Comparative analysis of ESD versus EMR in a large European series of non-ampullary superficial duodenal tumors

Efficacy and Safety of Cold Snare Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (CS-EMR) for Nonampullary Duodenal Polyps: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

There is an increasing interest in cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR), and studies have shown its safety and efficacy for colonic polyps. This meta-analysis aims to assess the safety and efficacy of CS-EMR for the removal of duodenal adenomas.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search of several databases, from inception through February 2023, for studies that addressed outcomes of CS-EMR for nonampullary duodenal adenomas. We used the random-effects model for the statistical analysis. The weighted pooled rates were used to summarize the technical success, polyp recurrence, bleeding, and perforation events. Cochran Q test and I2 statistics adjudicated heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Six studies were included in the analysis. In all, 178 duodenal polyps were resected using CS-EMR. The pooled rates were 95.8% (95% CI 89.1-98.5%, I2 =21.5%) for technical success and 21.2% (95% CI 8.5-43.6%, I2 =78%) for polyp recurrence. With regards to CS-EMR safety, the pooled rates were 4.2% (95% CI 1.6-10.5%, I2 =12%) for immediate bleeding, 3.4% (95% CI 1.5-7.6%, I2 =0%) for delayed bleeding, 2.8% (95% CI 1.1-6.7%, I2 =0%) for perforation, and 2% (95% CL 0.5-7.5%, I2 =0%) for post-polypectomy syndrome. Rates were not significantly different for large adenomas. Three studies reported data on CS-EMR and conventional EMR. Compared with conventional EMR, CS-EMR had lower odds of delayed bleeding, OR 0.11 (CI 0.02-0.62, P value 0.012, I2 =0%).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that CS-EMR is a safe and effective strategy for the resection of nonampullary duodenal adenomas, with an acceptable recurrence rate. Data from larger randomized controlled studies are needed to validate our findings.

Clinical outcomes of the over-the-scope clip closure after duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection: A multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Prophylactic closure with the over-the-scope clip (OTSC) after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) has been reported to reduce postoperative adverse events (AEs). However, there are few evidences regarding AEs-associated factors and long-term outcomes of OTSCs.

METHODS

From January 2011 to December 2020, 139 consecutive patients with SNADETs who underwent ESD followed by OTSC closure in five institutions were extracted in this retrospective study. The primary endpoint was the rate of postoperative AEs after prophylactic OTSC closure. The secondary endpoints were the complete closure rate, residual rate, and long-term AEs associated with residual OTSCs.

RESULTS

The rate of complete closure of the mucosal defect was 97.3% (142) in 146 SNADETs, which were completely resected by ESD. Postoperative AEs, including delayed bleeding, delayed perforation, and localized peritonitis, occurred in 6.2%, 3.4%, and 2.1% of patients, respectively; however, all of the cases improved without surgical treatment. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, the use of two or more OTSCs was a significant independent risk factor for postoperative AEs (odds ratio, 2.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-8.46; P = 0.046). The residual OTSC rate was 46.4% at 1 year postoperatively, and long-term AEs included duodenal erosions and ulcers associated with residual OTSCs.

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic closure with OTSCs after duodenal ESD can provide acceptable short-and long-term outcomes for preventing postoperative AEs. However, multiple OTSCs were the independent risk factors of postoperative AEs due to the gaps between and near the OTSCs.

Efficacy and safety of precutting endoscopic mucosal resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for non-ampullary superficial duodenal lesions

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic treatments for non-ampullary superficial duodenal lesions (NASDLs) are yet to be standardized. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for NASDLs demands advanced techniques and a long procedure time to prevent perforation and bleeding. Precutting endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a technical modification of ESD that overcomes the limitations of ESD. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of precutting EMR versus ESD for NASDLs.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with NASDLs treated with either precutting EMR or ESD from January 2015 to March 2023.

RESULTS

A total of 90 patients with NASDLs were analyzed, with 44 patients in the precutting EMR group and 46 patients in the ESD group. The endoscopic procedure achieved satisfactory outcomes in both groups, with en block resection rate of 100.0 %. The R0 resection rates in the precutting EMR and ESD groups were 95.5 % and 93.5 %, respectively. No delayed perforation occurred postoperatively in either group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in age, gender, lesion location, layer of lesion origin, macroscopic type, and lesion size. The procedure time was significantly shorter in the precutting EMR group than in the ESD group (22.9 ± 7.1 min vs 36.0 ± 10.6 min, p<0.001). The intraoperative perforation rate was significantly lower in the precutting EMR group compared to ESD group (4.5% vs 19.6 %, p = 0.030).

CONCLUSIONS

Precutting EMR is comparable to ESD for NASDLs, demonstrating a lower intraoperative perforation rate and shorter procedure time compared to ESD.

Clinical course and management of adverse events after endoscopic resection of superficial duodenal epithelial tumors: Multicenter retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to elucidate the clinical course and management of adverse events (AEs) after endoscopic resection (ER) for superficial duodenal epithelial tumors (SDETs).

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent ER of SDETs between January 2008 and July 2018 at 18 Japanese institutions were retrospectively enrolled. The study outcomes included the clinical course, management, and risk of surgical conversion with perioperative AEs after ER for SDETs.

RESULTS

Of the 226 patients with AEs, the surgical conversion rate was 8.0% (18/226), including 3.7% (4/108), 1.0% (1/99), and 50.0% (12/24) of patients with intraoperative perforation, delayed bleeding, or delayed perforation, respectively. In the multivariate logistic analysis, involvement of the major papilla (odds ratio [OR] 12.788; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.098-77.961, P = 0.006) and delayed perforation (OR 37.054; 95% CI 10.219-134.366, P < 0.001) were significant risk factors for surgical conversion after AEs. Delayed bleeding occurred from postoperative days 1-14 or more, whereas delayed perforation occurred within 3 days in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The surgical conversion rate was higher for delayed perforation than those for other AEs after ER of SDETs. Involvement of the major papilla and delayed perforation were significant risk factors for surgical conversion following AEs. In addition, reliable prevention of delayed perforation is required for 3 days after duodenal ER to prevent the need for surgical interventions.

Partial duodenectomy with seromyotomy by the "lift-and-cut" method for superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors: A novel technique

INTRODUCTION

The therapeutic strategy for superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors remains controversial. We developed a novel surgical technique for superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors. We report the initial two cases managed with this method.

MATERIALS AND SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

We endoscopically confirmed the tumor location and circumferentially incised the seromuscular layer of the duodenum along it. After circumferential seromyotomy, the submucosal layer was expanded by endoscopic insufflation, and the target lesion was sufficiently lifted. The submucosal layer, including the target lesion, was stapled and resected after confirming the absence of problems with endoscopic passage. The seromuscular layer was continuously sutured to bury and reinforce the stapler line. Single-incision laparoscopic surgery was performed in one case. The resected specimens measured 52 × 32 mm and 50 × 26 mm with negative surgical margins. Both patients were discharged without complications and demonstrated no evidence of stenosis.

DISCUSSION

Compared with previously reported procedures, this method of partial duodenectomy with seromyotomy for superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors is promising, simple, and safe.

Endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors: A review

The surface of the small bowel mucosa is covered more than any other section of the digestive canal; however, the overall prevalence of small bowel tumors of the whole gastrointestinal tract is evidently low. Owing to the improvement in endoscopic techniques, the prevalence of small bowel tumors has increased across multiple countries, which is mainly due to an increase in duodenal tumors. Superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) are defined as tumors originating from the non-ampullary region in the duodenum that share similarities and discrepancies with their gastric and colorectal counterparts in the pathogenesis and clinicopathologic characteristics. To date, white light endoscopy (WLE) remains the cornerstone of endoscopic diagnosis for SNADETs. Besides, narrow-band imaging (NBI) techniques and magnifying endoscopy (ME) have been widely used in the clinic and endorsed by multiple guidelines and consensuses for SNADETs' evaluation. Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE), endocytoscopy (ECS), and artificial intelligence (AI) are also up-and-coming methods, showing an exceptional value in the diagnosis of SNADETs. Similar to the endoscopic treatment for colorectal polyps, the choices for SNADETs mainly include cold snare polypectomy (CSP), endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS). However, owing to the narrow lumen, rich vascularity, weak muscle layer, abundant Brunner's gland, and the hardship of endoscope control, the duodenum ranks as one of the most dangerous operating areas in the digestive tract. Therefore, endoscopists must anticipate the difficulties in endoscopic maneuverability, remain aware of the increased risk of complications, and then select the appropriate treatment according to the advantages and disadvantages of each method.

[Interventional endoscopy in gastroenterology]

Essential innovations in interventional endoscopy have significantly broadened the treatment armamentarium in gastroenterology. The treatment and complication management of intraepithelial neoplasms and early forms of cancer are increasingly being primarily addressed endoscopically. In cases of endoluminal lesions with no risk of lymph node or distant metastases, endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection have become established as standards. For broad-based adenomas, coagulation of the resection margins should be performed in the case of a piecemeal resection. Submucosal lesions can be reached and resected by tunneling techniques. Peroral endoscopic myotomy in cases of achalasia is a new treatment option for hypertensive and hypercontractile motility disorders. In addition, endoscopic myotomy for gastroparesis has shown very promising results. In this article, new resection techniques and so-called third space endoscopy are presented and critically discussed.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection techniques and technology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review

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

Suturing techniques with endoscopic clips and special devices after endoscopic resection

Endoscopic submucosal dissection is an established method for complete resection of large and early gastrointestinal tumors. However, methods to reduce bleeding, perforation, and other adverse events after endoscopic resection (ER) have not yet been defined. Mucosal defect closure is often performed endoscopically with a clip. Recently, reopenable clips and large-teeth clips have also been developed. The over-the-scope clip enables complete defect closure by withdrawing the endoscope once and attaching the clip. Other methods involve attaching the clip-line or a ring with an anchor to appose the edges of the mucosal defect, followed by the use of an additional clip for defect closure. Since clips are limited by their grasping force and size, other methods, such as endoloop closure, endoscopic ligation with O-ring closure, and the reopenable clip over-the-line method, have been developed. In recent years, techniques often utilized for full-thickness ER of submucosal tumors have been widely used in full-thickness defect closure. Specialized devices and techniques for defect closure have also been developed, including the curved needle and line, stitches, and an endoscopic tack and suture device. These clips and suture devices are applied for defect closure in emergency endoscopy, accidental perforations, and acute and chronic fistulas. Although endoscopic defect closure with clips has a high success rate, endoscopists need to simplify and promote endoscopic closure techniques to prevent adverse events after ER.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the Stomach and Duodenum: Techniques, Indications, and Outcomes

Gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is established for management of early gastric cancer (EGC). Diagnosis of EGC relies on adequate endoscopic assessment involving lesion size, histopathology, presence of ulceration, and depth of invasion. Absolute indications for endoscopic resection of EGC are if patients are presumed to have a less than 1% risk of lymph node metasta endoscopic submucosal dissectionsis, and long-term outcomes are similar to those with surgical gastrectomy. Duodenal ESD is more technically difficult and requires expertise in ESD in other locations.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection with retroperitoneal dissection for duodenal myogenic cyst with adjustable traction from an independently controlled snare

Video 1Endoscopic full thickness resection with retroperitoneal dissection for duodenal myogenic cyst with adjustable traction from an independently controlled snare.

Underwater Versus Conventional Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Superficial Non-ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Duodenal underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has been suggested as a feasible treatment option for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs). However, its efficacy and safety have not been fully established yet. Thus, the objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy and safety of UEMR as compared with conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR) in the treatment of SNADETs.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive literature search in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library. Studies comparing CEMR and UEMR for the resection of SNADET were included. Outcomes included en-bloc and complete resection rates, adverse events, and procedure time.

RESULTS

A total of six studies with 2454 lesions were included in the quantitative synthesis. En-bloc and complete resection rates were not significantly different between UEMR and CEMR (OR for en-bloc resection: 0.997 [95% CI 0.439-2.266]; OR for complete resection: 0.960 [95% CI 0.628-1.468]). There was no significant risk difference for perforation (risk difference: - 0.002; 95% CI - 0.009 to 0.005) or delayed bleeding (risk difference: - 0.001; 95% CI - 0.014 to 0.011). Procedure time was significantly shorter in the UEMR (standardized mean difference: - 1.294; 95% CI - 2.461 to - 0.127). The risk of recurrence was not significantly different between UEMR and CEMR (risk difference: 0.001; 95% CI - 0.041 to 0.044).

CONCLUSION

Although our results did not show any superiority of UEMR over CEMR in the treatment of SNADETs, UEMR showed equivalent efficacy and safety as compared with CEMR and was associated with a shorter procedure time.

Outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection for large superficial non-ampullary duodenal adenomas

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the recommended treatment for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors larger than 6 mm. This endoscopic technique carries a high risk of adverse events. Our aim was to identify the risk factors for adverse events following EMR for non-ampullary duodenal adenomatous lesions. We retrospectively analyzed a prospectively collected database of consecutive endoscopic resections for duodenal lesions at a tertiary referral center for therapeutic endoscopy. We analyzed patients with non-ampullary duodenal adenomatous lesions ≥ 10 mm resected by EMR, and searched for factors associated with adverse events after EMR. 167 duodenal adenomatous lesions, with a median size of 25 (25–40) mm, were resected by EMR between January 2015 and December 2020. Adverse events occurred in 37/167 (22.2%) after endoscopic resection, with 29/167 (17.4%) delayed bleeding, 4/167 (2.4%) immediate perforation and 4/167 (2.4%) delayed perforation. In logistic regression, the size of the lesion was the only associated risk factor of adverse events (OR = 2.81, 95% CI [1.27; 6.47], p = 0.012). Adverse events increased mean hospitalization time (7.7 ± 9 vs. 1.9 ± 1 days, p < 0.01). None of the currently recommended preventive methods, particularly clips, affected the adverse event rate. EMR of centimetric and supracentimetric duodenal adenomatous lesions carries a high risk of adverse events, increasing with the size of the lesion and with no benefit from any preventive method. These results suggest that these procedures should be performed in expert centers, and underline the need for novel endoscopic tools to limit the rate of adverse events.

Prospective multicenter study of the efficacy and safety of cold forceps polypectomy for ≤ 6-mm non-ampullary duodenal low-grade adenomas

Background and study aims  Because the endoscopic treatment for non-ampullary duodenal adenoma (NADA) has a non-negligible risk of adverse events (AEs), a safe and easy treatment for NADA is desirable. This was a multicenter prospective trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of cold forceps polypectomy (CFP) for diminutive NADAs. Patients and methods  This study was prospectively conducted at six general hospitals and one university hospital. The inclusion criteria were histologic and endoscopic diagnosis of low-grade NADA measuring ≤ 6 mm. A second endoscopy was scheduled for 1 month after CFP. After confirmation of the success of CFP, 6-month and 12-month surveillance endoscopies were scheduled. The primary endpoint was the endoscopic and histologic disease disappearance rates at the 12-month endoscopy. Results  Thirty-nine lesions from 38 patients were prospectively included. Median tumor size at enrollment was 5 mm (range 3-6 mm). There were four cases of remnant lesions at the second endoscopy, and the lesion disappearance rate of single CFP was 89.7 % (35 /39; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 76.9 %-97.9 %). In three cases, complete removal of the lesion was achieved with a single re-CFP, but one case required four repeat CFPs. The lesion disappearance rate at 12-month endoscopy was 97.4 % (38 /39; 95 %CI, 86.8 %-99.5 %). During the follow-up period, no AEs related to CFP were observed. Conclusions  CFP for NADA ≤ 6 mm was safe and effective in this study. This common endoscopic method to remove lesions may be an option for treatment of diminutive NADAs.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal lesions: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022

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

Clinical Efficacy of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for the Treatment of Duodenal Lesions in Terms of Operative Technique and Management of Complications

Background and Aims: Duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been considered to be the most challenging because of its high incidence of complications, which has hindered the development of duodenal ESD. The aim of this study is to discuss operation tips for duodenal ESD and to assess the efficacy and safety of duodenal ESD. Patients and Methods: Eighty-two patients who underwent ESD in the digestive endoscope center for superficial duodenal epithelial tumors (SDETs) from January 2017 to June 2021 were studied. Patients were divided into three groups according to the occurrence of complications, and the clinical characteristics and surgical efficacy of each group were compared. Results: SDETs in 82 patients were completely removed by ESD, with a 97.5% R0 resection rate. The average size of resected lesions was 23.8 ± 6.5 mm. There were significant differences in lesion size and operation time between the normal and intraprocedural complication groups (P < .05). Similarly, between the normal and delayed complication groups, significant differences were noted in lesion location, size, operation time, occupied circumference, and postoperative hospitalization duration (P < .05). Conclusion: Duodenal ESD is prone to complications that increase the complexity of the procedure. By improving the necessary technique and skills, duodenal ESD remains safe and effective.

Polypectomy, Endoscopic Mucosal Resection, and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the Cirrhotic Population

Endoscopic mucosal resection and dissection are advanced endoscopic procedures that have proven essential for resecting premalignant and early malignant lesions throughout the gastrointestinal tract. Over time, these procedures have proven to play a key role in avoiding more invasive surgical approaches and thus decrease overall mortality. However, the success of these procedures does come with a slightly increased risk of adverse events such as bleeding and perforation. In this article, we review the literature for reported adverse events, specifically in the cirrhotic population. This article also discusses experts' opinions on approaches taken to perform these procedures with acceptable risks.

Safety and feasibility of laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery for duodenal neoplasm: a retrospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

A delayed perforation can often occur after endoscopic treatment for duodenal neoplasms and may be fatal due to leakage of pancreatic and bile juices. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery for duodenal neoplasms (D-LECS) in a multicenter, retrospective study.

METHODS

The clinical characteristics and surgical outcomes of 206 patients with duodenal neoplasms in whom D-LECS had initially been attempted at one of 14 institutions were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Of the 206 patients, 63 (30.6 %), 128 (62.1 %), and 15 patients (7.3 %) had lesions at the bulb, second portion, and third portion of the duodenum, respectively. The rates of en bloc and R0 resections during D-LECS were 96.1 % and 95.1 %, respectively. Intraoperative and delayed perforations occurred in 10 (4.9 %) and 5 patients (2.4 %), respectively. No cases of recurrence were observed. Surgical duration of ≥ 180 minutes was an independent risk factor for postoperative complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The results revealed that D-LECS was performed with oncological safety and technical feasibility.

Low recurrence rate after endoscopic resection in non-ampullary duodenal lesions: A 16-year single-center retrospective study

Endoscopic resection (ER) for non-ampullary duodenal lesions (NADLs) is technically more difficult than lesions of the stomach. However, endoscopic treatment of duodenal lesions has been increasingly performed in recent years. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ER for NADLs.Patients who underwent ER for NADLs between 2004 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical and pathologic features of the lesions including the clinical outcomes and adverse events were analyzed.The study included 80 patients with NADLs. The mean age of patients was 59.3 years (22-80 years), the mean size of the lesion was 8.8 ± 7.0 mm, and the mean procedure time was 13.2 ± 11.2 min. Half (40/80) of the lesions were in the duodenal bulb including the superior duodenal angle. Final histological data showed 56 adenomas (70.5%), 13 Brunner gland tumors (16.2%), and 4 pyloric gland tumors (5.0%). The final diagnoses of 5 lesions after ER showed higher-grade dysplasia compared to pre-ER biopsy findings. The en bloc resection rate was 93.8% (75/80), and the complete resection rate with clear margins was 90.0% (72/80). Micro-perforation occurred in 2 of 80 patients and was successfully treated with conservative treatment. There were no cases of delayed bleeding. The mean follow-up period was 27.0 months (2-119 months) with no cases of recurrence.ER may be an effective treatment for NADLs with favorable long-term outcomes. However, the possibility of perforation complications should always be considered during ER.

Endoscopic management of superficial nonampullary duodenal tumors: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends that all duodenal adenomas should be considered for endoscopic resection as progression to invasive carcinoma is highly likely.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends performance of a colonoscopy, if that has not yet been done, in cases of duodenal adenoma.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends the use of the cap-assisted method when the location of the minor and/or major papilla and their relationship to a duodenal adenoma is not clearly established during forward-viewing endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends the routine use of a side-viewing endoscope when a laterally spreading adenoma with extension to the minor and/or major papilla is suspected.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests cold snare polypectomy for small (< 6 mm in size) nonmalignant duodenal adenomas.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) as the first-line endoscopic resection technique for nonmalignant large nonampullary duodenal adenomas.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends that endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for duodenal adenomas is an effective resection technique only in expert hands.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE recommends using techniques that minimize adverse events such as immediate or delayed bleeding or perforation. These may include piecemeal resection, defect closure techniques, noncontact hemostasis, and other emerging techniques, and these should be considered on a case-by-case basis.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends endoscopic surveillance 3 months after the index treatment. In cases of no recurrence, a further follow-up endoscopy should be done 1 year later. Thereafter, surveillance intervals should be adapted to the lesion site, en bloc resection status, and initial histological result. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Endoscopic Treatment for Superficial Nonampullary Duodenal Tumors

Superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors are considered rare but have been increasingly recognized in recent years. Accordingly, the importance of endoscopic treatment for the lesions are also increasing. An endoscopic resection can be considered for duodenal adenoma and mucosal cancer. The choice of resection method should be made based on the size of the lesion, endoscopic findings, pathologic diagnosis, and risk of procedure-related complication. For small adenomas <10 mm in size, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), cold snare polypectomy, and underwater EMR can be considered. An en bloc or piecemeal resection using EMR or underwater EMR can be selected for 10-20 mm sized adenomas. For lesions ≥20 mm in size or suspicious for mucosal cancer, an endoscopic submucosal dissection followed by closure of the mucosal defect conducted by an experienced endoscopist is appropriate.

Risk factors of delayed bleeding after endoscopic resection of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors and prevention by over-the-scope and conventional clipping

OBJECTIVES

This study was aimed to reveal risk factors for delayed bleeding after endoscopic resection (ER) of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) and at exploring measures to prevent this complication.

METHODS

A total of 235 consecutive patients with 249 SNADETs who had undergone ER were enrolled in this study. They were divided into two groups: OTSC group, consisting of the initial 114 cases in which the defects were closed only using OTSCs; and OTSC-c group, consisting of the later 135 cases in which conventional clips were additionally used to cover the inverted submucosa after post-procedure defect closure using OTSCs. The therapeutic outcomes were then compared between the OTSC and OTSC-c groups.

RESULTS

All lesions were successfully resected en-bloc, and the R0 resection rate was 92.4%. The complete defect closure rate was 90.0% and no delayed perforation occurred when successful defect closure was achieved. The rate of delayed bleeding was significantly higher in the OTSC group than in OTSC-c group (11.4% vs. 1.5%, P = 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that tumor location distal to the ampulla (OR 10.0; 95% CI 1.24-81.0, P = 0.03) and use of a DOAC (OR 8.83; 95% CI 1.13-68.7, P = 0.04) were significant independent predictors of delayed bleeding. Propensity score-matching analysis revealed that additional use of conventional clips was associated with a significantly reduced risk of delayed bleeding (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Additional use of conventional clips after prophylactic defect closure using OTSCs appears to be useful to reduce the risk of delayed bleeding after ER of SNADETs. UMIN Clinical Trials (No. 000035478).

Simple scoring system for the diagnosis of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Differentiating superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) that harbor malignant potential is important. We developed a simple scoring system and investigated whether it enables the differentiation of low-grade adenoma and high-grade adenoma/adenocarcinoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled 197 consecutive patients with 207 SNADETs who underwent endoscopic resection at NTT Medical Center Tokyo between March 2016 and May 2019. Endoscopic findings were compared between Vienna Classification (VCL) C3 and C4/5 lesions. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to develop a scoring system to identify VCL C4/5 lesions. The efficacy of our scoring system was elucidated among five novice and five expert endoscopists.

RESULTS

Of 207 SNADETs, 66 and 141 lesions were pathologically diagnosed as VCL C3 and C4/5. A multivariate logistic regression analysis identified a tumor diameter of 10-19 mm (OR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.02-14.2; P = 0.04), a tumor diameter ≥20 mm (OR, 95.2; 95% CI, 10.4-871.0; P < 0.001), a red color (OR, 14.5; 95% CI, 3.55-59.6; P < 0.001), the presence of irregular surface pattern (OR, 12.4; 95% CI, 3.00-51.4; P < 0.001), and the presence of irregular vessel pattern (OR, 13.7; 95% CI, 4.03-46.6; P < 0.001) as independent significant predictors of VCL C4/5. Considering these results, we developed a scoring system. Using an appropriate cutoff value, the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity were calculated as 92%, 95% and 93%. The average diagnostic accuracy did not differ between novice and expert endoscopists (86% vs 87%, P = 0.76).

CONCLUSIONS

Our scoring system was useful for differentiating VCL C3 and C4/5 lesions. UMIN Clinical Trials (No. 000039063).

The Use of Endoscopic Clipping in Preventing Delayed Complications after Endoscopic Resection for Superficial Non-Ampullary Duodenal Tumors

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic resection (ER) has recently been accepted as the standard treatment modality for superficial nonampullary duodenal tumors (SNADTs). However, the procedure can cause adverse events such as perforation and bleeding. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of prophylactic clipping in the prevention of delayed complications.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the medical records of patients who underwent ER for SNADT from 3 centers was performed. Patients were divided into 2 groups: the immediate clipping group (ICG) and the no clipping group (NCG). Various baseline characteristics and factors associated with the appearance of delayed complications, such as size of the lesion, tumor location, histologic type, and co-morbidities, were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 99 lesions from 99 patients were included in this study. Fifty-two patients were allocated into ICG and 47 patients were allocated into NCG. Delayed bleeding occurred in 1 patient from ICG and in 8 patients from NCG. Delayed perforation occurred in 1 patient from ICG and in 3 patients from NCG. There were no procedure-related deaths in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Although the use of endoscopic clipping seemed to reduce the risk of developing delayed complications, further studies using a prospective design is required.

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.

Endoscopic mucosal resection vs endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal tumors

BACKGROUND

The selection of endoscopic treatments for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) is controversial.

AIM

To compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for SNADETs.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients with SNADETs from a database of endoscopic treatment for SNADETs, which included eight hospitals in Fukuoka, Japan, between April 2001 and October 2017. A total of 142 patients with SNADETs treated with EMR or ESD were analyzed. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for the differences in the patient characteristics between the two groups. We analyzed the treatment outcomes, including the rates of en bloc/complete resection, procedure time, adverse event rate, hospital stay, and local or metastatic recurrence.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight pairs of patients were created. The characteristics of patients between the two groups were similar after matching. The EMR group had a significantly shorter procedure time and hospital stay than those of the ESD group [median procedure time (interquartile range): 6 (3-10.75) min vs 87.5 (68.5-136.5) min, P < 0.001, hospital stay: 8 (6-10.75) d vs 11 (8.25-14.75) d, P = 0.006]. Other outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups (en bloc resection rate: 82.1% vs 92.9%, P = 0.42; complete resection rate: 71.4% vs 89.3%, P = 0.18; and adverse event rate: 3.6% vs 17.9%, P = 0.19, local recurrence rate: 3.6% vs 0%, P = 1; metastatic recurrence rate: 0% in both). Only one patient in the ESD group underwent emergency surgery owing to intraoperative perforation.

CONCLUSION

EMR has significantly shorter procedure time and hospital stay than ESD, and provides acceptable curability and safety compared to ESD. Accordingly, EMR for SNADETs is associated with lower medical costs.

[Interventional endoscopy in the gastrointestinal tract : Indications and limitations]

The spectrum of endoscopic techniques has been greatly enlarged in recent years. Lesions and also (iatrogenic) complications that required surgical procedures in the past can now often be treated endoscopically. Advances in endoscopic mucosal resection and submucosal dissection also enable the resection of large or laterally spreading polyps in the gastrointestinal tract. Full-thickness resection is also possible by means of specially designed clips. By the creation of a submucosal tunnel submucosal lesions can be completely excised and the muscle fibers of the lower esophageal sphincter can be endoscopically severed in achalasia patients. Endosonography-guided interventions have developed into the standard procedure for complicated pancreatitis and the use of cholangioscopy offers new therapeutic procedures for the bile and pancreatic ducts. In this continuing medical education article interventional endoscopic techniques are presented and critically evaluated.

EMR/ESD: Techniques, Complications, and Evidence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss endoscopic resection techniques of early gastrointestinal malignancy. The review will focus on the indications and outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

RECENT FINDINGS

EMR is indicated for upper GI lesions less than 20 mm provided they can be easily lifted and have a low risk of submucosal invasion (SMI). ESD should be considered for esophageal and gastric lesions that are bulky, show intramucosal carcinoma, or have a risk of superficial submucosal invasion. With regard to colonic polyps, EMR is acceptable for the removal of large colonic polyps using a piecemeal technique. ESD can be reserved for rectal neuroendocrine tumors, fibrotic polyps, or polyps harboring early malignancy. In selected cases, particularly in lesions less than 2 cm in size, EMR can be safe and effective. For larger lesions or lesions with submucosal invasion, ESD is effective and curative. Choosing the best approach can be tailored for each patient depending on lesion size, pathology, and availability of local expertise.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of endoscopy in familial adenomatous polyposis syndromes

Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) syndrome is a complex entity, which includes FAP, attenuated FAP, and MUTYH-associated polyposis. These patients are at significant risk for colorectal cancer and carry additional risks for extracolonic malignancies. In this guideline, we reviewed the most recent literature to formulate recommendations on the role of endoscopy in this patient population. Relevant clinical questions were how to identify high-risk individuals warranting genetic testing, when to start screening examinations, what are appropriate surveillance intervals, how to identify endoscopically high-risk features, and what is the role of chemoprevention. A systematic literature search from 2005 to 2018 was performed, in addition to the inclusion of seminal historical studies. Most studies were from worldwide registries, which have compiled years of data regarding the natural history and cancer risks in this cohort. Given that most studies were retrospective, recommendations were based on epidemiologic data and expert opinion. Management of colorectal polyps in FAP has not changed much in recent years, as colectomy in FAP is the standard of care. What is new, however, is the developing body of literature on the role of endoscopy in managing upper GI and small-bowel polyposis, as patients are living longer and improved endoscopic technologies have emerged.

Pathologic Evaluation of Endoscopically Resected Non-Ampullary Duodenal Lesions: A Single Center Experience

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic resections are increasingly being used for superficial gastrointestinal lesions. However, application of these techniques in the duodenum remains challenging, due to the technical difficulties and high complication rates. This study projects a western tertiary center's experience in the endoscopic treatment and diagnostic workup of 19 cases of non-ampullary duodenal lesions.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Specimens (12 endoscopic mucosal resections, 6 endoscopic submucosal dissections, and one endoscopic full-thickness resection) were processed following a strict protocol (photographed, mapped digitally and submitted totally) for histopathologic examination. Clinicopathologic characteristics, margin status and follow-up information were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 16 patients was 52 years (range: 22-81). Mean lesion size was 1.4 cm (range: 0.3-3.6 cm) for all cases, 2 cm for endoscopic submucosal dissections and 1.1 cm for endoscopic mucosal resections. Mean number of blocks submitted was 4/case. Seven neuroendocrine tumors, 3 tubulovillous adenomas were diagnosed along with nine benign lesions. For endoscopic submucosal dissections, en-bloc and R0 resection rates were 100% (n=6/6) and 83% (n=5/6); for endoscopic mucosal resections, they were 92% (n=11/12) and 83% (n=10/12), respectively. Only one patient had procedure-related late perforation that was managed endoscopically. No mortality was encountered.

CONCLUSION

Duodenal endoscopic resections proved successful, safe and feasible methods in a tertiary center. The pathologist's role is to designate the accurate diagnosis, related histopathologic parameters and margin status. The gross protocol was found to be essential in evaluating specimen margins and orientation, as well as in size measurement. We recommend following a standardized approach including gross photography and digital mapping when handling these specimens, for both diagnostic and data collection purposes.