolled over a 2-year period. The incidences of delayed bleeding (13.3% vs. 16.7%, P = 1.00) and pancreatitis (27% vs. 30%, P = 0.77) were similar between both groups. The rate of crush artifacts was higher in the Endocut than in the Autocut group (27% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.03). Immediate bleeding when resecting tumors greater than 14 mm in diameter was more common in the Autocut than in the Endocut group (88% vs. 46%, P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The Autocut and Endocut modes have similar efficacy and safety for endoscopic papillectomy. The Endocut mode may prevent immediate bleeding in cases with large tumor sizes, although it causes more frequent crush artifacts.

REGISTRY AND THE REGISTRATION NUMBER

The Japanese UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR: 000021382).

Electric Endocut and Autocut Resection for Endoscopic Papillectomy: A Systematic Review

Objective Risks of bleeding and pancreatitis after mucosal resection using the purecut/autocut and blendcut/endocut modes for endoscopic papillectomy have not been fully clarified. Thus, a systematic review on electrosurgical cutting modes for endoscopic papillectomy was conducted focusing on the types and incidence of adverse events. Methods We searched the PubMed and Cochrane library for cases of endoscopic papillectomy recorded as of April 2017. Studies reporting the methods of electrically excising a tumor in the duodenal papilla and the number of adverse events were extracted. Studies were collected and examined separately based on the electrosurgical cutting mode, and the incidence rate for each adverse event was summarized. Results A total of 159 relevant articles were found; among them, 20 studies were included and 139 excluded. Five studies analyzed endoscopic papillectomy with the purecut/autocut mode and 16 with the blendcut/endocut mode. Only one study investigated both modes (purecut and endocut). With the purecut/autocut mode, the incidence of bleeding was 2.8-50%, and that of pancreatitis was 0-50% (mean: 12.8%). With the blendcut/endocut mode, the incidence of bleeding was 0-42.3%, and that of pancreatitis was 0%-17.9% (mean: 9.5%). Conclusion Both methods had high adverse event rates for endoscopic papillectomy. Thus, a standard method of endoscopic papillectomy, including the electrosurgical cutting mode, needs to be established.

The efficacy of prophylactic pancreatic stents against complications of post-endoscopic papillectomy or endoscopic ampullectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection has been increasingly adopted for neoplasms in the major duodenal papilla. Previous studies have reached varying conclusions on whether prophylactic pancreatic stent (PS) placement is an effective measure against post-procedure complications. We aimed to investigate whether PS could reduce the incidence of post-procedure complications.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched from the inception dates to 25 December 2018 to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective cohort studies (RCSs) comparing prophylactic PS and no PS against post-procedure complications. The main outcomes measurements were post-procedure pancreatitis, bleeding, perforation and late papillary stenosis.

RESULTS

23 RCSs (1001 subjects) and 2 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of the RCSs showed that prophylactic PS decreased the odds of post-procedure pancreatitis (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.36-1.40; p = 0.325) as well as late papillary stenosis (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.07-1.75; p = 0.200; I ² =0%) and increased the odds of bleeding (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.50-3.46; p = 0.572; I ² = 0%) and perforation (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 0.33-15.50; p = 0.412; I ² = 0%) but not significantly. Sensitivity analysis illustrated prophylactic PS significantly decreased the risk of post-procedure pancreatitis (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.24-0.80; p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

PS placement was prophylactic against post-procedure complications although not significantly. Sensitivity analysis suggests the significant effect of prophylactic PS against post-procedure pancreatitis. More RCTs are required to validate the statistical significance of our results and potentially relevant characteristics improving the prophylactic efficacy of stents.

New experience of endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary neoplasms

AIM

To establish the clinical value of endoscopic papillectomy for duodenal papillary tumor based on endoscopic and clinical characteristics.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This single-center, retrospective study included 110 patients with duodenal papillary tumor who underwent endoscopic papillectomy between January 2006 and April 2017 at the gastrointestinal endoscopic center of the Chinese PLA General Hospital. Clinical data, postoperative pathology, procedure-related complications, and therapeutic outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Endoscopic papillectomy was technically feasible in all patients, and was mainly performed by four experienced endoscopists. The primary success rate of endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary neoplasms was 78.2%. A total of 13 patients experienced recurrence during a mean follow-up period of 16.28 months (range 6-132 months), the predictive factors that were related to recurrence were complete resection (53.8% vs. 94.2%; P = 0.001), and final pathology findings (P = 0.001). Delayed hemorrhage, the most common procedure-related complication, occurred in 20% (22/110) of patients and was significantly related to intraoperative bleeding (P = 0.042). Pancreatitis was the second most common complication, which was closely related to intraoperative bleeding requiring intervention (P = 0.040) and larger tumor size (P = 0.044). Histology, type of resection, stent placement, sphincterotomy, and duration of procedure were not related to post-procedure hemorrhage or pancreatitis. Older age (63.7 ± 13.5 vs. 57.4 ± 12.2; P = 0.033), jaundice (47.8% vs. 13.8%; P = 0.001), endoscopic forceps biopsy diagnosis of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (82.6% vs. 14.9%; P = 0.001), tumor size ≥ 2 cm (60.9% vs. 34.5%; P = 0.022), and dilation of the bile duct (34.8% vs. 9.2%; P = 0.006) were clinical features for ampullary carcinoma. The rate of complete resection (52.2% vs. 92.0%; P = 0.001) and recurrence (34.8% vs. 6.8%; P = 0.001) were also related to the diagnosis of ampullary carcinoma at final pathology.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic papillectomy is a feasible and reasonable option for both diagnosis and treatment of tumors of the duodenal papilla in properly selected patients.

Endoscopic papillectomy and KRAS expression in the treatment of adenoma in the major duodenal papilla

OBJECTIVE

The use of endoscopic papillectomy for resecting adenomas in the major duodenal papilla is increasing. This study focuses on the following three issues: Can endoscopic papillectomy be performed as a safe diagnostic and/or therapeutic procedure in biopsy-verified or suspected ampullary adenoma? Does expression of mutated KRAS in resected adenomatous tissue predict long-term outcome? What other factors may affect long-term outcome and should, therefore, be considered in decision making prior to endoscopic papillectomy?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirty-six prospectively collected patients who underwent endoscopic papillectomy at Karolinska University Hospital between 2005 and 2014 were analyzed.

RESULTS

The rate of exact agreement between the histomorphological grading of the endoscopic biopsies and the papillectomy specimens was low (48%). Obstructive jaundice at presentation increased the risk of undetected adenocarcinoma (RR = 3.98; 95% CI = 1.46-10.85, p = 0.007). Lesions with malignancies were significantly larger (mean 30.6 mm) than those where only adenomas were found (mean 14.4 mm, p = 0.001). Mutated KRAS was detected in 9 of the 36 post-papillectomy specimens, including 4 of the 5 cases of ampullary adenocarcinoma. Eighteen cases were endoscopically cured after a mean follow-up period of 47 months (range 16-92 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic papillectomy is a valuable staging tool because of the limitations of endoscopic biopsy. Endoscopic papillectomy concomitantly offers a curative treatment for most patients with adenoma in the major duodenal papilla. Jaundice at presentation and large adenomas may indicate the presence of more advanced disease. Determination of mutated KRAS seems to be of limited value in predicting long-term outcome.

Endoscopic versus surgical treatment of ampullary adenomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of this study is to address the outcomes of endoscopic resection compared with surgery in the treatment of ampullary adenomas. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. For this purpose, the Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), Scopus and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases were scanned. Studies included patients with ampullary adenomas and data considering endoscopic treatment compared with surgery. The entire analysis was based on a fixed-effects model. Five retrospective cohort studies were selected (466 patients). All five studies (466 patients) had complete primary resection data available and showed a difference that favored surgical treatment (risk difference [RD] = -0.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.44 to -0.04). Primary success data were identified in all five studies as well. Analysis showed that the surgical approach outperformed endoscopic treatment for this outcome (RD = -0.37, 95% CI = -0.50 to -0.24). Recurrence data were found in all studies (466 patients), with a benefit indicated for surgical treatment (RD = 0.10, 95% CI = -0.01 to 0.19). Three studies (252 patients) presented complication data, but analysis showed no difference between the approaches for this parameter (RD = -0.15, 95% CI = -0.53 to 0.23). Considering complete primary resection, primary success and recurrence outcomes, the surgical approach achieves significantly better results. Regarding complication data, this systematic review concludes that rates are not significantly different.

Endoscopic papillectomy: The limits of the indication, technique and results

In the majority of cases, duodenal papillary tumors are adenomas or adenocarcinomas, but the endoscopy biopsy shows low accuracy to make the correct differentiation. Endoscopic ultrasonography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography are important tools for the diagnosis, staging and management of ampullary lesions. Although the endoscopic papillectomy (EP) represent higher risk endoscopic interventions, it has successfully replaced surgical treatment for benign or malignant papillary tumors. The authors review the epidemiology and discuss the current evidence for the use of endoscopic procedures for resection, the selection of the patient and the preventive maneuvers that can minimize the probability of persistent or recurrent lesions and to avoid complications after the procedure. The accurate staging of ampullary tumors is important for selecting patients to EP or surgical treatment. Compared to surgery, EP is associated with lower morbidity and mortality, and seems to be a preferable modality of treatment for small benign ampullary tumors with no intraductal extension. The EP procedure, when performed by an experienced endoscopist, leads to successful eradication in up to 85% of patients with ampullary adenomas. EP is a safe and effective therapy and should be established as the first-line therapy for ampullary adenomas.

Recent advances in endoscopic papillectomy for ampulla of vater tumors: endoscopic ultrasonography, intraductal ultrasonography, and pancreatic stent placement

Since it was first described nearly three decades ago, endoscopic papillectomy (EP) has been utilized as a less invasive, alternative therapy for adenoma of the major duodenal papilla. In this article, we review the recent advances in EP, especially those pertaining to endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), intraductal ultrasonography (IDUS), and pancreatic stent placement for the prevention of postpapillectomy pancreatitis. Because EUS and IDUS have similar diagnostic accuracies, either modality can be used for the preprocedural evaluation of ampullary tumors. Nevertheless, further technical refinements are required for a more precise evaluation. Given the paucity of data on the usefulness of EUS and/or IDUS during follow-up after EP, a well-designed study is warranted. Furthermore, pancreatic stent placement appears to have a protective effect against postpapillectomy pancreatitis; however, a prospective, randomized, controlled study with a larger number of patients is needed to assess this finding. Moreover, since pancreatic stent placement after EP is not always successful, various novel techniques have been developed to ensure reliable stent placement. Despite the recent advances in EP, further technical refinements and studies are needed to confirm their efficacy.