Aihara, Hiroyuki

ObjectivesThere have been significant advances in the management of large (≥20 mm) laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) or nonpedunculated colorectal polyps; however, there is a lack of clear consensus on the management of these lesions with significant geographic variability especially between Eastern and Western paradigms. We aimed to provide an international consensus to better guide management and attempt to homogenize practices.MethodsTwo experts in interventional endoscopy spearheaded an evidence‐based Delphi study on behalf of the World Endoscopy Organization Colorectal Cancer Screening Committee. A steering committee comprising six members devised 51 statements, and 43 experts from 18 countries on six continents participated in a three‐round voting process. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations tool was used to assess evidence quality and recommendation strength. Consensus was defined as ≥80% agreement (strongly agree or agree) on a 5‐point Likert scale.ResultsForty‐two statements reached consensus after three rounds of voting. Recommendations included: three statements on training and competency; 10 statements on preresection evaluation, including optical diagnosis, classification, and staging of LSTs; 14 statements on endoscopic resection indications and technique, including statements on en bloc and piecemeal resection decision‐making; seven statements on postresection evaluation; and eight statements on postresection care.ConclusionsAn international expert consensus based on the current available evidence has been developed to guide the evaluation, resection, and follow‐up of LSTs. This may provide guiding principles for the global management of these lesions and standardize current practices.

Background Delayed bleeding is among the most common adverse events associated with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of nonampullary duodenal polyps. We evaluated the rate of delayed bleeding and complete defect closure using a novel through-the-scope (TTS) suturing system for the closure of duodenal EMR defects. Methods We reviewed the electronic medical records of patients who underwent EMR for nonampullary duodenal polyps of ≥ 10 mm and prophylactic defect closure with TTS suturing between March 2021 and May 2022 at centers in the USA. We evaluated the rates of delayed bleeding and complete defect closure. Results 36 nonconsecutive patients (61 % women; mean [SD] age, 65 [12] years) underwent EMR of ≥ 10-mm duodenal polyps followed by attempted defect closure with TTS suturing. The mean (SD) lesion size was 29 (19) mm, defect size was 37 (25) mm; eight polyps (22 %) involved > 50 % of the lumen circumference. Complete closure was achieved in all cases (78 % with TTS suturing alone), using a median of one TTS suturing kit. There were no cases of delayed bleeding and no adverse events attributed to application of the TTS suturing device. Conclusion Prophylactic closure of nonampullary duodenal EMR defects using TTS suturing resulted in a high rate of complete closure and no delayed bleeding events.

Background Complete closure of large mucosal defects following colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with through-the-scope (TTS) clips is oftentimes not possible. We aimed to report our early experience of using a novel TTS suturing system for the closure of large mucosal defects after colorectal ESD. Methods We performed a retrospective multicenter cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent attempted prophylactic defect closure using the TTS suturing system after colorectal ESD. The primary outcome was technical success in achieving complete defect closure, defined as a < 5 mm residual mucosal defect in the closure line using TTS suturing, with or without adjuvant TTS clips. Results 82 patients with a median defect size of 30 (interquartile range 25–40) mm were included. Technical success was achieved in 92.7 % (n = 76): TTS suturing only in 44 patients (53.7 %) and a combination of TTS suturing to approximate the widest segment followed by complete closure with TTS clips in 32 (39.0 %). Incomplete/partial closure, failure of appropriate TTS suture deployment, and the need for over-the-scope salvage closure methods were observed in 7.3 % (n = 6). One intraprocedural bleed, one delayed bleed, and three intraprocedural perforations were observed. There were no adverse events related to placement of the TTS suture. Conclusion The TTS suture system is an effective and safe tool for the closure of large mucosal defects after colorectal ESD and is an alternative when complete closure with TTS clips alone is not possible.

Abstract Background and study aims In patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), endoscopically visible lesions with distinct borders can be considered for endoscopic resection. The role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for these lesions is not well defined because of a paucity of data. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of colorectal ESD of dysplastic lesions in patients with IBD across centers in the United States. Patients and methods This was a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with IBD who were referred for ESD of dysplastic colorectal lesions at nine centers. The primary endpoints were the rates of en bloc resection and complete (R0) resection. The secondary endpoints were the rates of adverse events and lesion recurrence. Results A total of 45 dysplastic lesions (median size 30mm, interquartile range [IQR] 23 to 42 mm) in 41 patients were included. Submucosal fibrosis was observed in 73 %. En bloc resection was achieved in 43 of 45 lesions (96 %) and R0 resection in 34 of 45 lesions (76 %). Intraprocedural perforation occurred in one patient (2.4 %) and was treated successfully with clip placement. Delayed bleeding occurred in four patients (9.8 %). No severe intraprocedural bleeding or delayed perforation occurred. During a median follow-up of 18 months (IQR 13 to 37 months), local recurrence occurred in one case (2.6 %). Metachronous lesions were identified in 11 patients (31 %). Conclusions ESD, when performed by experts, is safe and effective for large, dysplastic colorectal lesions in patients with IBD. Despite the high prevalence of submucosal fibrosis, en bloc resection was achieved in nearly all patients with IBD undergoing ESD. Careful endoscopic surveillance is necessary to monitor for local recurrence and metachronous lesions after ESD.

Abstract Background The difference in clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for early Barrett's esophagus (BE) neoplasia remains unclear. We compared the recurrence/residual tissue rates, resection outcomes, and adverse events after ESD and EMR for early BE neoplasia. Methods We included patients who underwent EMR or ESD for BE-associated high grade dysplasia (HGD) or T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) at eight academic hospitals. We compared demographic, procedural, and histologic characteristics, and follow-up data. A time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence/residual disease and a Kaplan–Meier curve was used to compare the groups. Results 243 patients (150 EMR; 93 ESD) were included. EMR had lower en bloc (43 % vs. 89 %; P < 0.001) and R0 (56 % vs. 73 %; P = 0.01) rates than ESD. There was no difference in the rates of perforation (0.7 % vs. 0; P > 0.99), early bleeding (0.7 % vs. 1 %; P > 0.99), delayed bleeding (3.3 % vs. 2.1 %; P = 0.71), and stricture (10 % vs. 16 %; P = 0.16) between EMR and ESD. Patients with non-curative resections who underwent further therapy were excluded from the recurrence analysis. Recurrent/residual disease was 31.4 % [44/140] for EMR and 3.5 % [3/85] for ESD during a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 15.5 (6.75–30) and 8 (2–18) months, respectively. Recurrence-/residual disease-free survival was significantly higher in the ESD group. More patients required additional endoscopic resection procedures to treat recurrent/residual disease after EMR (EMR 24.2 % vs. ESD 3.5 %; P < 0.001). Conclusions ESD is safe and results in more definitive treatment of early BE neoplasia, with significantly lower recurrence/residual disease rates and less need for repeat endoscopic treatments than with EMR.

AbstractBackground and AimRecently, the BLI Adenoma Serrated International Classification (BASIC) system was developed by European experts to differentiate colorectal polyps. Our aim was to validate the BASIC classification system among the US‐based endoscopy experts.MethodsParticipants utilized a web‐based interactive learning system where the group was asked to characterize polyps using the BASIC criteria: polyp surface (presence of mucus, regular/irregular and [pseudo]depressed), pit appearance (featureless, round/non‐round with/without dark spots; homogeneous/heterogeneous distribution with/without focal loss), and vessels (present/absent, lacy, peri‐cryptal, irregular). The final testing consisted of reviewing BLI images/videos to determine whether the criteria accurately predicted the histology results. Confidence in adenoma identification (rated “1” to “5”) and agreement in polyp (adenoma vs non‐adenoma) identification and characterization per BASIC criteria were derived. Strength of interobserver agreement with kappa (k) value was reported for adenoma identification.ResultsTen endoscopy experts from the United States identified conventional adenoma (vs non‐adenoma) with 94.4% accuracy, 95.0% sensitivity, 93.8% specificity, 93.8% positive predictive value, and 94.9% negative predictive value using BASIC criteria. Overall strength of interobserver agreement was high: kappa 0.89 (0.82–0.96). Agreement for the individual criteria was as follows: surface mucus (93.8%), regularity (65.6%), type of pit (40.6%), pit visibility (66.9%), pit distribution (57%), vessel visibility (73%), and being lacy (46%) and peri‐cryptal (61%). The confidence in diagnosis was rated at high ≥4 in 67% of the cases.ConclusionsA group of US‐based endoscopy experts have validated a simple and easily reproducible BLI classification system to characterize colorectal polyps with >90% accuracy and a high level of interobserver agreement.

INTRODUCTION: While esophagectomy is the standard treatment for submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and squamous cell cancer (SCC), many elderly patients -the age group that esophageal cancer tends to affect- are not candidates for surgery. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a minimally invasive procedure that allows for en-bloc resection of early esophageal cancer and allows for precise histopathologic staging of the tumor. ESD could be curative in submucosal cancer without lymph node metastasis, and it allows for precise histopathologic staging. To evaluate the long-term outcomes of ESD in patients with EUS-staged T1b esophageal cancer. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter study was performed at three academic hospitals in the U.S. Patients who underwent ESD with a pre-procedural or post-procedural histopathologic diagnosis of T1b N0 M0 EAC or SCC were included in the study. Data was collected on demographics, tumor and procedure characteristics, procedure pathology, and follow-up. Local recurrence was confirmed by endoscopic findings and pathological analysis. Metastasis was confirmed by cross-sectional imaging. The main outcome was a composite of rate of metastasis and local recurrence. Follow-up time was defined as months from initial procedure to recurrence or last follow-up visit if recurrence-free. A time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients underwent ESD (mean age 69.6 years +/-9; 35 males) (Table 1). Based on available comorbidity data, 42% patients were not fit for surgery, as determined by an age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index > 6. Twenty tumors (62%) were found to be HGD or T1a on post-ESD specimen analysis, while one was staged as T2. Nineteen patients were staged as T1b after ESD. Immediately after ESD, 6 patients were referred for surgery, 3 underwent chemoradiation therapy, and 6 radiation alone (Table 2). Patients were followed for a median of 18 months, and the calculated 24-month recurrence rate was 13% (Figure 1). CONCLUSION: This multicenter trial showed that ESD for T1b esophageal cancer can be acceptable for patients who deemed not surgical candidates. However, close follow up is necessary. ESD can also serve as a staging procedure, as our data confirms inaccurate EUS-staging of T1b cancer, with 62% of tumors being down-staged to T1a, as has been previously reported.

INTRODUCTION: The difference in long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for Barrett’s related superficial neoplasia remains unclear. We aimed to compare the rates of local and metachronous recurrence of ESD and EMR in patients with clinically staged BE-associated high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). METHODS: Multicenter study at six academic hospitals in the U.S. including patients who underwent ESD for BE-HGD or T1a EAC. Primary outcome was a composite of metastasis and local recurrence rate. A time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence. A Kaplan-Meier plot was constructed, and a log-rank test was used to compare the groups. A Cox hazard ratio regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 241 patients were included. 154 underwent EMR, while 84 underwent ESD (Table 1). ESD had higher en bloc (96% vs 33%, P < 0.0001), R0 (76% vs 54%, P = 0.0009) and curative resection rates (75% vs 32%, P < .0001) when compared to EMR. The 24-month local recurrence rate for EMR and ESD was 43% and 11%, respectively ( P = 0.0007) (Figure 1). Significantly more endoscopic resection procedures were required to treat recurrence after EMR compared to after ESD (Table 1). EMR, piecemeal resection, positive margins, and non-curative resection were identified as predictors of recurrence on univariate analysis. En bloc resection remained significant after multivariate analysis (Table 2). CONCLUSION: This multicenter study showed that ESD results in more definitive treatment of BE-associated early neoplasia than EMR, with significant lower recurrence rates and less need for repeat endoscopic therapeutic procedures than EMR.