Cap-assisted EMR of large, sporadic, nonampullary duodenal polyps

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.

Effects of endoscopic therapy and surgical resection on long-term survival outcomes in patients with duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a surveillance, epidemiology, and end result program analysis

BACKGROUND

With the rapid development of endoscopic technology, endoscopic therapy (ET) has gradually become a new treatment choice for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). However, due to the low incidence of duodenal GIST and the difficulty of ET, there is a lack of data to compare the long-term results of ET and surgical resection.

METHODS

Duodenal GIST patients from 2004 to 2015 were selected from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end result (SEER) database. We used the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test to describe the 5- and 10-year survival differences between the ET and the surgery groups. The multivariate Cox proportional hazard model was used for analyzing the risk factors influencing the prognosis of patients. We used a 1:1 propensity score-matched (PSM) to reduce confounding factors, and then we compared survival differences between the two groups again.

RESULTS

A total of 294 patients with duodenal GIST were enrolled, including 41 (13.9%) patients with ET and 253 (86.1%) patients with surgical resection. Before PSM, the long-term survival of patients with duodenal GIST after ET and surgical resection was similar [5-year overall survival (OS) (79.7 vs. 79.3%, p = 0.876), 10-year OS (66.5 vs. 68.1%, p = 0.876)]. After adjusting the relevant variables using multivariate Cox analysis, we found that the ET and surgery groups were comparable in OS and cancer-specific survival (CSS). After PSM, there was also no significant difference between ET and surgical resection for long-term OS and CSS.

CONCLUSION

Our study found no significant difference in long-term survival between ET and surgical resection in patients with duodenal GIST. However, to obtain high-quality evidence, more extensive sample size studies are needed in the future to evaluate the long-term effects of ET on patients.

Cap-assisted EMR versus standard inject and cut EMR for treatment of large colonic laterally spreading tumors: a randomized multicenter study (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Piecemeal EMR of colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) >20 mm is effective. Experience is limited in the use of cap-assisted EMR (EMR-C) for resection of colonic lesions. We compared the efficacy and the safety of EMR-C for the removal of colonic LSTs ≥30 mm with "inject-and-cut" standard EMR (EMR-S).

METHODS

In this randomized trial from 4 Italian centers, 138 patients were treated with EMR-C and 102 with EMR-S. The rates of residual lesions, percentage of recurrence after 12 months, and adverse events were evaluated.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-three lesions were resected with EMR-C and 102 with EMR-S. Argon plasma coagulation (APC) was used as adjunctive treatment in 2.9% of EMR-Cs and in 22.5% of EMR-Ss (P < .001). The median time required was 20 minutes for EMR-C and 30 minutes for EMR-S (P < .001). Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 14 EMR-Cs (10.1%; 2 perforations, 11 bleeding events, and 1 stenosis) and in 22 EMR-Ss (21.6%; 1 perforation and 21 bleeding events) (P = .017). Intraprocedural AEs occurred in 3.6% of EMR-Cs and 16.7% of EMR-Ss (P = .001). Overall, residual lesions within 12 months were found to be significantly higher with EMR-S (32 patients, 31.4%) than with EMR-C (8 patients, 5.8%) (P < .001). Recurrence at follow-up colonoscopy in 12 months occurred in 7 EMR-Cs (5.1%) and 17 EMR-Ss (16.7%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrated the feasibility and safety of EMR-C for removing large colorectal LSTs, with higher eradication rates, shorter resection time, and less use of APC when compared with EMR-S. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03498664.).

The conundrum in endoscopic management of duodenal polyps: a tertiary cancer center experience

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal resection of duodenal polyps (EMR) is a challenging intervention. The aim of this study was to review the patient characteristics, techniques, procedure outcomes, adverse events, and recurrence of duodenal polyps.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients were included if they had pathologically confirmed non-ampullary duodenal polyps and had received EMR with at least one follow-up EGD for surveillance. Descriptive statistics were employed to report the findings.

RESULTS

A total of 65 patients underwent a total of 90 EMRs for duodenal polyps. The mean age was 65.4 years, and 29 of the patients were female. Complete resection of the visible mass was achieved in 96.9% of cases. Endoscopic hemostasis was required in 18.5% of patients. Delayed bleeding occurred in 9%, and delayed perforations requiring surgical intervention occurred in 2.2% of patients with no mortality. Surgery after EMR was needed in 12.7% of cases. Eleven (16.9%) patients had recurrent duodenal adenoma on follow-up EGD.

CONCLUSION

Duodenal polyps can be safely resected and have a notable recurrence rate. This is particularly true for adenomas, warranting post-resection endoscopic surveillance. The appropriate interval for post-resection surveillance of duodenal adenomas should be a focus of future study.

Appropriate selection of endoscopic resection for superficial nonampullary duodenal adenomas in association with recurrence

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The appropriate selection of endoscopic resection for relatively small superficial nonampullary duodenal adenomas (SNADAs) considering recurrence is not completely clarified. Therefore, this study investigated endoscopic resection utility (EMR, underwater EMR [UEMR], and cap-assisted EMR [EMRC]) for SNADAs from the viewpoint of recurrence and short-term outcomes.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients with sporadic SNADAs who underwent EMR, UEMR, and EMRC at Chiba University Hospital between May 2004 and March 2020 and were observed for ≥12 months after endoscopic resection (EMR, 34 patients, 36 lesions; UEMR, 54 patients, 55 lesions; and EMRC, 45 patients, 48 lesions). Outcomes were evaluated using weighted logistic regression analysis. The logistic regression analysis was weighted using propensity scores.

RESULTS

EMRC showed significantly higher en-bloc and R0 resection rates than EMR. All techniques were equally safe. Only 1 case each of intraoperative perforation and postoperative perforation (in 2 different patients) occurred, which were associated with EMRC. UEMR resulted in higher R0 resection and lower postbleeding rates than EMR. Moreover, patients who underwent UEMR showed no perforation. Median observation period per lesion after endoscopic resection was 84 months (range, 16-199) for patients who underwent EMR, 25 months (range, 12-60) for patients who underwent UEMR, and 63 months (range, 12-180) for patients who underwent EMRC. No significant difference was observed between EMR versus UEMR and between EMR versus EMRC in terms of recurrence (odds ratio, .20 [95% confidence interval, .01-2.86; P = .24] and .78 [95% confidence interval, .09-6.84; P = .82], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Recurrence risk was not different for EMR, UEMR, and EMRC. Therefore, UEMR, a simple and safe procedure, could be the first choice for relatively small SNADAs. With larger prospective studies, UEMR data may turn out to be more robust, corroborating it as the endoscopic modality of choice for certain SNADAs.

Endoscopic management of non-ampullary duodenal adenomas

Duodenal polyps are found in 0.1 % to 0.8 % of all upper endoscopies. Duodenal adenomas account for 10 % to 20 % of these lesions. They can be sporadic or occur in the setting of a hereditary predisposition syndrome, mainly familial adenomatous polyposis. Endoscopy is the cornerstone of management of duodenal adenomas, allowing for diagnosis and treatment, primarily by endoscopic mucosal resection. The endoscopic treatment of duodenal adenomas has a high morbidity, reaching 15 % in a prospective study, consisting of bleeding and perforations, and should therefore be performed in expert centers. The local recurrence rate ranges from 9 % to 37 %, and is maximal for piecemeal resections of lesions > 20 mm. Surgical resection of the duodenum is flawed with major morbidity and considered a rescue procedure in cases of endoscopic treatment failures or severe endoscopic complications such as duodenal perforations. In this paper, we review the existing evidence on endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of non-ampullary duodenal adenomas.

Utility of underwater EMR for nonpolypoid superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors ≤20 mm

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The application of underwater EMR (UEMR) for nonpolypoid superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) has not been comprehensively assessed. Therefore, the current study aimed to validate the efficacy of UEMR versus conventional EMR and cap-assisted EMR (EMRC) for SNADETs measuring ≤20 mm.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients with sporadic nonpolypoid SNADETs measuring ≤20 mm undergoing EMR, EMRC, or UEMR at Chiba University Hospital between May 2004 and October 2020 (EMR, 21 patients and 23 SNADETs; UEMR, 60 patients and 61 SNADETs; EMRC, 45 patients and 48 SNADETs). A weighted logistic regression analysis was performed to analyze outcomes. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to identify the predictors of RX/1 and piecemeal resection. The recurrence rate of lesions observed ≥12 months after resection was assessed.

RESULTS

Both UEMR and EMRC had a significantly higher R0 resection rate than EMR. UEMR had significantly lower multiple resection and postbleeding rates than EMR. Only 1 patient (2.1%) who underwent EMRC experienced intraoperative and postoperative perforation. EMR was involved in RX/1 and piecemeal resection. The recurrence rates of EMR, UEMR, and EMRC were 4.3%, 2.0%, and 6.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

UEMR had significantly higher R0 resection and lower postbleeding rates than EMR. Moreover, it was safer than EMRC and was associated with a lower incidence of recurrences. The significant results of the retrospective analysis suggest a randomized controlled study with adequate numbers needs to be conducted to confirm the superior efficacy of UEMR before it is recommended for primary treatment option for SNADETs measuring ≤20 mm.

Diagnosis and management of iatrogenic endoscopic perforations: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement - Update 2020

1:  ESGE recommends that each center implements a written policy regarding the management of iatrogenic perforations, including the definition of procedures that carry a higher risk of this complication. This policy should be shared with the radiologists and surgeons at each center. 2 : ESGE recommends that in the case of an endoscopically identified perforation, the endoscopist reports its size and location, with an image, and statement of the endoscopic treatment that has been applied. 3:  ESGE recommends that symptoms or signs suggestive of iatrogenic perforation after an endoscopic procedure should be rapidly and carefully evaluated and documented with a computed tomography (CT) scan. 4 : ESGE recommends that endoscopic closure should be considered depending on the type of the iatrogenic perforation, its size, and the endoscopist expertise available at the center. Switch to carbon dioxide (CO2) endoscopic insufflation, diversion of digestive luminal content, and decompression of tension pneumoperitoneum or pneumothorax should also be performed. 5 : ESGE recommends that after endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, further management should be based on the estimated success of the endoscopic closure and on the general clinical condition of the patient. In the case of no or failed endoscopic closure of an iatrogenic perforation, and in patients whose clinical condition is deteriorating, hospitalization and surgical consultation are recommended.

Short- and long-term outcomes of endoscopically treated superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors

BACKGROUND

It is widely recognized that endoscopic resection (ER) of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) is technically challenging and may carry high risks of intraoperative and delayed bleeding and perforation. These adverse events could be more critical than those occurring in other levels of the gastrointestinal tract. Because of the low prevalence of the disease and the high risks of severe adverse events, the curability including short- and long-term outcomes have not been standardized yet.

AIM

To investigate the curability including short- and long-term outcomes of ER for SNADETs in a large case series.

METHODS

This retrospective study included cases that underwent ER for SNADETs at our university hospital between March 2004 and July 2017. Short-term outcomes of ER were measured based on en bloc and R0 resection rates as well as adverse events. Long-term outcomes included local recurrence detected on endoscopic surveillance and disease-specific mortality in patients followed up for ≥ 12 mo after ER.

RESULTS

In the study, 131 patients with 147 SNADETs were analyzed. The 147 ERs consisted of 136 endoscopic mucosal resections (EMRs) (93%) and 11 endoscopic submucosal dissections (ESDs) (7%). The median tumor diameter was 10 mm. The pathology diagnosis was adenocarcinoma (56/147, 38%), high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (44/147, 30%), or low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (47/147, 32%). The R0 resection rate was 68% (93/136) in the EMR group and 73% (8/11) in the ESD group, respectively. Cap-assisted EMR (known as EMR-C) showed a higher rate of R0 resection compared to the conventional method of EMR using a snare (78% vs 62%, P = 0.06). No adverse event was observed in the EMR group, whereas delayed bleeding, intraoperative perforation, and delayed perforation in 3, 3, and 5 patients occurred in the ESD group, respectively. One patient with perforation required emergency surgery. In the 43 mo median follow-up period, local recurrence was found in four EMR cases and all cases were treated endoscopically. No patient died due to tumor recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that ER provides good long-term outcomes in the patients with SNADETs. EMR is likely to become the safe and reliable treatment for small SNADETs.

Nonampullary Duodenal Adenomas Rarely Recur after Complete Endoscopic Resection: A Swiss Experience Including a Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

Duodenal polyps and especially duodenal adenomas are a rare and mostly coincidental finding in patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Due to their malignant potential, duodenal adenomas should be removed upon diagnosis. So far, the limited available data on the performance of endoscopic polypectomy show conflicting results with regard to adverse events and the adenoma recurrence rate.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

After summarizing the currently available data, we retrospectively analyzed all patients undergoing endoscopic resection of nonampullary duodenal adenomas (NAD) at our institution between 2006 and 2016.

RESULTS

A total of 78 patients underwent endoscopic polypectomy for NAD adenoma. End-of-treatment success with complete resection requiring a mean of 1.2 interventions was achieved in 91% (n = 71). Procedural hemorrhage occurred in 12.8% (n = 10), whereas delayed bleeding was noted in 9% (n = 7). Duodenal perforation was registered and successfully treated in 2 cases (2.6%). No adenoma recurrence was noted following primary complete adenoma resection after a mean follow-up time of 33 months. Acute post-polypectomy bleeding was statistically significantly associated with large polyp size (p = 0.003) and lack of endoscopic prophylaxis (p = 0.0008). Delayed post-polypectomy bleeding showed a trend in the occurrence of large polyps (p = 0.064), and was statistically significantly associated with familial cancer syndrome (p = 0.019) and advanced histopathology (p = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that endoscopic polypectomy of NAD is well feasible with high success rates. Procedural and delayed hemorrhage seems to be the primary issue rather than adenoma recurrence. We therefore advocate referral of patients with large NAD to experienced centers for endoscopic resection.

Clinical outcome of EMR of sporadic, nonampullary, duodenal adenomas: a 10-year retrospective

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Sporadic non-ampullary duodenal adenomas (SNADAs), although uncommon, pose clinical challenges. Because SNADAs have malignant potential, endoscopic or surgical resection is generally recommended. EMR is increasingly used for resection of SNADAs, but large-scale data on natural history after EMR are scarce. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the clinical outcome of EMR for SNADAs and the natural history after EMR from a large, single-operator experience with dedicated follow-up.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients with SNADAs who were referred for endoscopic therapy from May 2007 to May 2016. Patient demographics, lesion characteristics, and procedural technical data were collected. The outcomes studied were complete endoscopic resection, major adverse events, and recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 162 patients were referred for endoscopic therapy, and 142 (88%) (median age 67 years, interquartile range [IQR] 57-73 years, 42% male) underwent a total of 166 EMRs with the use of a submucosal injection and thermal snare resection technique. In per-patient analysis, the median size of SNADAs was 20 mm (IQR 15-30) in diameter. Complete mucosal resection was achieved in 130 of 142 patients (92%). Local or residual recurrences were observed in 23% of patients (median time until recurrence 277 days [IQR 196-591]) and were treated endoscopically. No metachronous recurrences were found within a median follow-up of 363 days. In per-procedure analysis, en bloc resection was achieved in 88 (53%). EMR-related bleeding occurred in 18 (11%) EMRs, and all cases were successfully managed with supportive and/or endoscopic measures. No perforations occurred. Increasing size of adenomas was associated with recurrence (P < .001). No association with recurrence was noted with endoscopic or histologic features. Increasing size of resected specimens (P < .001) was associated with an increased risk of bleeding.

CONCLUSION

EMR of most SNADAs can be performed safely and effectively. Increasing size of adenomas was associated with recurrence and bleeding after EMR. No association with recurrence was noted with endoscopic or histologic features. Focal recurrence can be managed with additional endoscopic therapy. Metachronous lesions do not occur. The findings inform directed management and surveillance.

Safety and efficacy of cap-assisted EMR for sporadic nonampullary duodenal adenomas

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Eradication of sporadic nonampullary duodenal adenomas (SNADAs) is essential because of their high rate of malignant transformation. EMR techniques are the alternative to the traditional surgical treatments of SNADAs. There are very limited data on the safety and efficacy of cap-assisted EMR (C-EMR) in the treatment of SNADA.

METHODS

The medical records of patients who underwent C-EMR for SNADAs between July 2002 and April 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Eradication was defined as no residual adenoma on follow-up or en bloc resection on pathology. Recurrence was defined as finding adenoma after a negative follow-up.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine C-EMR sessions were performed on 49 SNADAs (flat, 46; sessile, 3); 39 polyps were treated in piecemeal fashion and 10 polyps with en bloc resection. The polyp histology was tubular adenoma (63.3%) and tubulovillous adenoma (36.7%), with 16.3% of lesions showing high-grade dysplasia. Initial eradication rate was 90.5%; residual adenomas were successfully treated with repeat C-EMR/snare, resulting in 100% ultimate eradication rate without any recurrences (median follow-up of 17 months). The overall adverse events rate was 16.9%: intraprocedural bleeding (10.2%), delayed GI bleeding (5.1%), and perforation (1.7%). Among large polyps (≥15 mm), the initial and ultimate eradication rates were 87.9% and 100%, respectively, and the adverse event rate was 17%. Initial eradication rate for small polyps was higher than in large polyps (100% vs 87.9%, respectively; P = .02).

CONCLUSION

C-EMR is a highly efficient and safe method for the treatment of SNADAs. We recommend that endoscopists should learn C-EMR on esophageal, gastric, rectal, or left-sided colonic lesions before attempting C-EMR in the duodenum.

Management of duodenal polyps

Duodenal adenomas are the most common type of polyp arising from the duodenum. These adenomas can occur within and outside of genetic syndromes, and are broadly classified as non-ampullary or ampullary depending on their location. All adenomas have malignant potential and are therefore appropriately treated by endoscopic resection. However, the unique anatomical properties of the duodenum, namely its relatively thin and vascular walls, narrow luminal diameter and relationship to the ampulla and its associated pancreatic and biliary drainage, pose an increased degree of complexity for any endoscopic interventions in this area. This review will discuss the epidemiology of duodenal adenomas, their endoscopic detection and diagnosis, and techniques for safe and effective endoscopic resection of ampullary and non-ampullary lesions.

Safety and efficacy of EMR for sporadic, nonampullary duodenal adenomas: a single U.S. center experience (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EMR is increasingly used for resection of sporadic, nonampullary duodenal adenomas (SNDAs), but there are no guidelines for the management of these lesions. The aims of this study were to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EMR exclusively for SNDAs and to determine the factors predictive of outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of patients with SNDAs referred for endoscopic therapy from 2006 to 2013. The outcomes studied were successful endoscopic resection, major adverse events, early and late recurrences, and clinical remission.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight patients with SNDAs were included and 51 (75%) underwent EMR. The mean adenoma size was 22.0 ± 8.9 mm. Successful resection was achieved in 49 of 51 patients (96.1%), and major adverse events were noted in 8 of 51 patients (15.7%). Early and late recurrences were noted in 25.6% and 5.2% of patients, respectively, and were treated endoscopically. Clinical remission was achieved in 89.7% of patients after a median follow-up of 15 months. Presence of villous histology was associated with increased recurrence (P = .019), but no association of recurrence was noted with other endoscopic features or resection technique. Large adenoma size (P = .0057) and need for intraprocedural hemostasis (P = .006) were associated with increased adverse events, but no association of adverse events was noted with location or resection technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Large duodenal adenomas can be effectively managed with EMR at a referral center with experienced endoscopists. However, EMR has a significant recurrence rate, especially early recurrence, and the risk of adverse events is not negligible. Endoscopic therapy is successful in managing recurrent adenomas.

Management of a large mucosal defect after duodenal endoscopic resection

Duodenal endoscopic resection is the most difficult type of endoscopic treatment in the gastrointestinal tract (GI) and is technically challenging because of anatomical specificities. In addition to these technical difficulties, this procedure is associated with a significantly higher rate of complication than endoscopic treatment in other parts of the GI tract. Postoperative delayed perforation and bleeding are hazardous complications, and emergency surgical intervention is sometimes required. Therefore, it is urgently necessary to establish a management protocol for preventing serious complications. For instance, the prophylactic closure of large mucosal defects after endoscopic resection may reduce the risk of hazardous complications. However, the size of mucosal defects after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is relatively large compared with the size after endoscopic mucosal resection, making it impossible to achieve complete closure using only conventional clips. The over-the-scope clip and polyglycolic acid sheets with fibrin gel make it possible to close large mucosal defects after duodenal ESD. In addition to the combination of laparoscopic surgery and endoscopic resection, endoscopic full-thickness resection holds therapeutic potential for difficult duodenal lesions and may overcome the disadvantages of endoscopic resection in the near future. This review aims to summarize the complications and closure techniques of large mucosal defects and to highlight some directions for management after duodenal endoscopic treatment.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic mucosal resection of non-ampullary duodenal polyps: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Data on the safety and efficacy of endoscopic resection of non-ampullary duodenal polyps are limited. This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of sporadic non-ampullary duodenal polyps.

METHODS

Relevant studies for the meta-analysis were identified through search of PUBMED and EMBASE databases. Studies employing EMR for the management of sporadic duodenal polyps in the non-ampullary region were included. The primary outcome was the surgical intervention rates due to non-curative endoscopic resection (incomplete removal/recurrence necessitating surgery) and/or management of procedural adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 440 patients (485 duodenal polyps) from 14 studies were included. The mean size of the polyps was 13 mm to 35 mm. Surgical intervention due to non-curative EMR and adverse events was required in 2 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0 - 4 %). EMR was successfully accomplished in 93 % (95 %CI 89 - 97 %). The overall bleeding rate after EMR was 16 % (95 %CI 10 - 23 %), and the pooled delayed bleeding rate was 5 % (95 %CI 2 - 7 %). The overall incidence of perforation was 1 % (95 %CI 1 - 3 %). Over a median follow-up period of 6 - 72 months, the recurrence rate after EMR was 15 % (95 %CI 7 - 23 %). Six studies (pooled recurrence 20 %, 95 %CI 14 - 27 %) reported on the outcomes of managing recurrent polyps, for which endoscopic removal was successful in 62 % (95 %CI 37 - 87 %). There was no procedure related mortality.

CONCLUSION

EMR appears to be a safe and effective therapeutic option for management of sporadic non-ampullary duodenal polyps. Long-term endoscopic surveillance is required to manage and treat recurrent disease.

Approach to the endoscopic resection of duodenal lesions

Duodenal polyps or lesions are uncommonly found on upper endoscopy. Duodenal lesions can be categorized as subepithelial or mucosally-based, and the type of lesion often dictates the work-up and possible therapeutic options. Subepithelial lesions that can arise in the duodenum include lipomas, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, and carcinoids. Endoscopic ultrasonography with fine needle aspiration is useful in the characterization and diagnosis of subepithelial lesions. Duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors and large or multifocal carcinoids are best managed by surgical resection. Brunner's gland tumors, solitary Peutz-Jeghers polyps, and non-ampullary and ampullary adenomas are mucosally-based duodenal lesions, which can require removal and are typically amenable to endoscopic resection. Several anatomic characteristics of the duodenum make endoscopic resection of duodenal lesions challenging. However, advanced endoscopic techniques exist that enable the resection of large mucosally-based duodenal lesions. Endoscopic papillectomy is not without risk, but this procedure can effectively resect ampullary adenomas and allows patients to avoid surgery, which typically involves pancreaticoduodenectomy. Endoscopic mucosal resection and its variations (such as cap-assisted, cap-band-assisted, and underwater techniques) enable the safe and effective resection of most duodenal adenomas. Endoscopic submucosal dissection is possible but very difficult to safely perform in the duodenum.

Nonampullary duodenal adenoma: Current understanding of its diagnosis, pathogenesis, and clinical management

Nonampullary duodenal adenomas are relatively common in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), but nonampullary sporadic duodenal adenomas (SDAs) are rare. Emerging evidence shows that duodenal adenomas, regardless of their anatomic location and whether they are sporadic or FAP-related, share morphologic and molecular features with colorectal adenomas. The available data suggest that duodenal adenomas develop to duodenal adenocarcinomas via similar mechanisms. The optimal approach for management of duodenal adenomas remains to be determined. The techniques for endoscopic resection of duodenal adenoma include snare polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and argon plasma coagulation ablation. EMR may facilitate removal of large duodenal polyps. Although several studies have reported cases of successful ESD for duodenal adenomas, the procedure is technically difficult to perform safely because of the anatomical properties of the duodenum. Although current clinical practice recommends endoscopic resection of all large duodenal adenomas in patients with FAP, endoscopic treatment is usually insufficient to guarantee a polyp-free duodenum. Surgery is indicated for FAP patients with severe polyposis or nonampullary SDAs or FAP-related polyps not amenable to endoscopic resection. Further studies are needed to develop newer endoscopic techniques to guide diagnostic and therapeutic decisions for future management of nonampullary duodenal adenomas.

Endoscopic mucosal resection

EMR has become an established therapeutic option for premalignant and early-stage GI malignancies, particularly in the esophagus and colon. EMR can also aid in the diagnosis and therapy of subepithelial lesions localized to the muscularis mucosa or submucosa. Several dedicated EMR devices are available to facilitate these procedures. Adverse event rates, particularly bleeding and perforation, are higher after EMR relative to other basic endoscopic interventions but lower than adverse event rates for ESD. Endoscopists performing EMR should be knowledgeable and skilled in managing potential adverse events resulting from EMR.

Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection in the treatment of sporadic nonampullary duodenal adenomatous polyps

Although uncommon, sporadic nonampullary duodenal adenomas have a growing detection due to the widespread of endoscopy. Endoscopic therapy is being increasingly used for these lesions, since surgery, considered the standard treatment, carries significant morbidity and mortality. However, the knowledge about its risks and benefits is limited, which contributes to the current absence of standardized recommendations. This review aims to discuss the efficacy and safety of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the treatment of these lesions. A literature review was performed, using the Pubmed database with the query: “(duodenum or duodenal) (endoscopy or endoscopic) adenoma resection”, in the human species and in English. Of the 189 retrieved articles, and after reading their abstracts, 19 were selected due to their scientific interest. The analysis of their references, led to the inclusion of 23 more articles for their relevance in this subject. The increased use of EMR in the duodenum has shown good results with complete resection rates exceeding 80% and low complication risk (delayed bleeding in less than 12% of the procedures). Although rarely used in the duodenum, ESD achieves close to 100% complete resection rates, but is associated with perforation and bleeding risk in up to one third of the cases. Even though literature is insufficient to draw definitive conclusions, studies suggest that EMR and ESD are valid options for the treatment of nonampullary adenomas. Thus, strategies to improve these techniques, and consequently increase the effectiveness and safety of the resection of these lesions, should be developed.

Recent advances in diagnosis and treatment of primary duodenal tumors

Compared to tumors from other parts of the gastrointestinal tract, primary tumors of the duodenum are uncommon. Both benign tumors and malignancies are possible, although the majority are malignancies. The treatment of choice is surgical resection, mostly pancreaticoduodenectomy. With the development of endoscopy microsurgery and medical imaging technology, especially the advent of gastroduodenal fiberscopy, capsule endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) and laparoscopy, more duodenal neoplasms have been detected in recent years. Some advances have been achieved in the diagnosis and treatment of duodenal tumors. Endoscopic and segmental resections play a more and more important role in the management of duodenal tumors. In this paper, we describe the clinical features, pathological patterns, diagnosis and treatment of primary duodenal tumors.

Endoscopic resection of sporadic duodenal adenomas: comparison of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) techniques and the risks of late delayed bleeding

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection (ER) of sporadic duodenal adenomas (SDAs) is an alternative treatment strategy to surgical excision but carries substantial risks of bleeding. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of SDAs has a high rate of perforation. This study aimed to examine the outcome for ER of SDAs in two large UK centers, both using a novel hybrid endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with ESD.

METHODS

Prospective endoscopy databases of ER cases were examined for the period January 2005 to December 2012. Records were analyzed for patient demographics, lesion size and morphology, staging investigations, procedural technique, outcomes, histology, complications, and follow-up assessments.

RESULTS

The study included 34 patients. The mean adenoma size was 25 mm. Of the 34 cases, 21 (62 %) were managed by the traditional snare EMR technique, 12 (35 %) by the hybrid EMR-ESD technique, and 1 by full en bloc ESD. Successful resection was achieved in 33 (97 %) of the 34 cases. En bloc resection and recurrence rates did not differ significantly between the cases treated by EMR and those treated by hybrid EMR-ESD. Three episodes of significant delayed bleeding occurred 1-18 days after the procedure. No perforations or deaths occurred. The risk of delayed bleeding was higher for the lesions 30 mm in diameter or larger than for the lesions smaller than 30 mm (33% vs. 0 %; p = 0.003). The risk of delayed bleeding was not related to the ER technique used (EMR, 9.5 %; ESD/hybrid, 7.7 %; p = 0.855).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic resection is an effective treatment for SDAs and can avoid the need for open surgery. This is the first series to report the use of a hybrid EMR-ESD technique for the treatment of SDAs in a Western setting. However, this technique did not confer any major outcome benefits over EMR. The risk of delayed bleeding is substantial, and bleeding may occur up to 18 days after the procedure. The risk of delayed bleeding was increased with lesions larger than 30 mm but was not influenced by the endoscopic technique.