Polidocanol injection decreases the bleeding rate after colon polypectomy: a propensity score analysis

Lumen-apposing metal stents for the treatment of pancreatic and peripancreatic fluid collections and bleeding risk: a propensity matched study

INTRODUCTION

 Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) using the Hot-Axios device has recently been associated with a significant risk of bleeding. This adverse event (AE) seems to occur less frequently with the use of a different device, the Spaxus stent. The aim of the current study was to compare the rates of bleeding between the two stents.

METHODS

 Patients admitted for treatment of PFCs by EUS plus lumen-apposing metal stent in 18 endoscopy referral centers between 10 July 2019 and 28 February 2022 were identified and their outcomes compared using a propensity-matching analysis.

RESULTS

 363 patients were evaluated. After a 1-to-1 propensity score match, 264 patients were selected (132 per group). The technical and clinical success rates were comparable between the two groups. Significantly more bleeding requiring transfusion and/or intervention occurred in the Hot-Axios group than in the Spaxus group (6.8% vs. 1.5%; P = 0.03); stent type was a significant predictor of bleeding in both univariate and multivariate regression analyses (P = 0.03 and 0.04, respectively). Bleeding necessitating arterial embolization did not however differ significantly between the two groups (3.0% vs. 0%; P = 0.12). In addition, the Hot-Axios was associated with a significantly higher rate of overall AEs compared with the Spaxus stent (9.8% vs. 3.0%; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

 Our study showed that, in patients with PFCs, bleeding requiring transfusion and/or intervention occurred significantly more frequently with use of the Hot-Axios stent than with the Spaxus stent, although this was not the case for bleeding requiring embolization.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic collections with dedicated metal stents: A nationwide, multicenter, propensity score-matched comparison

BACKGROUND

The new dedicated stents for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transluminal drainage of peri‑pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) demonstrated optimal efficacy and safety profiles.

AIMS

This study aimed to evaluate the safety, technical and clinical success, and recurrence rate of PFCs drained with Lumen Apposing Metal Stent (LAMS) or Bi-Flanged Metal Stent (BFMS).

METHODS

Data from a multicenter series of PFCs treated with LAMS or BFMS at 30 Italian centers during a 5-year period were retrieved. The rate of adverse events (AEs), technical success, clinical success, PFC recurrence were evaluated. To overcome biases, a 1-to-1 match was created using propensity score analysis.

RESULTS

Out of 476 patients, 386 were treated with LAMS and 90 with BFMS, with a median follow-up of 290 days (95% CI 244 to 361). Using propensity score matching, 84 patients were assigned to each group. The incidence of AEs did not differ between the two stents (13.1% versus 15.5%, p = 0.29), mainly bleeding or recurrence rate (4.7% versus 3.5%, p = 1). Technical and clinical success in the BFMS and LAMS groups were 92% versus 95% (p = 0.36) and 91% versus 94% (p = 0.64), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that LAMS and BFMS have comparable safety profiles with similar technical and clinical success rates for EUS-guided PFC drainage.

Endosonography-Guided Versus Percutaneous Gallbladder Drainage Versus Cholecystectomy in Fragile Patients with Acute Cholecystitis-A High-Volume Center Study

Background and Objectives: Acute cholecystitis is a frequent cause of admission to the emergency department, especially in old and frail patients. Percutaneous drainage (PT-GBD) and endosonographic guided drainage (EUS-GBD) could be an alternative option for relieving symptoms or act as a definitive treatment instead of a laparoscopic or open cholecystectomy (LC, OC). The aim of the present study was to compare different treatment groups. Materials and Methods: This is a five-year monocentric retrospective study including patients ≥65 years old who underwent an urgent operative procedure. A descriptive analysis was conducted comparing all treatment groups. A propensity score was estimated based on the ACS score, incorporated into a predictive model, and tested by recursive partitioning analysis. Results: 163 patients were included: 106 underwent a cholecystectomy (81 laparoscopic (LC) and 25 Open (OC)), 33 a PT-GBD and 21 EUS-GBD. The sample was categorized into three prognostic groups according to the adverse event occurrence rate. All patients treated with EUS-GBD or LC resulted in the low risk group, and the adverse event rate (AE) was 10/96 (10.4%). The AE was 4/28 (14.2%) and 21/36 (58.3%) in the middle- and high-risk groups respectively (p < 0.001). These groups included all the patients who underwent an OC or a PT-GBD. The PT-GBD group had a lower clinical success rate (55.5%) and higher RR (16,6%) when compared with other groups. Conclusions: Surgery still represents the gold standard for AC treatment. Nevertheless, EUS-GBD is a good alternative to PT-GBD in terms of clinical success, RR and AEs in all kinds of patients.

Definition of a hospital volume threshold to optimize outcomes after drainage of pancreatic fluid collections with lumen-apposing metal stents: a nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There is increasing interest in expanding the use of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) in patients with pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). The aim of this study was to determine whether there is a hospital volume threshold for which patient outcomes could be optimized.

METHODS

Data from a large multicenter series of patients with PFCs treated with LAMSs were retrieved. Rate of adverse events (AEs) was the primary outcome. Multivariable models with restricted cubic splines were used to identify a hospital volume threshold by plotting hospital volume against the log odds ratio (OR) of AE rate. Propensity score matching was applied to obtain 2 well-balanced groups according to hospital volume, and univariate/multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify significant predictors of AEs.

RESULTS

Overall, 516 patients were included. Increasing hospital volume was associated with a reduced AE rate (P = .03), and the likelihood of experiencing an AE declined as hospital volume increased up to 15 cases. After propensity score matching, 175 patients in the high-volume (>15 cases) and 132 in the low-volume hospital group were compared. Overall, 41 AEs were observed (13.3%), of which 14 (8%) and 27 (20.4%) occurred at high-volume and low-volume centers, respectively (P = .001). Severe and fatal events were observed more frequently in low-volume centers (6% vs 1.7% and 2.2% vs 0%, respectively; P = .05). In multivariate analysis, main pancreatic duct injury (OR, 2.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-4.67; P = .02), presence of abnormal vessels (OR, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.41-5.02; P = .006), and institutional experience (OR, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.48-5.90; P = .002) were significant predictors of AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

With 15 procedures representing the minimum number of cases associated with the lowest risk for postprocedural AEs, hospital volume is associated with improved outcomes. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03903523.).

Comparison between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy and bite-on-bite jumbo biopsy for sampling of subepithelial lesions

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A direct comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and current endoscopic biopsy techniques in patients with subepithelial lesions (SELs) is still lacking. Aim of this multicenter study was to compare the diagnostic performance and safety profile between EUS-FNB and bite-on-bite jumbo biopsy.

METHODS

Out of 416 patients undergoing endoscopic sampling of SELs between 2017 and 2021, after propensity score matching two groups were compared: 120 undergoing EUS-FNB and 120 sampled with bite-on-bite jumbo biopsy. Primary outcome was sample adequacy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Median age was 61 years and most patients were male in both groups. Final diagnosis was GIST in 65 patients (54.1%) in the EUS-FNB group and 62 patients in the bite-on-bite biopsy group (51.6%; p = 0.37). Sample adequacy was significantly higher in the EUS-FNB group as compared to the bite-on-bite biopsy group (94.1% versus 77.5%, p<0.001). EUS-FNB outperformed bite-on-bite biopsy also in terms of diagnostic accuracy (89.3% versus 67.1%, p<0.001) and sensitivity (89% vs 64.5%; p<0.001), whereas specificity was 100% in both groups (p = 0.89). These findings were confirmed in subgroup analysis according to SEL location, final diagnosis, and wall layers of the sampled SEL. Adverse event rate was 6.6% in the EUS-FNB group and 30% in the bite-on-bite biopsy group (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

EUS-FNB outperforms bite-on-bite biopsy both in terms of diagnostic yield and safety profile.

Impact of Antibiotic Prophylaxis on Infection Rate after Endoscopic Ultrasound Through-the-Needle Biopsy of Pancreatic Cysts: A Propensity Score-Matched Study

Background: Despite weak evidence, antibiotic prophylaxis prior to endoscopic ultrasound-guided through-the-needle biopsy (EUS-TTNB) of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) is routinely used in clinical practice. We aim to compare a group of patients treated with antibiotics before EUS-TTNB of PCLs and a group who did not undergo antimicrobial prophylaxis. Methods: Out of 236 patients with pancreatic cystic lesions referred to two high-volume centers between 2016 and 2021, after propensity score matching, two groups were compared: 98 subjects who underwent EUS-TTNB under antibiotic prophylaxis and 49 subjects without prophylaxis. Results: There was no difference in terms of baseline parameters between groups. Final diagnosis was serous cystadenoma in 36.7% of patients in the group not treated with prophylaxis and in 37.7% of patients in the control group, whereas IPMN and mucinous cystadenoma were diagnosed in 3 (6.1%) and 16 (32.6%) versus 6 (6.1%) and 32 (32.6%) patients in the two groups, respectively (p = 0.23). Overall, the adverse event rate was 6.1% in the group not treated with antibiotic prophylaxis and 5.1% in the control group (p = 0.49). Only a single infectious adverse event occurred in each group (p = 0.48). The diagnostic yields were 89.7% and 90.8% in the two groups (p = 0.7), and the diagnostic accuracy rate was 81.6% in both groups (p = 1.0). Conclusions: Prophylactic antibiotics do not seem to influence the risk of infection, and their routine use should be discouraged.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Biopsy versus Fine-Needle Aspiration for Tissue Sampling of Abdominal Lymph Nodes: A Propensity Score Matched Multicenter Comparative Study

Simple Summary

Lymph node (LN) sampling or staging is crucial to the management of malignancies. The use of endoscopic ultrasound for lymph node sampling can be performed with EUS fine-needle aspiration (FNA) or EUS fine-needle biopsy (FNB). However, it remains unclear whether EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB is superior for sampling of abdominal lymph nodes. In this study, we retrospectively compared a large volume of patients who underwent lymph node sampling using EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB. Most patients were diagnosed with metastatic colorectal disease. We found that EUS-FNB had a higher diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity compared to EUS-FNA. Both modalities had no adverse events. Thus, the results support the use of EUS-FNB for abdominal lymph node sampling.

Abstract

There is a paucity of evidence on the comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for lymph node (LNs) sampling. The aim of this study was to compare these two approaches in a multicenter series of patients with abdominal tumors. Out of 502 patients undergoing EUS sampling, two groups following propensity score matching were compared: 105 undergoing EUS-FNB and 105 undergoing EUS-FNA. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, sample adequacy, optimal histological core procurement, number of passes, and adverse events. Median age was 64.6 years, and most patients were male in both groups. Final diagnosis was LN metastasis (mainly from colorectal cancer) in 70.4% of patients in the EUS-FNB group and 66.6% in the EUS-FNA group (p = 0.22). Diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher in the EUS-FNB group as compared to the EUS-FNA group (87.62% versus 75.24%, p = 0.02). EUS-FNB outperformed EUS-FNA also in terms of diagnostic sensitivity (84.71% vs. 70.11%; p = 0.01), whereas specificity was 100% in both groups (p = 0.6). Sample adequacy analysis showed a non-significant trend in favor of EUS-FNB (96.1% versus 89.5%, p = 0.06) whereas the histological core procurement rate was significantly higher with EUS-FNB (94.2% versus 51.4%; p < 0.001). No procedure-related adverse events were observed. These findings show that EUS-FNB is superior to EUS-FNA in tissue sampling of abdominal LNs.

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)-Based Optimization of Injection Process during Endoscopic Mucosal Therapy

Creation of a submucosal plane to separate the lesion from the deeper muscle layer in gastrointestinal tract is an integral and essential part of endoscopic resection therapies such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Thereby, an optimized submucosal injection technique is required to ensure a successful process. In this study, the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) technique is employed as a foundational step towards the development of a framework that can provide useful directions to optimize the injection process. Three different lifting agents, including Glycerol, Eleview^®, and ORISE^® gel have been used for this study. The role of different injection angles, injection dynamics, and effect of temperature are studied to understand the lifting characteristic of each agent. The study shows that Eleview^® provides the highest lifting effect, including the initial injection period. To evaluate the impact of the injection process, two cases are simulated, termed static injection and dynamic injection. Under static injection, the injection angle is investigated from lower to higher angles of injection. In the dynamic injection, two cases are modulated, where a continuous change of injection angle from lower to higher degrees (denoted as clockwise) and vice-versa in the anti-clockwise direction are investigated. Increased lifting characteristics are observed at decreasing/lower angle of injection. Further, the correlation between temperature of the lifting agents and their lifting characteristics is investigated.

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Anesthesiologist Administration of Propofol Sedation in Endoscopic Ultrasound: A Propensity Score Analysis

In spite of promising preliminary results, evidence supporting the use of non-anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation (NAAP) in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures is still limited. The aim of this manuscript was to examine the safety and efficacy of NAAP as compared to anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation in EUS procedures performed in a referral center. Out of 832 patients referred to our center between 2016 and 2019, after propensity score matching two groups were compared: 305 treated with NAAP and 305 controls who underwent anesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation. The primary outcome was the rate of major complications. The median age was 67 years and the proportion of patients with comorbidities was 31.8% in both groups. One patient in each group (0.3%) experienced a major complication, whereas minor complications were observed in 13 patients in the NAAP group (4.2%) and 10 patients in the control group (3.2%; p = 0.52). Overall pain during the procedure was 2.3 ± 1 in group 1 and 1.8 ± 1 in group 2 (p = 0.67), whereas pain/discomfort upon awakening was rated as 1 ± 0.5 in both groups (p = 0.72). NAAP is safe and effective even in advanced EUS procedures. Further randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are warranted to confirm these findings.

Contrast-Enhanced Harmonic Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration versus Standard Fine-Needle Aspiration in Pancreatic Masses: A Propensity Score Analysis

Background: Whether endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) contrast-enhanced fine-needle aspiration (CH-EUS-FNA) determines superior results in comparison to standard EUS-FNA in tissue acquisition of pancreatic masses remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare these two techniques on a series of patients with solid pancreatic lesions. Methods: 362 patients underwent EUS-FNA (2008–2019), after the propensity score matching of two groups were compared; 103 treated with CH-EUS-FNA (group 1) and 103 with standard EUS-FNA (group 2). The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and sample adequacy. Results: Diagnostic sensitivity was 87.6% in group 1 and 80% in group 2 (p = 0.18). The negative predictive value was 56% in group 1 and 41.5% in group 2 (p = 0.06). The specificity and positive predictive values were 100% for both groups. Diagnostic accuracy was 89.3% and 82.5%, respectively (p = 0.40). Sample adequacy was 94.1% in group 1 and 91.2% in group 2 (p = 0.42). The rate of adequate core histologic samples was 33% and 28.1%, respectively (p = 0.44), and the number of needle passes to obtain adequate samples were 2.4 ± 0.6 and 2.7 ± 0.8, respectively (p = 0.76). These findings were confirmed in subgroup analyses, conducted according to lesion size and contrast enhancement pattern. Conclusions: CH-EUS-FNA does not appear to be superior to standard EUS-FNA in patients with pancreatic masses.

Predicting and managing complications following colonoscopy: risk factors and management of advanced interventional endoscopy with a focus on colorectal ESD

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been introduced widely in Western and Asian countries. The management of the perforation during ESD is crucial.

AREAS COVERED

The rate of intraprocedural perforation, risk factors, prevention, and management of perforation during ESD and EMR were discussed in this review. The perforation rate in ESD and EMR depending on the lesion size is also discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

The knowledge regarding the risk factor and techniques to manage perforation is important during colorectal ESD and EMR. The development of novel suturing techniques devices is key for colorectal ESD in the future.

Comparison between Y90 Radioembolization Plus Sorafenib and Y90 Radioembolization alone in the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Analysis

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant sorafenib may enhance the efficacy of transarterial radioembolization with yttrium-90 in hepatocellular carcinoma patients. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of radioembolization plus sorafenib in comparison to radioembolization alone.

METHODS

Out of 175 hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients treated with radioembolization between 2011 and 2018, after propensity score matching, two groups were compared: a group of 45 patients that underwent radioembolization while being on sorafenib (Group 1) and a second group of 90 patients that underwent radioembolization alone (Group 2).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics of the two groups were well balanced concerning liver function and tumor burden. No significant differences in survival outcomes were identified (median overall survival 10 vs. 10 months; p = 0.711), median progression-free survival 6 vs. 7 months (p = 0.992) in Group 1 and Group 2). The objective response rate in Group 1 vs. Group 2 was 45.5% vs. 42.8% (p = 1) according to mRECIST. No differences in toxicity nor in liver decompensation rates were registered.

CONCLUSIONS

The association of sorafenib does not prolong survival nor delay progression in patients treated with radioembolization. Liver toxicity does not differ among the two therapeutic schemes.

Colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection with submucosal injection of epinephrine versus hypertonic saline in patients taking antithrombotic agents: propensity-score-matching analysis

Background

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) to remove colon polyps is increasingly common in patients taking antithrombotic agents. The safety of EMR with submucosal saline injection has not been clearly demonstrated in this population.

Aims

The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of submucosal injection of saline–epinephrine versus hypertonic saline in colorectal EMR of patients taking antithrombotic agents.

Methods

This study enrolled 204 patients taking antithrombotic agents among 995 consecutive patients who underwent colonic EMR from April 2012 to March 2018 at Ureshino Medical Center. Patients were divided into two groups according to the injected solution: saline–epinephrine or hypertonic (10%) saline (n = 102 in each group). Treatment outcomes and adverse events were evaluated in each group and risk factors for immediate and post-EMR bleeding were investigated.

Results

There were no differences between groups in patient or polyp characteristics. The main antithrombotic agents were low-dose aspirin, warfarin, and clopidogrel. Propensity-score matching created 80 matched pairs. Adjusted comparisons between groups showed similar en bloc resection rates (95.1% with saline–epinephrine vs. 98.0% with hypertonic saline). There were no significant differences in adverse events (immediate EMR bleeding, post-EMR bleeding, perforation, or mortality) between groups. Multivariate analyses revealed that polyp size over 10 mm was associated with an increased risk of immediate EMR bleeding (odds ratio 12.1, 95% confidence interval 2.0–74.0; P = 0.001).

Conclusions

Two tested solutions in colorectal EMR were considered to be both safe and effective in patients taking antithrombotic agents.

Antibiotics Do Not Decrease the Rate of Infection After Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Cysts

BACKGROUND

In spite of the weak evidence, antibiotic prophylaxis prior to endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic cystic lesions is routinely used in the clinical practice.

AIMS

To compare a group of patients treated with antibiotics before fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic cystic lesions and a group who did not undergo antimicrobial prophylaxis.

METHODS

Out of 335 patients with suspected pancreatic cystic lesions referred to our center between 2006 and 2018, after propensity score matching two groups were compared: 135 subjects who underwent endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration under antibiotic prophylaxis and 135 treated with no antimicrobial agents. Primary outcome was infection rate; secondary endpoints included other complications or antibiotic-related adverse events.

RESULTS

Median age was 64 (interquartile range 61-68) and median cyst size was 24 mm (22-28), with no difference between groups. Overall, 10 adverse events (7.1%) of which 2 serious (1.4%) were observed in the antibiotic group and 8 (5.8%) of which 1 (0.7%) serious in the non-antibiotic group. Cyst infection was observed in 2 patients (1.4%) in the antibiotic group and 3 patients (2.2%) in the other cohort (p = 0.65).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic antibiotics do not seem to substantially reduce this risk of infection, and their routine use should be abandoned.

A systematic description of the post-EMR defect to identify risk factors for clinically significant post-EMR bleeding in the colon

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Clinically significant post-EMR bleeding (CSPEB) is the most-frequent serious adverse event after EMR of large laterally spreading colonic lesions (LSLs). There is no proven prophylactic therapy, and it remains a significant drawback of EMR. We aimed to systematically describe and evaluate the features of the post-EMR mucosal defect (PED) and their relationship to CSPEB.

METHODS

A prospective study of LSLs referred for EMR at a tertiary center was performed. PEDs without visible features were recorded as bland blue. Nonbland blue (NBB) PED features included size, number, and herniation of submucosal vessels and presence of submucosal hemorrhage, fibrosis, fat, and exposed muscle. NBB PEDs were analyzed for association with CSPEB, defined as bleeding occurring after completion of the procedure necessitating readmission or reintervention.

RESULTS

From April 2012 to May 2017, 501 lesions in 501 patients were eligible for analysis. The frequency of CSPEB was 30 of 501 (6.0%). More than or equal to 3 visible vessels was a significant predictor of CSPEB (P = .016). None of the following showed a significant correlation with CSPEB: presence of visible vessels, their diameter, herniation, or other nonvascular PED features. Submucosal vessels were more common in the left-sided colon segment (88.6% vs 78.3%, P = .004) and were significantly larger (20.8% vs 12.1% ≥1 mm, P = .037), more numerous (median 4 vessels [interquartile range, 2-7] vs 2 vessels [interquartile range, 1-4], P < .001), and more often herniated (32% vs 22.2%, P = .022).

CONCLUSIONS

More than or equal to 3 visible vessels within the PED may be predictive for CSPEB and may define a target group for real-time prophylactic intervention. No other endoscopically visible features of the PEDs were predictive of CSPEB. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03117400.).

Update on Difficult Polypectomy Techniques

Endoscopists often encounter colon polyps that are technically difficult to resect. These lesions traditionally were managed surgically, with significant potential morbidity and mortality. Recent advances in endoscopic techniques and instruments have allowed endoscopists to safely and effectively remove colorectal lesions with high technical and clinical success and potentially avoid invasive surgery. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has gained acceptance as the first-line therapy for large colorectal lesions. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been reported to be associated with higher rate of en bloc resection and less risk of short-time recurrence, but with an increased risk of adverse events. Therefore, the role of colorectal ESD should be restricted to lesions with high-risk morphologic features of submucosal invasion. In this article, we review the recent literature on the endoscopic management of difficult colorectal neoplasms.

Factors Associated With Recurrence of Advanced Colorectal Adenoma After Endoscopic Resection

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Studies have identified risk factors for recurrence of advanced colorectal adenoma (ACA) after polypectomy, but the relative importance and interaction of these risk factors, and their potential impact on surveillance recommendations, are unclear. We aimed to develop a model to identify ACA features associated with risk of recurrence after polypectomy.

METHODS

In a retrospective study, we collected data from 3360 patients who underwent colonoscopy with polypectomy at University of Foggia from 2004 through 2008 and identified 746 patients with 1017 ACAs. We performed recursive partitioning analysis to identify factors associated with recurrence of ACA within 3 years after polypectomy.

RESULTS

Median ACA size was 16 mm (range, 8-34 mm) and median number was 1.5 (range, 1-2). Pedunculated, sessile, and nonpolypoid lesions accounted for 41.3%, 39.4%, and 19.3% of ACAs detected, respectively. Factors independently associated with local recurrence of ACA and metachronous distant polyps within 3 years after polypectomy included size and number of ACAs and grade of dysplasia. The recurrence rate was 4.2% in patients with a single ACA ≤15 mm without high-grade dysplasia (HGD), 21.3% in patients with HGD ≤15 mm, ACA without HGD >15 mm, or multiple ACAs without HGD ≤15 mm, and 57.9% in patients with HGD >15 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective analysis of 746 patients with ACA who underwent polypectomy and surveillance colonoscopy within 3 years, the recurrence rate was highest in those with HGD ≥15 mm. These patients might benefit from more intensive surveillance, whereas patients with a single ACA without HGD ≤15 mm are at lower risk for and could be considered for longer follow-up intervals.

Development and validation of a risk score for advanced colorectal adenoma recurrence after endoscopic resection

AIM: To develop and validate a risk score for advanced colorectal adenoma (ACA) recurrence after endoscopic polypectomy.

METHODS: Out of 3360 patients who underwent colon polypectomy at University of Foggia between 2004 and 2008, data of 843 patients with 1155 ACAs was retrospectively reviewed. Surveillance intervals were scheduled by guidelines at 3 years and primary endpoint was considered 3-year ACA recurrence. Baseline clinical parameters and the main features of ACAs were entered into a Cox regression analysis and variables with P < 0.05 in the univariate analysis were then tested as candidate variables into a stepwise Cox regression model (conditional backward selection). The regression coefficients of the Cox regression model were multiplied by 2 and rounded in order to obtain easy to use point numbers facilitating the calculation of the score. To avoid overoptimistic results due to model fitting and evaluation in the same dataset, we performed an internal 10-fold cross-validation by means of bootstrap sampling.

RESULTS: Median lesion size was 16 mm (12-23) while median number of adenomas was 2.5 (1-3), whereof the number of ACAs was 1.5 (1-2). At 3 years after polypectomy, recurrence was observed in 229 ACAs (19.8%), of which 157 (13.5%) were metachronous neoplasms and 72 (6.2%) local recurrences. Multivariate analysis, after exclusion of the variable “type of resection” due to its collinearity with other predictive factors, confirmed lesion size, number of ACAs and grade of dysplasia as significantly associated to the primary outcome. The score was then built by multiplying the regression coefficients times 2 and the cut-off point 5 was selected by means of a Receiver Operating Characteristic curve analysis. In particular, 248 patients with 365 ACAs fell in the higher-risk group (score ≥ 5) where 3-year recurrence was detected in 174 ACAs (47.6%) whereas the remaining 595 patients with 690 ACAs were included in the low-risk group (score < 5) where 3-year recurrence rate was 7.9% (55/690 ACAs). Area under the curve of the model was 0.81 (0.72-0.86) with an overall classification error rate of 0.09. The model was finally validated by means of 10-fold cross validation.

CONCLUSION: Our study provides support for the use of a novel risk score as a clinical predictor of ACA recurrence after colon polypectomy.

Lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio predicts survival after radiofrequency ablation for colorectal liver metastases

AIM: To test the correlation between lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) and survival after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for colorectal liver metastasis (CLMs).

METHODS: From July 2003 to Feb 2012, 127 consecutive patients with 193 histologically-proven unresectable CLMs were treated with percutaneous RFA at the University of Foggia. All patients had undergone primary colorectal tumor resection before RFA and received systemic chemotherapy. LMR was calculated by dividing lymphocyte count by monocyte count assessed at baseline. Treatment-related toxicity was defined as any adverse events occurred within 4 wk after the procedure. Overall survival (OS) and time to recurrence (TTR) were estimated from the date of RFA by Kaplan-Meier with plots and median (95%CI). The inferential analysis for time to event data was conducted using the Cox univariate and multivariate regression model to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95%CI. Statistically significant variables from the univariate Cox analysis were considered for the multivariate models.

RESULTS: Median age was 66 years (range 38-88) and patients were prevalently male (69.2%). Median LMR was 4.38% (0.79-88) whereas median number of nodules was 2 (1-3) with a median maximum diameter of 27 mm (10-45). Median OS was 38 mo (34-53) and survival rate (SR) was 89.4%, 40.4% and 33.3% at 1, 4 and 5 years respectively in the whole cohort. Running log-rank test analysis found 3.96% as the most significant prognostic cut-off point for LMR and stratifying the study population by this LMR value median OS resulted 55 mo (37-69) in patients with LMR > 3.96% and 34 (26-39) mo in patients with LMR ≤ 3.96% (HR = 0.53, 0.34-0.85, P = 0.007). Nodule size and LMR were the only significant predictors for OS in multivariate analysis. Median TTR was 29 mo (22-35) with a recurrence-free survival (RFS) rate of 72.6%, 32.1% and 21.8% at 1, 4 and 5 years, respectively in the whole study group. Nodule size and LMR were confirmed as significant prognostic factors for TTR in multivariate Cox regression. TTR, when stratified by LMR, was 35 mo (28-57) in the group > 3.96% and 25 mo (18-30) in the group ≤ 3.96% (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION: Our study provides support for the use of LMR as a novel predictor of outcome for CLM patients.