Search

Early Gastric Cancer (EGC) is defined as a neoplasm confined to the mucosa or submucosa regardless of regional lymph node metastasis. The rate of EGC, which varies by country, is up to 40-60% of all gastric cancer cases in Japan, whilst in Western countries, the proportion remains at 5-10%. There is a strong male predominance in EGC. The average 5-year survival rate of patients with EGC reached over 90% in Japanese and European data.Many EGC patients present with symptoms suggestive of a benign gastric ulcers. The combination of serum pepsinogen and Helicobacter pylori status may provide even more sensitive information for screening. However high-quality endoscopic evaluation with biopsy is the key to diagnosis. To improve the quality of observation several endoscopic imaging modalities have been developed for the diagnosis of early gastric cancer. Endoscopic resection is a viable alternative to surgery for curative treatment of EGC, with similar long term results. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of EGC without any risk of lymph node metastasis was developed in Japan in the 1980s, and it has been one of the standard treatments of EGC for nearly 20 years. Recently, several EMR techniques developed in Japan have been accepted and done in Western countries. These EMR techniques are safe and efficacious but unsuitable for large lesions.Because we could not remove a large lesion in 1 fragment, which was very important for the precise diagnosis of tumor depth, local recurrence increased in large-lesion cases. An innovative procedure using newly developed endoscopic knives, called endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), was developed in the late 1990s, which made it possible to remove a large lesion en bloc.Theoretically, ESD has no limitation with respect to tumor size; therefore, it is expected to replace the surgical treatment in some situations. Although ESD has spread throughout Japan within a short period, there remain several disadvantages, such as a higher incidence of complications and a requirement of higher endoscopic skills compared to those of conventional EMR methods.

Background and aims: Adequate bowel cleansing is critical to ensure quality and safety of a colonoscopy. A novel 1-L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (1L-PEG+ASC) regimen was previously validated against low-volume regimens but was never compared with high-volume regimens. Methods: In a phase IV study, patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomized 1:1 to receive split-dose 1L PEG+ASC or a split-dose 4-L PEG-based regimen (4L-PEG) in 5 Italian centers. Preparation was assessed with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) by local endoscopists and centralized reading, both blinded to the randomization arm. The primary endpoint was noninferiority of 1L-PEG+ASC in colon cleansing. Secondary endpoints were superiority of 1L-PEG+ASC, patient compliance, segmental colon cleansing, adenoma detection rate, tolerability, and safety. Results: Three hundred eighty-eight patients (median age, 59.8 years) were randomized between January 2019 and October 2019: 195 to 1L-PEG+ASC and 193 to 4L-PEG. Noninferiority of 1L-PEG+ASC was demonstrated for cleansing in both the entire colon (BBPS≥ 6: 97.9% vs 93%; relative risk [RR], 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.001-1.04; P superiority= .027) and in the right-sided colon segment (98.4% vs 96.0%; RR, 1.02; 95% CI, .99-1.02; P noninferiority= .013). Compliance was higher with 1L-PEG+ASC than with 4L-PEG (178/192 [92.7%] vs 154/190 patients [81.1%]; RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.12), whereas no difference was found regarding safety (moderate/severe side effects: 20.8% vs 25.8%; P= .253). No difference in adenoma detection rate (38.8% vs 43.0%) was found. Conclusions: One-liter PEG+ASC showed noninferiority compared with 4L-PEG in achieving adequate colon cleansing and provided a higher patient compliance. No differences in tolerability and safety were detected. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03742232.).

Background Success of colonoscopy is linked to the adequacy of bowel cleansing. Polyethylene glycol 4 L (PEG 4 L) solutions are widely used for colonic cleansing but with limitations concerning tolerability and acceptability. Aim To demonstrate the equivalence of a new low-volume PEG containing citrates and simeticone (Clensia) versus a standard PEG 4 L. Methods In this, multicentre, randomised, observer-blind trial, patients received either Clensia 2 L or PEG 4 L solution. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with colon cleansing evaluated as excellent or good. Results 422 patients received Clensia (n = 213) or PEG 4 L (n = 209). Rate of excellent/good bowel cleansing was 73.6% and 72.3% in Clensia and PEG 4 L group respectively. Clensia was demonstrated to be equivalent to PEG 4 L. No SAEs were observed. Clensia showed better gastrointestinal tolerability (37.0% vs 25.4%). The acceptability was significantly better with Clensia in terms of proportion of subjects who felt no distress (Clensia 72.8% vs PEG 4 L 63%, P = 0.0314) and willingness-to-repeat (93.9% vs 82.2%, P = 0.0002). The rate of optimal compliance was similar with both formulations (91.1% for Clensia vs 90.9% for PEG 4 L, P = 0.9388). Conclusions The low-volume Clensia is equally effective and safe in bowel cleansing compared to the standard PEG 4 L, with better gastrointestinal tolerability and acceptability.