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

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.

Can underwater endoscopic mucosal resection be an alternative to conventional endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors?

Objectives

Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a simpler procedure for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADET) than conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (cEMR). This study aimed to evaluate whether cEMR can be substituted by UEMR for SNADET in terms of effectiveness, safety, and learning curve.

Methods

A total of 157 consecutive patients with 203 SNADETs ≤20 mm in diameter, including 107 lesions resected by cEMR and 96 lesions resected by UEMR, between January 2019 and May 2023, were retrospectively recruited. The treatment outcomes were compared between the cEMR and UEMR groups. The risk factors for incomplete resection by UEMR were analyzed using univariate and multivariate analyses. Lesions in the UEMR group were divided chronologically into five periods; thereafter, the en bloc resection rate and procedure time were compared.

Results

No significant differences existed between the cEMR and UEMR groups in the mean procedure time (3.9 min vs. 3.6 min, p = 0.1380) or en bloc resection rate (91% vs. 94%, p = 0.4138). No perforation was observed in either group. Tumor size was an independent risk factor for incomplete resection using UEMR (p < 0.01). The history of biopsy was not associated with incomplete resection using UEMR. The en bloc resection rate of UEMR was 100% (20/20) in the first period and ranged from 90% to 100% over all periods.

Conclusion

UEMR is safe and effective for SNADET ≤20 mm, regardless of a history of biopsy, and is easy to learn. Thus, UEMR can serve as an alternative to cEMR.

Safety of Duodenal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Superficial Non-Ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumor: A Single-Center Study in the United States

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) is associated with a high rate of en bloc resection and low rate of recurrence. However, in the United States, SNADETs are predominantly managed using endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or surgery because the feasibility and safety of duodenal ESD have not yet been established. In this study, we analyzed the outcomes of duodenal ESD for SNADETs. This single-center retrospective study reviewed the data of patients who underwent ESD for SNADETs between June 2018 and August 2023. Baseline patient characteristics, histopathology of the resected lesions, adverse events, and recurrence rates were evaluated. The primary outcome measures were en bloc resection, complications, and recurrence rate. Thirty ESD procedures were performed on 24 patients. All 30 lesions were adenomas, with no cancerous lesions. The en bloc resection rate and R0 resection rates were both 53%. There were no cases of procedure-associated perforation. Post-ESD bleeding was observed in six cases. No ESD-related mortality was observed. The recurrence rate was 14% in 1 year follow up, and 28% the during all follow-up period. ESD is a safe option for SNADET in the United States; however further comparative studies are necessary to determine the optimal procedure for North American populations.

Efficacy of self-assembling peptide in mitigating delayed bleeding after advanced endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal lesions: A meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Advanced endoscopic resection techniques carry a risk of delayed bleeding (DB). A novel fully synthetic self-assembling peptide (SAP) has shown promising results in mitigating this risk. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated all available data and analyzed the effectiveness of SAP in reducing DB after advanced endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal luminal lesions. Patients and methods  Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library) from January 2010 through October 2022 were searched for publications addressing the use of SAP solution in patients undergoing advanced endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal lesions. Pooled proportions were calculated using fixed (inverse variance) and random-effects (DerSimonian-Laird) models. Results  The initial search identified 277 studies, of which 63 relevant articles were reviewed. The final analysis included data from six studies comprising 307 patients that met inclusion criteria. The pooled rate of DB was 5.73 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] = 3.42-8.59). Mean patient age was 69.40 years ± 1.82. The weighted mean size of resected lesions was 36.20 mm (95 % CI = 33.37-39.02). Endoscopic submucosal dissection was used in 72.69 % (95 % CI = 67.62-77.48), while endoscopic mucosal resection was used in 26.42 % (95 % CI = 21.69-31.44) of the procedures. Among the 307 patients, 36 % were on antithrombotic medications. No adverse events (AEs) were attributable to using SAP, with a pooled rate of 0.00 % (95 % CI = 0.00-1.49). Conclusions  SAP solution appears promising in reducing post-procedural DB after advanced endoscopic resection of high-risk gastrointestinal lesions with no reported AEs.

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 for Large Duodenal Laterally Spreading Lesions is Feasible: A Multi-Center Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the effect and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for large laterally spreading lesions located in the descending duodenum based on multi-center experiences.

METHODS

This multicentric retrospective study included 3 hospitals in China. Fifty-one patients with laterally spreading lesions of the duodenum who underwent ESD between February 2019 and December 2020 were enrolled. The en bloc resection rates, en bloc R0 resection rates, complication rates, and local recurrence after ESD were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 51 patients, the median age was 62 years old (ranging from 37 to 76 years old); among them, 29 were male and 22 were female. The average lesion size was 2.3 cm (ranging from 1.5 to 4.0 cm). All 51 lesions achieved en bloc R0 resection successfully, with the procedure time ranging from 20 to 117 min (median: 45.5 min). The hospital length of stay ranged from 4 to 90 days (median: 8.0 d). Two patients experienced delayed bleeding 3 days after ESD and 2 other patients were diagnosed with delayed perforation. Tumor residual and local recurrence did not occur during a short follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD for laterally spreading lesions of the descending duodenum is feasible.

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.

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.

Advanced Endoscopic Resection Techniques in Cirrhosis-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Outcomes

BACKGROUND/AIMS

While safety and effectiveness of advanced endoscopic resection techniques such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been well established in general population, data regarding their utility in patients with cirrhosis is limited.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases from inception through July 2021 to identify studies that reported on outcomes of EMR and/or ESD in patients with cirrhosis. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled rates of immediate and delayed bleeding, perforation, death as well as rates of successful en bloc and R0 resection. Pooled relative risk (RR) was calculated for each outcome between patients with and without cirrhosis.

RESULTS

Ten studies with a total of 3244 patients were included in the final analysis. Pooled rates of immediate & delayed bleeding, perforation, and death during EMR and/or ESD in patients with cirrhosis were 9.5% (CI 4.0-21.1), 6.6% (CI 4.2-10.3), 2.1% (CI 1.1-3.9) and 0.6% (CI 0.2-1.7), respectively. Pooled rates of successful en bloc and R0 resection were 93% (CI 85.9-96.7) and 90.8% (CI 86.5-93.8), respectively. While incidence of immediate bleeding was higher in patients with cirrhosis, there was no statistically significant difference in any of the other outcomes between the patient groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that performing EMR and ESD for gastrointestinal lesions in patients with cirrhosis is both safe and effective. The risks of procedural complications parallel those reported in general population.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Minimally invasive management of large duodenal lipoma: endoscopic submucosal dissection

Objective

This study was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of large duodenal lipomas (DLs) of ≥2 cm between endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR).

Methods

This retrospective study included patients who underwent endoscopic resection of large DLs from June 2017 to March 2021 at our hospital. Clinicopathologic features, clinical outcomes, and follow-up endoscopy findings were retrospectively reviewed.

Results

Twenty-three patients (12 men) with a mean age of 57.4 years were included. The median tumor size was 28.4 ± 13.3 mm. ESD was performed in 19 patients, and EFTR was performed in 4. Complete resection was achieved in 21 patients. The operative time and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the ESD than EFTR group. Four patients in the EFTR group developed a fever; no other adverse events occurred. No patients required surgical intervention. During the average follow-up of 21.1 months, no residual tumor, recurrence, or metastasis was observed.

Conclusion

Both ESD and EFTR provide minimally invasive, localized treatment of selected DLs. ESD might have some advantages in resecting large DLs in terms of procedure time and hospitalization.

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.

Endoscopic Suturing for the Prevention and Treatment of Complications Associated with Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Duodenal Adenomas

Background/Aims

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is the primary treatment for duodenal adenomas; however, it is associated with a high risk of perforation and bleeding, especially with larger lesions. The goal of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of endoscopic suturing (ES) for the closure of mucosal defects after duodenal EMR.

Methods

Consecutive adult patients who underwent ES of large mucosal defects after EMR of large (>2 cm) duodenal adenomas were retrospectively enrolled. The OverStitch ES system was employed for closing mucosal defects after EMR. Clinical outcomes and complications, including delayed bleeding and perforation, were documented.

Results

During the study period, ES of mucosal defects was performed in seven patients in eight sessions (six for prophylaxis and two for the treatment of perforation). All ES sessions were technically successful. No early or delayed post-EMR bleeding was recorded. In addition, no clinically obvious duodenal stricture or recurrence was encountered on endoscopic follow-up evaluation, and no patients required subsequent surgical intervention.

Conclusions

ES for the prevention and treatment of duodenal perforation after EMR is technically feasible, safe, and effective. ES should be considered an option for preventing or treating perforations associated with EMR of large duodenal adenomas.

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).

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.

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.

Efficacy and safety of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

Superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADET) are increasingly found during upper endoscopy. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is an emerging technique for the endoscopic resection of SNADET. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this technique.

Methods:

We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases from inception to August 2019, which included Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, Ovid MEDLINE^®, and In-Process and other non-indexed citations. The primary outcome assessed was the pooled clinical success rate of UEMR. Secondary outcomes included rate of en bloc resection, pooled rate of high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal carcinoma (HGIC), and pooled rate of adverse events. Meta-regression analysis was performed based on tumor size.

Results:

A total of 8 study arms were included for analysis with UEMR performed in a total of 258 lesions. The pooled clinical success rate was 89.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 83.4-94.1). En-bloc removal was achieved in 84.6% of treated lesions (95%CI 75.5-90.7). The pooled rate of HGIC was 24.7% (95%CI 10.3-48.3). The pooled rate of adverse events was 6.9% (95%CI 2.5-17.9). This included 10 total adverse events, with the majority being self-limited delayed bleeding. There were no duodenal perforations.

Conclusions:

UEMR for endoscopic resection of SNADET has a high efficacy. In addition, this technique has a high rate of en bloc resection and an acceptable adverse event profile. Given these data, UEMR should be considered as a method for endoscopic resection of SNADET.

Clinical outcomes of endoscopic resection for non-ampullary duodenal laterally spreading tumors

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Non-ampullary duodenal laterally spreading tumors (NAD-LSTs) mimic the morphological features and natural history of colorectal LSTs, even achieving a large size but lacking invasive behavior; thus, they are suited for endoscopic resection (ER). At present, the endoscopic therapeutic approach in NAD-LSTs has not been clearly established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ER for NAD-LSTs and to evaluate the risk factors for delayed perforation after ER of NAD-LSTs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 54 patients with 54 NAD-LSTs treated with ER at the Chinese PLA General Hospital between January 2007 and January 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Data on patient demographic, clinicopathological characteristics of the lesions, outcomes of ER, and results of follow-up endoscopies were collected.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) lesion size was 26.9 mm (8.5). Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) was performed in 21 lesions, and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was performed in 33 lesions. R0 resection was achieved in 93.9% of the ESD group and 38.1% of the EMR group (p = 0.000). Delayed bleeding was noted in two patients. Delayed perforation was identified in four patients. The incidence of delayed perforation showed a significant association with post-ampullary tumor location (p = 0.030). Follow-up endoscopy was performed in all cases with a mean (SD) period of 22.1 months (8.2), and local recurrence was identified in four cases after piecemeal EMR.

CONCLUSIONS

ER of NAD-LSTs is a feasible and less invasive treatment. However, ER of NAD-LSTs is associated with serious adverse events such as delayed perforation, especially in patients with lesions located distal to Vater's ampulla.

Haemostasis and prevention of bleeding related to ER: The role of a novel self-assembling peptide

Background

Endoscopic resection is now commonly used for removal of early gastrointestinal lesions. However, the risk of the procedure may be heightened by intraprocedural or delayed bleeding. A novel, self-assembling peptide (PuraStat®) was recently licensed for use as a haemostat.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of this haemostat when used to control intraprocedural bleeding or to prevent delayed bleeding in endoscopic resection.

Methods

PuraStat® was used on 100 patients undergoing endoscopic resection in a tertiary referral centre. The efficacy, safety, feasibility of use and delayed bleeding rates were measured.

Results

Forty-eight oesophageal, 31 colorectal, 11 gastric and 10 duodenal procedures were included. The mean lesion size was 3.7 cm and 30% of the patients were on antithrombotic therapy. Intraprocedural bleeding occurred in 64%. PuraStat® was an effective haemostat in 75% of these cases. Only a small amount was required for haemostasis (mean = 1.76 ml) and it took on average 69.5 seconds to stop a bleed. The delayed bleeding rate was 3%.

Conclusions

PuraStat® is an effective haemostat for use in controlling bleeds during endoscopic resection. It is safe, easy to use and did not interfere with the procedure.

Endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of superficial non-ampullary duodenal tumors

The diagnostic and treatment guidelines of superficial non-ampullary duodenal tumors have not been standardized due to their low prevalence. Previous reports suggested that a superficial adenocarcinoma (SAC) should be treated via local resection because of its low risk of lymph node metastasis, whereas a high-grade adenoma (HGA) should be resected because of its high risk of progression to adenocarcinoma. Therefore, pretreatment diagnosis of SAC or HGA is important to determine the appropriate treatment strategy. There are certain endoscopic features known to be associated with SAC or HGA, and current practice prioritizes the endoscopic and biopsy diagnosis of these conditions. Surgical treatment of these duodenal lesions is often related to high risk of morbidity, and therefore endoscopic resection has become increasingly common in recent years. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are the commonly performed endoscopic resection methods. EMR is preferred due to its lower risk of adverse events; however, it has a higher risk of recurrence than ESD. Recently, a new and safer endoscopic procedure that reduces adverse events from EMR or ESD has been reported.

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

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

The choice of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in non-ampullary superficial duodenal tumors (NASDTs) is challenging and the benefits of ESD remain unclear. The aim was to comparatively analyze the feasibility, outcomes and safety of these techniques in these lesions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 This is an observational and retrospective study. All consecutive patients presenting with NASDTs who underwent EMR or ESD between 2005 and 2017 were included. The following main outcomes were comparatively evaluated: en-bloc and complete (R0) resection rates, and local recurrence. Secondary outcomes were perforation and delayed bleeding.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-six tumors in 150 patients (age: 66 years, range: 31 - 83, 42.7 % males) were resected by ESD (n = 37) or EMR (n = 129) and included. The median procedure time (81 vs. 50 min, P  = 0.007) and tumor size (25 vs. 20 mm, P  = 0.01) were higher in the ESD group. The global malignancy rate was 50.3 %. There were no differences in en-bloc resection (29.7 % vs. 44.2 %, P  = 0.115), complete resection (19.4 % vs. 35.5 %, P  = 0.069), and local recurrence (14.7 % vs. 16.7 %, P  = 0.788) rates. Tumor size was associated with recurrence (28 vs. 20 mm, P  = 0.008), with a median follow-up of 6.5 months. Focal recurrence (n = 22, 13.3 %) was treated endoscopically in 86.4 %. En-bloc resection in the ESD group was comparable in large ( ≥ 20 mm) and small lesions (27.6 % vs. 37.5 %, P  = 0.587), while this outcome decreased significantly in large lesions resected by EMR (17.4 % vs. 75 %, P  < 0.001). Nine perforations were confirmed in 6 lesions (16.2 %) resected by ESD and 3 (2.3 %) by EMR ( P  = 0.001). Endoscopic therapy was successful in all but 1 patient (88.9 %) presenting with a delayed perforation.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD may be an alternative to EMR and surgery in selected NASDTs, such as large duodenal tumors where EMR achieves low en-bloc resection rates and the local recurrence may be higher. However, this technique may have a higher risk of perforations.

ESD versus EMR in non-ampullary superficial duodenal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been developed as an option for treatment of esophageal, gastric and colorectal lesions. However, there is no consensus on the role of ESD in duodenal tumors.

METHODS

 This systematic review and meta-analysis compared ESD and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in sporadic non-ampullary superficial duodenal tumors (NASDTs), including local experience. We conducted a search in PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane library up to August 2017 to identify studies that compared both techniques reporting at least one main outcome (en-bloc/complete resection, local recurrence). Pooled outcomes were calculated under fixed and random-effect models. Subgroup analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

 A total of 753 patients presenting with 784 NASDTs (242 ESD, 542 EMR) in 14 studies were included. Tumor size (MD: 5.88, [CI95 %: 2.15, 9.62], P  = 0.002, I 2  = 79 %) and procedure time (MD: 65.65, [CI95 %: 40.39, 90.92], P  < 0.00001, I 2  = 88 %) were greater in the ESD group. En-bloc resection rate was significantly higher in Asian studies (OR: 2.16 [CI95 %: 1.15, 4.08], P  = 0.02, I 2 : 46 %). ESD provided a higher complete resection rate (OR: 1.63 [I95 %: 1.06, 2.50], P  = 0.03, I 2 : 59 %), but there was no risk difference in the risk of local recurrence (RD: - 0.03 [CI95 %: - 0.07, 0.01], P  = 0.15, I 2 : 0 %) or delayed bleeding. ESD was associated with an increased number of intraoperative perforations [RD: 0.12 (CI95 %: 0.04, 0.20), P  = 0.002, I 2 : 56 %] and emergency surgery for delayed perforations. The inclusion of eligible studies was limited to retrospective series with inequalities in comparative groups.

CONCLUSIONS

 Duodenal ESD for NASDTs may achieve higher en-bloc and complete resections at the expense of a greater perforation rate compared to EMR. The impact on local recurrence remains uncertain.

Management of duodenal polyps

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

Recent Advances in Endoscopy

In this narrative review, invited by the Editors of Gastroenterology, we summarize recent advances in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy. We have chosen articles published primarily in the past 2-3 years. Although a thorough literature review was performed for each topic, the nature of the article is subjective and systematic and is based on the authors' experience and expertise regarding articles we believed were most likely to be of high clinical and scientific importance.