Search

Endoscopic treatment, particularly endoscopic submucosal dissection, has become the primary treatment for early gastric cancer. A comprehensive optical assessment, including white light endoscopy, image-enhanced endoscopy, and magnification, are the cornerstones for clinical staging and determining the resectability of lesions. This paper discusses factors that influence the indication for endoscopic resection and the likelihood of achieving a curative resection. Our review stresses the critical need for interpreting the histopathological report in accordance with clinical guidelines and the imperative of tailoring decisions based on the patients' and lesions' characteristics and preferences. Moreover, we offer guidance on managing complex scenarios, such as those involving non-curative resection. Finally, we identify future research avenues, including the role of artificial intelligence in estimating the depth of invasion and the urgent need to refine predictive scores for lymph node metastasis and metachronous lesions., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Enrique Rodríguez de Santiago declares: Olympus (educational activities and advisory), Apollo Endosurgery (educational activities), Norgine (congresses fee and education activities), Adacyte Therapeuthics (advisory activities) and Casen Recordati (congresses fee). Pedro G. Delgado-Guillena declares: Sonoscape (educational activities and advisory), ST Endoscopy (educational activities and congresses fee) and Casen Recordati (congresses fee). The remaining authors declare that there is no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Anti-TNF agents are the only effective biological agents for the prevention of postoperative recurrence (POR) in Crohn's disease (CD). However, they are contraindicated or have been shown to fail in some patients. Although ustekinumab and vedolizumab were licensed for CD some years ago, data in this setting are scarce., Methods: All CD patients in whom ustekinumab or vedolizumab was prescribed for the prevention of POR within three months of ileocolonic resection with anastomosis were identified from the ENEIDA registry. The development of endoscopic, clinical and surgical POR was registered., Results: Forty patients were treated for the prevention of POR with ustekinumab and 25 were treated with vedolizumab. Eighty per cent had at least one risk factor for POR (prior resections, active smoking, perianal disease or penetrating disease behaviour). All the patients had been exposed to anti-TNF therapy. After a median follow-up of 17 and 26 months, the cumulative probability of clinical POR at 12 months after surgery was 32% and 30% for ustekinumab and vedolizumab, respectively. Endoscopic assessment within the first 18 months after surgery was available for 80% of the patients on ustekinumab and 70% for those on vedolizumab. The rate of endoscopic POR was 42% for ustekinumab and 40% for vedolizumab. One patient treated with ustekinumab and two with vedolizumab underwent a new intestinal resection., Conclusions: Ustekinumab and vedolizumab seem to be effective in the prevention of POR in patients at high risk. Our results warrant controlled trials comparing these drugs with conventional therapies., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest MM has served as a speaker, consultant and advisory member for or has received research funding from AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Faes, Takeda, Tillots; PN has served as a speaker, consultant and advisory member for or has received research funding from MSD, Abbvie, Janssen, Takeda, Roche, Sandoz, Ferring, Adacyte, Faes Farma, Kern Pharma, Pfizer, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Vifor Pharma, Chiesi and Tillots; MDM-A has served as a speaker, consultant and advisory member for or has received research funding from MSD, AbbVie, Hospira, Pfizer, Takeda, Janssen, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Tillotts Pharma, FaesPharma; MB-W has served as a speaker, consultant and advisory member for or has received research funding from MSD, Ferring, Abbvie, Janssen, Biogen and Takeda; MC has served as a speaker, consultant and advisory member for or has received research funding from MSD, Abbvie, Takeda, Jannsen, Pfizer, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, Chiesi, Ferring, Shire Pharmaceuticals and Dr. Falk Pharma; MS-A has served as a speaker, consultant and advisory member for or has received research funding from Takeda, Janssen, MSD, Abbvie, Ferring, Chiesi, Tillots and Pfizer; MBA has served as a speaker, consultant and advisory member for or has received research funding from MSD, AbbVie, Janssen, Kern Pharma, Celltrion, Takeda, Gillead, Celgene, Pfizer, Sandoz, Biogen, Fresenius, Ferring, Faes Farma, Dr. Falk Pharma, Chiesi, Gebro Pharma, Adacyte and Vifor Pharma; YZ has served as a speaker, consultant and advisory member for or has received research funding from MSD, AbbVie, Janssen, Takeda, Kern Pharma, Biogen; JPG has served as a speaker, consultant and advisory member for or has received research funding from MSD, Abbvie, Pfizer, Kern Pharma, Biogen, Mylan, Takeda, Janssen, Roche, Sandoz, Celgene, Gilead, Ferring, Faes Farma, Shire Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Falk Pharma, Tillotts Pharma, Chiesi, Casen Fleet, Gebro Pharma, Otsuka Pharmaceutical, and Vifor Pharma; JG has served as a speaker, consultant and advisory member for or has received research funding from Roche, MSD, Abbvie, Kern Pharma, Takeda, Janssen, Pfizer, Ferring, Chiesi and GE Healthcare; DB has served as a speaker, consultant and advisory member for or has received research funding from Abbvie, Janssen, Ferring, Pfizer, and Takeda; DC-D has served as a speaker, consultant and advisory member for or has received research funding from MSD, Ferring, Abbvie, Janssen, Faes Farma, Pfizer, Tillots and Takeda; SM has served as a speaker, consultant and advisory member for or has received research funding from MSD, Ferring, Abbvie, Janssen, Pfizer and Takeda; LM has served as a speaker and advisory member for or has received research funding from MSD, Takeda, Janssen, Abbvie and Pfizer; FC has served as a speaker, consultant and advisory member for or has received research funding from Takeda, Janssen, MSD, and Ferring; MC has served as a speaker, consultant and advisory member for or has received research funding from Takeda, Janssen, Faes Farma, and MSD; ED has served as a speaker, consultant and advisory member for or has received research funding from AbbVie, Adacyte Therapeutics, Celltrion, Gilead, Janssen, Kern Pharma, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Takeda, Tillots, Ferring, and Thermofisher; the remaining authors have no potential conflicts to declare., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Although esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is the standard procedure for the diagnosis of gastric cancer (GC), some GCs are missed. There are no published data on the missed rate of GC in Spain., Aims: To determine the frequency and characteristics of missed GCs and assess the quality of the EGD in a specific population with GC., Methods: Records of all patients diagnosed with gastric adenocarcinoma between 2012 and 2016 in a defined geographic area were reviewed. Missed GC was defined as a case with a prior negative EGD for cancer. Quality indicators from the prior EGDs were measured., Results: From 212 cases of GC, 25 cases were excluded. Seventeen out of 187 patients had a prior EGD (9.1%). Twelve of those 17 missed GC had a prior EGD with some abnormal findings. In 6 of them, biopsies were taken. Survival was no different between patients with missed and non-missed GC. Quality indicators that failed to meet standards were recording time, image documentation, and a protocol of biopsies., Conclusions: Missed GC in an EGD in a defined population in Spain is not uncommon (9.1%). The endoscopist is an important factor in missed GC due to lack of adequate detection and sampling error. Compliance with performance of quality indicators could reduce missed GC., (Copyright © 2019 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)