Citations

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.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is standard of care for T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, data on outcomes in high-risk T1a EAC are limited. We assessed and compared outcomes after EET of low-risk and high-risk T1a EAC, including intraluminal EAC recurrence, extraesophageal metastases, and overall survival. METHODS: Patients who underwent EET for T1a EAC at 3 referral Barrett's esophagus endotherapy units between 1996 and 2022 were included. Patients with submucosal invasion, positive deep margins, or metastases at initial diagnosis were excluded. High-risk T1a EAC was defined as T1a EAC with poor differentiation and/or lymphovascular invasion, with low-risk disease being defined without these features. All pathology was systematically assessed by expert gastrointestinal pathologists. Baseline and follow-up endoscopy and pathology data were abstracted. Time-to-event analyses were performed to compare outcomes between groups. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-eight patients with T1a EAC were included (high risk, n = 45; low risk, n = 143) with a median age of 70 years, and 84% were men. Groups were comparable for age, sex, Barrett's esophagus length, lesion size, and EET technique. Rates of delayed extraesophageal metastases (11.1% vs 1.4%) were significantly higher in the high-risk group ( P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the rates of intraluminal EAC recurrence ( P = 0.79) and overall survival ( P = 0.73) between the 2 groups. DISCUSSION: Patients with high-risk T1a EAC undergoing successful EET had a substantially higher rate of extraesophageal metastases compared with those with low-risk T1a EAC on long-term follow-up. These data should be factored into discussions with patients while selecting treatment approaches. Additional prospective data in this area are critical.

Abstract Data from germline testing in unselected patients with hepatobiliary cancers are limited. Identification of germline predisposition can have important implications on cancer treatment and family counseling. To determine prevalence of pathogenic germline variants (PGV) in patients with hepatobiliary cancer, we undertook a prospective multi-site study of germline sequencing using a >80-gene next-generation sequencing platform among patients with hepatobiliary cancers receiving care at Mayo Clinic Cancer Centers between April 1, 2018 and March 31, 2020. Patients were not selected on the basis of stage, family cancer history, ethnicity, or age. Family cascade testing was offered at no cost. Of 205 patients, the median age was 65 years, 58.5% were male, 81% were White, and 64.4% had cholangiocarcinoma, 21.5% hepatocellular carcinoma, 7.8% gallbladder cancer, and 4.3% carcinoma of ampulla of Vater. PGV were found in 15.6% (n = 32) of patients, including 23 (71%) in moderate and high penetrance cancer susceptibility genes. A total of 75% of patients with a positive result would not have been detected using guidelines for genetic evaluation. Prevalence of PGV was 15.7% in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, 17% in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, 15.9% in hepatocellular cancer, and 33% in carcinoma of ampulla of Vater. On the basis of these genetic findings, 55% were potentially eligible for approved precision therapy and/or clinical treatment trials. Universal multi-gene panel testing in hepatobiliary cancers was associated with detection of heritable mutations in over 15% of patients most of whom would not have been tested using current guidelines. Germline testing should be considered in all patients with hepatobiliary cancers. Prevention Relevance: Universal multi-gene testing in hepatobiliary cancers was associated with heritable mutations in over 15% of patients, most of whom would not have been tested using current guidelines. 55% were potentially eligible for approved precision therapy and/or clinical treatment trials. Germline testing should be considered in all patients with hepatobiliary cancers.

INTRODUCTION: To report the prevalence and outcomes of unselected pancreatic cancer (PC) patients with pathogenic/likely pathogenic germline variants (PGVs) detected using a universal testing approach. METHODS: We undertook a prospective, multisite study of germline sequencing using a >80 gene next-generation sequencing platform among 250 patients with PC (not selected for age or family history of cancer) between April 1, 2018, and March 31, 2020. Demographic, tumor characteristics, and clinical outcomes were compared between PGV carriers and noncarriers. RESULTS: Of 250 patients, the mean age was 65 years (SD 8.7), 56% was male, 83.6% was White, and 65.6% had advanced disease (stages III and IV). PGVs were found in 15.2% (N = 38) of patients, and 2 patients had more than 1 PGV. Variants of uncertain significance were found in 44.4% (N = 111). Family history of cancer (odds ratio: 2.36, 95% confidence interval: 1.14–5.19, P = 0.025) was associated with a higher risk of PGV. In a median follow-up of 16.5 months, the median overall survival was 16.8 months in PGV carriers compared with 16.5 months in noncarriers (hazard ratio: 0.51, 95% confidence interval: 0.25–1.01, P = 0.05). Higher levels of carbohydrate antigen 19-9 and advanced disease stages (III and IV) were associated with worse outcomes in both groups. Overall, 68% of PGV carriers had mutations in homologous recombination repair genes, including BRCA1 , BRCA2 , PALB2 , ATM , CHEK2 , NBN , and RAD51C . DISCUSSION: Universal multigene panel testing in PC reveals that 1 in 6 patients are carriers of PGV. Multigene germline testing should be used to aid in treatment selection, prognostication, and familial cancer counseling.

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.