Complication risk despite preventive endoscopic measures in patients undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection of large duodenal adenomas

Outcomes of cold snare EMR of nonampullary duodenal adenomas ≥1 cm: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with use of electrocautery (conventional EMR) has historically been used to remove large duodenal adenomas; however, use of electrocautery can predispose to adverse events including delayed bleeding and perforation. Cold snare EMR (cs-EMR) has been shown to be safe and effective for removal of colon polyps, but data regarding its use in the duodenum are limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of cs-EMR for nonampullary duodenal adenomas ≥1 cm.

METHODS

This was a multicenter retrospective study of patients with nonampullary duodenal adenomas ≥1 cm who underwent cs-EMR from October 2014 to May 2023. Patients who received any form of thermal therapy were excluded. Primary outcomes were technical success and rate of recurrent adenoma. Secondary outcomes were adverse events and predictors of recurrence.

RESULTS

A total of 125 patients underwent resection of 127 nonampullary duodenal adenomas with cs-EMR. Follow-up data were available in 89 cases (70.1%). The recurrent adenoma rate was 31.5% (n = 28). Adverse events occurred in 3.9% (n = 5), with 4 cases of immediate bleeding (3.1%) and 1 case of delayed bleeding (.8%). There were no cases of perforation. The presence of high-grade dysplasia was found to be an independent predictor of recurrence (odds ratio, 10.9 [95% confidence interval, 1.1-102.1]; P = .036).

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective multicenter study demonstrates that cs-EMR for nonampullary duodenal adenomas is safe and technically feasible with an acceptable recurrence rate. Future prospective studies are needed to directly compare outcomes of cs-EMR with conventional and underwater EMR.

Safety of cold resection of non-ampullary duodenal polyps: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims Endoscopic resection has traditionally involved electrosurgical cautery (hot snare) to resect premalignant polyps. Recent data have suggested superior safety of cold resection. We aimed to assess the safety of cold compared with traditional (hot) resection for non-ampullary duodenal polyps. Methods We performed a systematic review ending in September 2022. The primary outcome of interest was the adverse event (AE) rate for cold compared with hot polyp resection. We reported odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Secondary outcomes included rates of polyp recurrence and post-polypectomy syndrome. We assessed publication bias with the classic fail-safe test and used forest plots to report pooled effect estimates. We assessed heterogeneity using I 2 index. Results Our systematic review identified 1,215 unique citations. Eight of these met inclusion criteria, seven of which were published manuscripts and one of which was a recent meeting abstract. On random effect modeling, cold resection was associated with significantly lower odds of delayed bleeding compared with hot resection. The difference in the odds of perforation (odds ratio [OR] 0.31 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.05-2.87], P =0.2, I 2 =0) and polyp recurrence (OR 0.75 [95% CI 0.15-3.73], P =0.72, I 2 =0) between hot and cold resection was not statistically significant. There were no cases of post-polypectomy syndrome reported with either hot or cold techniques. Conclusions Cold resection is associated with lower odds of delayed bleeding compared with hot resection for duodenal tumors. There was a trend toward higher odds of perforation and recurrence following hot resection, but this trend was not statistically significant.

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

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) is established as the primary treatment modality for superficial nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs), but recently underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (U-EMR) has emerged as a potential alternative. The majority of previous studies focused on Asian populations and small lesions (≤20 mm). We aimed to compare the efficacy and outcomes of U-EMR vs C-EMR for SNADETs in a Western setting.

METHODS

This was a retrospective multinational study from 10 European centers that performed both C-EMR and U-EMR between January 2013 and July 2023. The main outcomes were the technical success, procedure-related adverse events (AEs), and the residual/recurrent adenoma (RRA) rate, evaluated on a per-lesion basis. We assessed the association between the type of endoscopic mucosal resection and the occurrence of AEs or RRAs using mixed-effects logistic regression models (propensity scores). Sensitivity analyses were performed for lesions ≤20 mm or >20 mm.

RESULTS

A total of 290 SNADETs submitted to endoscopic resection during the study period met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed (C-EMR: n = 201, 69.3%; U-EMR: n = 89, 30.7%). The overall technical success rate was 95.5% and comparable between groups. In logistic regression models, compared with U-EMR, C-EMR was associated with a significantly higher frequency of overall delayed AEs (odds ratio [OR], 4.95; 95% CI, 2.87-8.53), postprocedural bleeding (OR, 7.92; 95% CI, 3.95-15.89), and RRAs (OR, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.49-5.37). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these results when solely considering either small (≤20 mm) or large (>20 mm) lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with C-EMR, U-EMR was associated with a lower rate of overall AEs and RRAs, regardless of lesion size. Our results confirm the possible role of U-EMR as an effective and safe technique in the management of SNADETs.

Cold-snare endoscopic resection of non-ampullary duodenal adenomas: Systematic review and pooled-analysis

BACKGROUND

Mirroring the experience with colonic resections, cold snare-based techniques have been recently proposed for non-ampullary duodenal lesions to reduce the risk of adverse events (AEs). As the duodenal wall is thinner and more vascularized than in the colon, electrocautery-related AEs are relevant issues in this setting.

AIMS

We performed a systematic review with pooled-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this technique.

METHODS

Electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, EMBASE) were searched up to January 2023. Full articles including patients with duodenal lesions resected by cold-snare technique were eligible. The adverse events (i.e., bleeding, perforation, stricture), complete resection, and recurrence rates were pooled using a random model.

RESULTS

Eleven studies were eligible, providing data on 3137 lesions removed from 233 patients. The overall AE rate for cold snaring was 0.25% (95% CI, 0.19%-0.69%). Among the three studies comparing cold- and hot-snare approaches, procedure-related bleeding rate was significantly lower with cold approach (OR 1.21, 0.51-2.85; p = 0.66). The complete resection rate was 99.40% (95% CI, 98.60%-100%), with a residual/recurrence rate of 12.95% (95% CI, 4.75%-21.16%). On univariate meta-regression, lesion size significantly affected both the adverse events and recurrence risk.

CONCLUSION

Cold-snare resection appears effective and extremely safe for resecting non-ampullary duodenal lesions.

Duodenal duplication cyst at the second part of the duodenum with congenital duodenal position anomaly completely resected by laparoscopic partial duodenectomy: a case report

BACKGROUND

Duodenal duplication cysts (DDC) are rare duplications of the alimentary tract. Their treatment depends on their size and location. A radical treatment is total resection, if possible. However, partial excision, puncture, and marsupialization can be selected to prevent surgical injury to the pancreaticobiliary tract despite the risk of recurrence. There are some reports of pancreaticoduodenectomy for DDC because of the risk of recurrent symptoms and malignancy. However, this is considered excessively invasive for DDC, particularly in pediatric cases, because of its extremely low rate of malignancy and high morbidity and mortality rates. We encountered a case of DDC with a congenital duodenal position anomaly occurring in the second part of the duodenum. Taking advantage of the congenital duodenal position anomaly, the DDC was completely resected without injuring the pancreaticobiliary duct.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 6-year-old boy was diagnosed with a duodenal duplication cyst with obstruction. There was a congenital duodenal position anomaly. The distal second part of the duodenum was the dorsal side of the proximal second part of the duodenum and ascended upward from the proximal second part of the duodenum. The third and fourth parts of the duodenum ran downward to the left and posterior parts of the portal vein, forming the ligament of Treitz. Complete laparoscopic resection of the duodenal duplication cyst and the second to fourth parts of the duodenum, and duodenojejunostomy with retrocolic reconstruction was performed because the duodenum was easily mobilized to the ligament of Treitz owing to the duodenal position anomaly. The duodenojejunostomy with retrocolic reconstruction achieved a more physiologically normal appearance compared to what would have been achieved with a Roux-en-Y reconstruction. The patient was discharged on postoperative day 12 without any complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The procedure used in this case might not be easily applied in all laparoscopy cases. However, it could be an option for duodenal duplication cysts with congenital duodenal position anomalies.

Bleeding after endoscopic papillectomy and its risk factors: A single center experience of 196 cases

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) is an effective method to remove an ampulla of Vater (AoV) adenoma with minimal invasiveness. We reviewed the clinical outcomes and prognosis of patients undergoing EP, including tumor recurrence and adverse events.

METHODS

A total of 196 patients who underwent EP from January 2004 to December 2017 were included. Clinical information was collected through electronic medical records, and risk factors to predict post-procedural bleeding were analyzed using a multivariate logistic regression model.

RESULTS

A total of 93.9% patients (184/196) underwent complete resection. During the follow-up period, 14.7% patients (27/184) experienced tumor recurrence, and two of seven surgically resected tumors were malignant. A total of 45.4% patients (89/196) experienced adverse events related to EP. Delayed bleeding occurred in 16.3% of the patients (32/196), and they were all successfully treated with endoscopic hemostasis and conservative management. The most frequent site of delayed bleeding was the distal end of the papillary orifice, and 56.2% (18/32) patients of delayed bleeding were classified as having mild severity, the others had moderate severity. Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) [odds ratio (OR) = 3.80, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-14.29; P < 0.05] and male sex (OR = 2.82, 95% CI: 1.04-7.63; P = 0.04) showed statistical significance in predicting delayed post-EP bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

EP for AoV adenoma was a highly effective and safe procedure. The risk of post-EP delayed bleeding was increased in patients with FAP syndrome and male patients, and post-EP bleeding occurred most commonly in the distal part of the AoV.

Cold snare resection for non-ampullary sporadic duodenal adenomas: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims The role of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) in curative resection of non-ampullary sporadic duodenal adenomas (NASDA) is debated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of CSP for NASDA. Patients and methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we identified published series of patients with CSP for NASDA by searching PubMed and Google Scholar, which resulted in six papers (205 lesions). The main outcome was the rate of local remission after repeated CSP, the secondary outcomes were rates of local remission at first control and rates for delayed bleeding and immediate perforations. We computed the weighted summary proportions under the fixed and random effects model. Results The pooled proportion of local remission after repeated CSP was 88% (95% confidence interval [CI] 57%-100%). The pooled proportion of local remission at first control was 81% (95% CI 55%-98%), the pooled proportion of delayed bleeding was 1% (95% CI 0%-4%) and the pooled proportion of immediate perforation was 0% (95% CI 0%-2%). Conclusions Our meta-analysis suggests that CSP should be considered as the first-line therapy for NASDA.

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.

Endoscopic resection of non-ampullary duodenal adenomas: Is cold snaring the promised land?

Due to the high risk of morbidity and mortality associated with surgical resection in this tract, endoscopic resection (ER) has taken the place of surgical resection as the first line treatment for non-ampullary duodenal adenomas. However, due to the anatomical characteristics of this area, which enhance the risk of post-ER problems, ER in the duodenum is particularly difficult. Due to a lack of data, no ER technique for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumours (SNADETs) has yet been backed by strong, high-quality evidence; yet, traditional hot snare-based techniques are still regarded as the standard treatment. Despite having a favourable efficiency profile, adverse events during duodenal hot snare polypectomy (HSP) and hot endoscopic mucosal resection, such as delayed bleeding and perforation, have been reported to be frequent. These events are primarily caused by electrocautery-induced damage. Thus, ER techniques with a better safety profile are needed to overcome these shortcomings. Cold snare polypectomy, which has already been shown as a safer, equally effective procedure compared to HSP for treatment of small colorectal polyps, is being increasingly evaluated as a potential therapeutic option for non-ampullary duodenal adenomas. The aim of this review is to report and discuss the early outcomes of the first experiences with cold snaring for SNADETs.

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.

Closure of large mucosal defects for prevention of strictures after duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although lesions occupying a large circumference are associated with the risk of post-endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) strictures, the corresponding data for duodenal lesions are unknown. We aimed to analyze the incidence of post-ESD strictures after wide-field duodenal ESD.

METHODS

In this retrospective study of duodenal lesions treated with ESD between July 2010 and August 2021, we included lesions that resulted in mucosal defects occupying more than half of the circumference and excluded lesions located in bulbs and involving Vater's papilla. We analyzed the incidence rates of stricture and luminal narrowing, in addition to bleeding and perforation as the outcomes in this study. Stricture was defined as the inability of the endoscope to pass through the lumen. A single endoscopist reviewed all endoscopic images and judged the degree of luminal narrowing.

RESULTS

Eighty lesions were included, of which 2 involved mucosal defects occupying more than 90% of the circumference. The wound was closed, at least partially, in 90% in all lesions and in 86% of lesions with a mucosal defect occupying more than 75% of the circumference. None of the lesions caused delayed perforation and stricture, whereas 2 lesions caused delayed bleeding. Only 6 lesions caused luminal narrowing. When examined by the degree of closure, the rate of luminal narrowing increased with complete closure, incomplete closure, and nonclosure (4.9%, 9.1%, and 25.0%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Suturing may prevent post-ESD bleeding and perforation as well as stricture formation in cases of duodenal tumors, with mucosal defects occupying a large circumference.

Endoscopic therapy of sporadic non-ampullary duodenal adenomas, single centre retrospective analysis

INTRODUCTION

Although sporadic non-ampullary duodenal adenomas (SNADA) are rare, with the risk of progression to cancer, they deserve therapy. Endoscopic therapy of SNADA is effective, but with the increased risk of complications, endotherapy should be performed in high-volume units. The results of endotherapy of SNADA in our unit are presented.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 97 patients with SNADA had endoscopic resection in 2005-2021 and control endoscopies between 3 and 24 months. Snare polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic band ligation (EBL) and endoloop were used (en bloc 37% and piecemeal 63%). In cases of residual/recurrent adenomas, endotherapy was repeated.

RESULTS

The median size of the adenoma was 12 (5-60) mm and most polyps were sessile (25%) or flat (65%). Primary endotherapy eradicated adenomas in 57 (59%) cases. Residual and recurrence rates were 24% (n = 23) and 17% (n = 16) with successful endotherapy in 16 (70%) and 13 (81%) patients. Endotherapy was successful in 86 (89%) patients after a median (range) follow-up of 23 (1-166) months. Four out of 11 patients with failed endotherapy had surgery; seven patients were not fit for surgery. There were no disease-specific deaths or carcinoma. Eleven patients (11%) suffered from complications: perforation requiring surgery (n = 1), sepsis (n = 1), postprocedure bleeding (n = 7), cardiac arrest (n = 1) and coronary infarct (n = 1). The thirty-day mortality was zero. Colonoscopy was performed on 67 (69%) patients with neoplastic lesions in 33% patients during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Endotherapy of SNADA is effective and safe. Repeat endotherapy in residual and recurrent adenomas is successful. Careful patient selection is mandatory. Abbreviations: ASA: American Society of Anesthesiologist classification; BMI: body mass index; CT: computed tomography; EBL: endoscopic band ligation; EMR: endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD: endoscopic submucosal dissection; ET: endotherapy; FAP: familial adenomatous polyposis; F: female; LST: laterally spreading tumours; M: male; SD: standard deviation; SNADA: sporadic nonampullary duodenal adenoma.

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.

Analysis of risk factors for post-endoscopic papillectomy bleeding

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) is an effective treatment for ampullary lesions but technically challenging because of anatomical specificities concerning the high rate of adverse events. Bleeding is one of the most feared complications and can be potentially life-threatening.

AIM

To study the risk factors for bleeding after EP are presented with the goal of establishing preventive measures.

METHODS

A total of 173 consecutive patients with ampullary lesions undergone EP from January 2006 to October 2020 were enrolled in this study. They were divided into a bleeding group and a non-bleeding group depending on whether postoperative bleeding occurred. Related factors were analyzed by univariate and multivariate logistics regression.

RESULTS

Postoperative bleeding was experienced in 33 patients (19.07%). Multivariate analysis also identified intraoperative bleeding (OR: 4.38, 95% CI: 1.87-11.15, p = .001) and endoscopic closure (OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.10-0.58, p = .001) as independent factors significantly associated with bleeding after EP. Lesion size (≥3 cm) was shown as an independent factor significantly associated with intraoperative bleeding (OR: 4.25, 95% CI: 1.21-16.44, p = .028).

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective evaluation found that endoscopic closure was associated with reduced risk and intraoperative bleeding with increased risk of bleeding after EP. Lesion size may indirectly influence the risk of postoperative bleeding by increasing the risk of intraoperative bleeding.

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.

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.

Nonrecurrence Rate of Underwater EMR for ≤20-mm Nonampullary Duodenal Adenomas: A Multicenter Prospective Study (D-UEMR Study)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic resection of nonampullary duodenal adenoma is often challenging, and its technique has not yet been standardized. To overcome the practical difficulty of conventional endoscopic mucosal resection, underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) was recently developed; therefore, we investigated the effectiveness and safety of UEMR for nonampullary duodenal adenoma.

METHODS

A multicenter, prospective cohort study was conducted at 21 institutions in Japan. We enrolled patients with no more than 2 nonampullary duodenal adenomas ≤20 mm in size, who were planned to undergo UEMR. After UEMR, follow-up endoscopies were scheduled at 2 and 12 months after the procedure, and biopsy specimens were taken from the post-UEMR scars. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with histologically proven nonrecurrence at follow-up endoscopy and biopsy.

RESULTS

A total of 155 patients with 166 lesions underwent UEMR. One patient with a non-neoplastic lesion in the resected specimen and 10 patients with 10 lesions who were lost to follow-up were excluded. Finally, 144 patients with 155 lesions who received all follow-up endoscopies were analyzed for the primary endpoint. The proportion of patients with proven nonrecurrence was 97.2% (n = 140 of 144; 95% confidence interval, 92.8%-99.1%) which exceeded the predefined threshold value (92%). Two cases of delayed bleeding (1.2%) occurred and they were successfully managed by clips. All recurrences were successfully treated by additional endoscopic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This multicenter, prospective cohort study demonstrated effectiveness and safety of UEMR for nonampullary duodenal adenomas ≤20 mm in size. (University Hospital Medical Network Clinical Trials Registry, Number: UMIN000030414).

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.

Endoscopic resection of a large polypoid gastric heterotopia of duodenum: a case report

This report shows a rare case of gastric heterotopia in the duodenum presented as a large polypoid lesion, differently from data reported in literature, which enters into differential diagnosis with other duodenal lesions that are not always benign.

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 mucosal resection of sporadic duodenal nonampullary adenoma: outcomes of 130 patients with a long-term follow up in two tertiary French centers

Background

The long-term outcomes and safety of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of sporadic duodenal adenoma (SDA), and the management of adverse events need to be confirmed.

Methods

A bicentric retrospective study was performed including all patients who underwent EMR for SDAs from 2003-2016. The primary aim was to evaluate the efficiency of EMR for SDA. The secondary objectives were to assess safety, recurrence management, predictive factors for treatment success, and adverse events.

Results

One hundred thirty patients (134 procedures) were included (median age 65 years, 49.3% male). The mean SDA size was 20.7 (range 5-50) mm. Of the SDAs, 58.2% were category 3 of the Vienna classification, 35.8% were category 4, and 5.9% were category 5. The median follow up was 25.0 (range 2-120) months. Complete mucosal resection was achieved for 129/134 lesions (96.2%), with en bloc resection in 59/134 (44%). Recurrence occurred in 28.6% of cases (30/105 procedures). Recurrence was successfully treated by new endoscopic procedures in 72.2% (13/18) and by surgery in 27.8% (5/18). Delayed bleeding occurred in 13.4% of cases (18/134) and was successfully managed endoscopically. The perforation rate was 3.7% (5/134); perforations were managed without surgery in 60% (3/5 patients) of cases.

Conclusions

Endoscopic treatment of SDA appears to be effective and relatively safe in tertiary centers. All bleeding complications were endoscopically controlled, and perforation was rare. Recurrence was frequent but could be managed endoscopically. EMR is confirmed as a first-line treatment in cases of SDA, and surgery is useful only if repeated EMRs fail.