Search

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide and its global incidence is rapidly increasing among adults younger than 50 years, especially in the 20-39 age group. Once a curative resection is achieved, surveillance is mandatory. Colonoscopy has a pivotal role aimed at resecting pre-malignant neoplasms and detecting cancer at a curable stage. In the current review, an update on the role of surveillance colonoscopy after CRC is provided, taken into account the most recent international guidelines and evidence published on this issue. In particular, several questions have been answered, why, how and how often colonoscopy should be performed, whether intensive surveillance is more effective than standard surveillance, how endoscopically resected T1 cancer should be followed, the different management existing between colon and rectal cancer, and, finally, how to improve the endoscopic surveillance. In a period of resource constraints, appropriateness will be mandatory, thus understanding how to optimize the role of colonoscopy in the surveillance of patients with a history of CRC is of crucial importance. Improving the quality of colonoscopy and identifying risk factors for recurrent and new-onset CRC, will allow us to individualize the surveillance program while sparing health care cost.

Background Patients with prior colon cancer have increased risk of metachronous colorectal neoplasms; therefore, endoscopic surveillance is indicated. Current recommendations are not risk-stratified. We investigated predictive factors for colorectal neoplasms to build a model to spare colonoscopies for low-risk patients. Methods This was a multicenter, retrospective study including patients who underwent surgery for colon cancer in 2001 – 2008 (derivation cohort) and 2009 – 2013 (validation cohort). A predictive model for neoplasm occurrence at second surveillance colonoscopy was developed and validated. Results 421 and 203 patients were included in derivation and validation cohort, respectively. At second surveillance colonoscopy, 112 (26.6 %) and 55 (27.1 %) patients had metachronous neoplasms in derivation and validation groups; three cancers were detected in the latter. History of left-sided colon cancer (OR 1.64, 95 %CI 1.02 – 2.64), ≥ 1 advanced adenoma at index colonoscopy (OR 1.90, 95 %CI 1.05 – 3.43), and ≥ 1 adenoma at first surveillance colonoscopy (OR 2.06, 95 %CI 1.29 – 3.27) were independently predictive of metachronous colorectal neoplasms at second surveillance colonoscopy. For patients without such risk factors, diagnostic accuracy parameters were: 89.3 % (95 %CI 82.0 %-94.3 %) and 78.2 % (95 %CI 65.0 %-88.2 %) sensitivity, and 28.5 % (95 %CI 23.5 %-33.9 %) and 33.8 % (95 %CI 26.2 %-42.0 %) specificity in derivation and validation group, respectively. No cancer would be missed. Conclusions Patients with prior left-sided colon cancer or ≥ 1 advanced adenoma at index colonoscopy or ≥ 1 adenoma at first surveillance colonoscopy had a significantly higher risk of neoplasms at second surveillance colonoscopy; patients without such factors had much lower risk and could safely skip the second surveillance colonoscopy. A prospective, multicenter validation study is needed.

Main recommendations Malignant disease 1 ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) for palliation of malignant dysphagia over laser therapy, photodynamic therapy, and esophageal bypass.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends brachytherapy as a valid alternative, alone or in addition to stenting, in esophageal cancer patients with malignant dysphagia and expected longer life expectancy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends esophageal SEMS placement for sealing malignant tracheoesophageal or bronchoesophageal fistulas. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 ESGE does not recommend SEMS placement as a bridge to surgery or before preoperative chemoradiotherapy because it is associated with a high incidence of adverse events. Other options such as feeding tube placement are preferable. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. Benign disease 5 ESGE recommends against the use of SEMSs as first-line therapy for the management of benign esophageal strictures because of the potential for adverse events, the availability of alternative therapies, and their cost. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 6 ESGE suggests consideration of temporary placement of self-expandable stents for refractory benign esophageal strictures. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7 ESGE suggests that fully covered SEMSs be preferred over partially covered SEMSs for the treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures because of their very low risk of embedment and ease of removability. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE recommends the stent-in-stent technique to remove partially covered SEMSs that are embedded in the esophageal wall. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9 ESGE recommends that temporary stent placement can be considered for the treatment of leaks, fistulas, and perforations. No specific type of stent can be recommended, and the duration of stenting should be individualized. Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 10 ESGE recommends considering placement of a fully covered large-diameter SEMS for the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding refractory to medical, endoscopic, and/or radiological therapy, or as initial therapy for patients with massive bleeding. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

Objective patients presenting with melena and nondiagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy are usually investigated with colonoscopy and if negative, with small bowel capsule endoscopy. In this pilot study, we tested feasibility and performance of panenteric capsule endoscopy (PCE) in patients presenting with melena and negative esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Methods Between January and December 2018, consecutive patients presenting with melena, clinically significant bleeding and negative esophagogastroduodenoscopy were invited to undergo PCE by swallowing PillCam Colon 2 (Medtronic Inc., Dublin, Ireland). PCE results, further diagnostic or therapeutic examinations, rebleeding rates at 30 days and 12 months were recorded. Results Out of 128 patients with melena, 23 had negative esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Of them, 12 (8 female, mean age 76 years) underwent PCE, which allowed complete small bowel and colonic evaluation in 12 (100%) and 11 (91.7%) patients, respectively. The small bowel and colon cleansing were adequate in 100 and 83.3%, respectively. No PCE-related complications were observed. The PCE diagnostic yield was 83.3%: significant findings were located in the small bowel, colon or both in 5 (41.7%), 4 (33.3%) and 1 (8.3%) patients, respectively. Device-assisted enteroscopy was performed in 6 (50%) patients. Thirty days and 1 year rebleeding rates were 0 and 18.1%, respectively. Conclusions In this proof-of-concept study, PCE was feasible and safe in patients with melena and negative esophagogastroduodenoscopy, identifying the bleeding site in 83% of patients. PCE lead to small bowel therapeutic interventions in 50% of patients, thus avoiding unnecessary standard colonoscopy. Further large prospective randomized studies investigating this strategy are warranted.

Given the increasing prevalence and incidence of colorectal cancer, more patients will suffer from colonic obstruction and therefore need appropriate treatment. Currently, patients can undergo either emergency surgery (ES), which encompasses colostomy, or endoscopic self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement. However, ES carries a substantial risk of morbidity and mortality; therefore, attention has been increasingly drawn on the endoscopic placement of SEMS. SEMS can be inserted under endoscopic and/or fluoroscopic view. Main adverse events encompass stent failure, perforation, migration, and re-obstruction. As a bridge to surgery, SEMS placement is controversial due to concern on long-term oncological outcomes. However, recent studies have shown a similar survival rate as compared to surgery, when stenting is carried out in highly experienced centers. In the palliative setting, SEMS placement is contraindicated in patients treated or planned to be treated with bevacizumab or other antiangiogenic drugs. Nevertheless, we will discuss the existing evidence showing conflicting results. In summary, this review will focus on the technique of SEMS insertion, indications, outcomes, and adverse events, both as a bridge-to-surgery strategy and in the palliative setting, disserting the most recent evidence.

Direct oral anticoagulants are being increasingly used in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism, due to their improved efficacy/ safety ratio, a predictable anticoagulant effect without need for routine coagulation monitoring, and fewer food and drug interactions compared with vitamin K antagonists. Gastrointestinal bleeding remains a serious complication, whose management is challenging for gastroenterologists due to the lack of a standardized clinical approach. Clinical experience on periendoscopic management of these drugs is still limited and there is a paucity of clinical data supporting guidelines recommendations', and this ultimately turns out in different, unsubstantiated and potentially harmful practices of patient management. Present study will provide a thorough revision on the risk of GI bleeding for DOAC therapy and the identification of patient risk factors to individualize treatment. Moreover, the approach to management of DOACs in case of bleeding complications is discussed, and an algorithm of different strategies in presence or not of plasma level measurement is proposed. Finally the periendoscopic management for elective procedures will be reviewed, at the light of the guideline recommendations and new evidences from observational studies.

Summary of StatementsWith the aim of reducing the overall burden of care, ESGE recommends against surveillance of a series of conditions. Namely: ESGE recommends against surveillance of individuals with the following: an inlet esophageal patch; Los Angeles (LA) grade A or B erosive esophagitis; or ESGE recommends against surveillance of those with intestinal metaplasia limited to the antrum unless additional risk factors are present, such as persistent Helicobacter pylori infection, incomplete metaplasia, or a family history of gastric cancer; or for fundic gland polyps in the absence of suspicious endoscopic features or hereditary syndromes. ESGE recommends against surveillance of gastrointestinal leiomyomas, lipomas, and antral pancreatic rests, provided that these lesions have typical ultrasonographic features. ESGE recommends against routine endoscopic surveillance in duodenal peptic ulcer, unless symptoms persist despite adequate therapy. ESGE suggests against surveillance of confirmed pancreatic serous cystic neoplasms. ESGE recommends against endoscopic surveillance for patients with hyperplastic polyps in the rectosigmoid, with 1 – 4 adenomas ESGE recommends against surveillance of gastrointestinal conditions in individuals over 80 years old who have less than 10 years of life expectancy and poor general health status.

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality among patients with cirrhosis. The risk of HCC recurrence after a complete response among patients treated with direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) has not been fully elucidated yet. Aim: To assess the risk of HCC recurrence after DAA therapy for hepatitis C virus (HCV). Methods: A systematic review across PubMed, Scopus and Scholar up to November 2020, including full-text studies that assessed the pattern of HCC recurrence after DAA therapy for HCV. Random-effect meta-analysis and univariable metaregression were applied to obtain pooled estimates for proportions and relative risk (RR) and variables influential for the outcome, respectively. Results: Thirty-one studies with 2957 patients were included. Overall, 30% (CI, 26–34%) of the patients with a history of HCC experienced HCC recurrence after DAA therapy, at mean time intervals ranging from 4 to 21 months. This result increased when going from European studies (23%, CI, 17–28%) to US studies (34%, CI, 30–38%), to Egyptian studies (37%, CI, 27–47%), and to Asian studies (33%, CI, 27–40%). Sixty-eight percent (CI, 45–91%) of recurrent HCCs developed within 6 months of follow-up since DAA treatment, among the eight studies providing stratified data. Among the studies providing head-to-head comparisons, the HCC recurrence risk was significantly lower after DAA therapy than IFN (RR, 0.64; CI, 0.51–0.81), and after DAA therapy than no intervention (RR, 0.68; CI, 0.49–0.94). Conclusions: The recurrence of HCC after DAA is not negligible, being higher soon after the end of treatment and among non-European countries. DAA therapy seems to reduce the risk of HCC recurrence compared to an IFN regimen and no intervention.

Background & aim Although acute lower GI bleeding (LGIB) represents a significant healthcare burden, prospective real-life data on management and outcomes are scanty. Present multicentre, prospective cohort study was aimed at evaluating mortality and associated risk factors and at describing patient management. Methods Adult outpatients acutely admitted for or developing LGIB during hospitalization were consecutively enrolled in 15 high-volume referral centers. Demographics, comorbidities, medications, interventions and outcomes were recorded. Results Overall 1,198 patients (1060 new admissions;138 inpatients) were included. Most patients were elderly (mean-age 74±15 years), 31% had a Charlson-Comorbidity-Index ≥3, 58% were on antithrombotic therapy. In-hospital mortality (primary outcome) was 3.4% (95%CI 2.5–4.6). At logistic regression analysis, independent predictors of mortality were increasing age, comorbidity, inpatient status, hemodynamic instability at presentation, and ICU-admission. Colonoscopy had a 78.8% diagnostic yield, with significantly higher hemostasis rate when performed within 24-hours than later (21.3% vs.10.8%, p = 0.027). Endoscopic hemostasis was associated with neither in-hospital mortality nor rebleeding. A definite or presumptive source of bleeding was disclosed in 90.4% of investigated patients. Conclusion Mortality in LGIB patients is mainly related to age and comorbidities. Although early colonoscopy has a relevant diagnostic yield and is associated with higher therapeutic intervention rate, endoscopic hemostasis is not associated with improved clinical outcomes [ClinicalTrial.gov number: NCT 04364412].

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a technique allowing efficacious and minimally invasive resection of precancerous lesions across the entire gastrointestinal tract. However, conventional EMR, involving injection of fluid into the submucosal space, is imperfect, given the high rate of recurrence of post-endoscopic resection adenoma, especially after piecemeal resection. In light of these observations, modifications of the technique have been proposed to overcome the weakness of conventional EMR. Some of them were designed to maximize the chance of en bloc resection-cap-assisted EMR, underwater EMR, tip-in EMR, precutting, assisted by ligation device-while others were designed to minimize the complications (cold EMR). In this review, we present their modes of action and summarize the evidence regarding their efficacy and safety.

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 Colonoscopy demands a considerable amount of resources, and little is known about its diagnostic yield among inpatients. Aims To assess indications, diagnostic yield and findings of colonoscopy for inpatients, and to identify risk factors for relevant findings and cancer. Methods Multicentre, prospective, observational study including 12 hospitals. Consecutive adult inpatients undergoing colonoscopy were evaluated from February through November 2019. Results 1,302 inpatients underwent colonoscopy. Diagnostic yield for relevant findings and cancer was 586 (45%) and 112 (8.6%), respectively. Adequate colon cleansing was achieved in 896 (68.8%) patients. Split-dose/same-day regimen was adopted in 847 (65%) patients. Factors associated to relevant findings were age ≥70 years (RR 1.32), male gender (RR 1.11), blood loss (RR 1.22) and adequate cleansing (RR 1.63). Age ≥70 years (RR 2.08), no previous colonoscopy (RR 2.69) and split-dose/same-day regimen (RR 1.59) significantly increased cancer detection. Implementing adequate cleansing and split-dose/same-day regimen in all patients would increase the diagnostic yield for any relevant findings and cancer from 43% to 70% and from 6% to 10%, respectively. Conclusion Relevant colorectal diseases and cancer were frequent among inpatients. Factors associated with detection of relevant findings were identified. Adequate colon cleansing and split-dose/same-day regimen significantly increased colonoscopy diagnostic yield.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Efficacy of bowel preparation is an important determinant of outcomes of colonoscopy. It is not clear whether approved low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG) and non-PEG regimens are as effective as high-volume PEG regimens when taken in a split dose. METHODS: In a systematic review of multiple electronic databases through January 31, 2019 with a registered protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019128067), we identified randomized controlled trials that compared low- vs high-volume bowel cleansing regimens, administered in a split dose, for colonoscopy. The primary efficacy outcome was rate of adequate bowel cleansing, and the secondary efficacy outcome was adenoma detection rate. Primary tolerability outcomes were compliance, tolerability, and willingness to repeat. We calculated relative risk (RR) and 95% CI values and assessed heterogeneity among studies by using the I2 statistic. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE framework. RESULTS: In an analysis of data from 17 randomized controlled trials, comprising 7528 patients, we found no significant differences in adequacy of bowel cleansing between the low- vs high-volume split-dose regimens (86.1% vs 87.4%; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98-1.02) and there was minimal heterogeneity (I2 = 17%). There was no significant difference in adenoma detection rate (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.87-1.08) among 4 randomized controlled trials. Compared with high-volume, split-dose regimens, low-volume split-dose regimens had higher odds for compliance or completion (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02-1.10), tolerability (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12-1.74), and willingness to repeat bowel preparation (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.20-1.66). The overall quality of evidence was moderate. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a systematic review of 17 randomized controlled trials, low-volume, split-dose regimens appear to be as effective as high-volume, split-dose regimens in bowel cleansing and are better tolerated, with superior compliance. ispartof: CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY vol:18 issue:7 pages:1454-+ ispartof: location:United States status: published

Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) is a viable therapy in ampullary lesions (AL). Many series have reported low morbidity and acceptable outcomes. We performed a systematic review with pooled analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of EP for AL. Electronic databases (Medline, Scopus and EMBASE) were searched up to September 2018. Studies that included patients with endoscopically resected AL were eligible. The rate of adverse events (AEs; primary outcome) and the rates of both technical and clinical efficacy outcomes were pooled by means of a random- or fixed-effects model to obtain a proportion with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Twenty-nine studies were included (1751 patients). The overall AE rate was 24.9%. The post-procedural pancreatitis rate was 11.9%, with the only factor affecting this outcome being prophylactic pancreatic stenting. The complete resection rate was 94.2%, with a rate of oncologically curative resection of 87.1%. The recurrence rate was 11.8% (follow-up: 9.6–84.5 months). EP is a relatively safe and effective option for AL. Our study might definitively suggest the protective role of prophylactic pancreatic stenting against post-procedural pancreatitis.

Radio-chemotherapy (RCT) is the primary treatment of anal cancer (AC). However, the role and the optimal total dose of a radiation boost is still unclear. No randomized controlled trials nor systematic reviews have been performed to analyze the efficacy of brachytherapy (BRT) as boost in AC. Therefore, we performed this systematic review based on PRISMA methodology to establish the role of BRT boost in AC. A systematic search of the bibliographic databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane library from the earliest possible date through January 31, 2018 was performed. At least one of the following outcomes: local control (LC), loco-regional control (LRC), overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), or colostomy-free survival (CFS) had to be present for inclusion in this systematic review in patients receiving a BRT boost. Data about toxicity and sphincter function were also included. Ten articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. All the studies had retrospective study design. All studies were classified to provide a level of evidence graded as 3 according to SIGN classification. Median 5-year LC/LRC, CFS, DFS, and OS were: 78.6% (range, 70.7-92.0%), 76.1% (range, 61.4-86.4%), 75.8% (range, 65.9-85.7%), and 69.4% (63.4-82.0%), respectively. The reported toxicities were acceptable. RCT is the treatment cornerstone in AC. High-level evidences from studies on BRT boost in AC are lacking. Further studies should investigate: efficacy of BRT boost in comparison to no boost and to external beam boost, patients who can benefit from this treatment intensification, and optimal radiation dose.

ObjectiveEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) aims to achieve en bloc resection of non-pedunculated colorectal adenomas which might be indicated in cases with superficial submucosal invasive cancers (SMIC), but the procedure is time consuming and complex. The prevalence of such cancers is not known but may determine the clinical necessity for ESD as opposed to the commonly used piecemeal mucosal resection (endoscopic mucosal resection) of colorectal adenomas. The main aim was to assess the prevalence of SMIC SM1 (ie, invasion ≤1000 µm or less than one-third of the submucosa) on colorectal lesions removed by ESD.DesignA literature review was conducted using electronic databases (up to March 2017) for colorectal ESD series reporting the histology of the dissected lesions.Results51 studies with data on 11 260 colorectal dissected lesions were included. Most resected lesions (82.2%; 95% CI 78.8% to 85.3%) were adenomas (low- and high-grade dysplasia, 26.8% and 55.4%, respectively). Overall, 15.7% were submucosal cancers, but only slightly more than half (8.0%; 95% CI 6.1% to 10.3%) had an infiltration depth of ≤1000 µm, providing a number needed to treat (NNT) to avoid one surgery of 12.5. Estimating an oncologically curative (R0; G1/2; L0/V0) resection rate of 75.3% (95% CI 52.2% to 89.4%) for malignant lesions, the prevalence of curative resection lowered to 6% (95% CI 4.2% to 7.2%) with an NNT of 16.7.ConclusionThe low prevalence of SMIC SM1 in lesions selected for ESD as well as the even lower rate of curative resection limits the clinical applicability of endoscopic en bloc resection. This calls for caution over an indiscriminate use of this technique in the resection of colorectal neoplasia.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an interventional procedure for en-bloc resection of gastrointestinal lesions. ESD is a challenging and can involve a reasonable degree of risk, therefore case selection is of crucial importance, especially in the colo-rectum. This procedure should be mainly used for dissection of lesions when there is a high suspicion of superficial malignant invasion; several classifications have been proposed in order to better identify lesions suitable for ESD. However, case selection is still an issue, since only about 8–10% of dissected lesions are superficially invading cancer and most of cases involve benign or massively invading cancer. In addition, significant differences have been reported between Asian and Western countries in regard to main outcomes, and therefore measures should be adopted as soon as possible to reduce this discrepancy.

Background & Aims Hospitalization is associated with inadequate colon cleansing before colonoscopy. We aimed to identify factors associated to inadequate colon cleansing among inpatients, and to derive and validate a model to identify inpatients with inadequate cleansing. Methods We performed a prospective observational study at 12 hospitals in Italy. Consecutive adult inpatients scheduled for colonoscopy for any indication were enrolled from February through May 2019 (derivation cohort, n = 1016) and from June through August 2019 (validation cohort, n = 508). Inadequate cleansing was defined as Boston bowel preparation scale scores below 2 in any colon segment. We performed multivariate logistic regression to identify factors associated with inadequate cleansing. Results In the combined cohorts, 1032 patients (68%) had adequate colon cleansing. Physicians’ meetings to optimize bowel preparation (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27–0.65), written and oral instructions to patients (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.36–0.65), admission to gastroenterology unit (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51–0.98), split-dose regimens (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.20–0.35), a 1-liter polyethylene glycol-based bowel purge (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.23—0.65), and 75% or more intake of bowel preparation (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.05–0.15) significantly reduced odds of inadequate colon cleansing. Alternatively, bedridden status (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.55–2.98), constipation (OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.55–3.0), diabetes mellitus (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.18–2.20), use of anti-psychotic drugs (OR, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.62–6.56), and 7 or more days of hospitalization (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00–1.04) increased risk of inadequate colon cleansing. We developed a model to identify patients with inadequate cleaning using data from patients in the derivation cohort and tested it in the validation cohort. Calibration values were P = .218 for the discrimination cohort and P = .232 for the validation cohort. Discrimination values were c-statistic, 0.78 (95% CI, 0.74–0.81) for the discrimination cohort and c-statistic, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69–0.78) for the validation cohort. We developed app for use by clinicians. Conclusions In a prospective observational study, we identified setting-, patient- and preparation-related factors that affect colon cleansing among inpatients. We derived and validated a model to identify patients with inadequate preparation and developed an app for clinicians. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT03925506

Background: To evaluate the impact of radiation dose on overall survival (OS) in patients treated with adjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods: A multicenter retrospective analysis on 514 patients with PDAC (T1-4; N0-1; M0) treated with surgical resection with macroscopically negative margins (R0-1) followed by adjuvant CRT was performed. Patients were stratified into 4 groups based on radiotherapy doses (group 1: < 45 Gy, group 2: ≥ 45 and < 50 Gy, group 3: ≥ 50 and < 55 Gy, group 4: ≥ 55 Gy). Adjuvant chemotherapy was prescribed to 141 patients. Survival functions were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared through the log-rank test. Results: Median follow-up was 35 months (range: 3-120 months). At univariate analysis, a worse OS was recorded in patients with higher preoperative Ca 19.9 levels (≥ 90 U/ml; p < 0.001), higher tumor grade (G3-4, p = 0.004), R1 resection (p = 0.004), higher pT stage (pT3-4, p = 0.002) and positive nodes (p < 0.001). Furthermore, patients receiving increasing doses of CRT showed a significantly improved OS. In groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, median OS was 13.0 months, 21.0 months, 22.0 months, and 28.0 months, respectively (p = 0.004). The significant impact of higher dose was confirmed by multivariate analysis. Conclusions: Increasing doses of CRT seems to favorably impact on OS in adjuvant setting. The conflicting results of randomized trials on adjuvant CRT in PDAC could be due to < 45 Gy dose generally used.

Background Outcomes of endoscopic surveillance following surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) vary with the incidence and timing of CRC detection, at anastomosis or elsewhere in the colorectum. We performed systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the incidence of CRCs identified during surveillance colonoscopies of patients with previous CRC surgery. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Central Register through January 1, 2018, to identify studies investigating rates of CRCs at anastomoses or other colorectal locations after curative surgery for primary CRC. We collected data from randomized controlled, prospective, and retrospective cohort studies. Data were analyzed by multivariate meta-analytic models. Results From 2,373 citations, we selected 27 studies with 15,803 index CRCs (89% stage I-III CRCs). Overall, 296 CRCs at non-anastomotic locations were reported over time periods of more than 16 years (cumulative incidence, 2.2% of CRCs; 95% CI, 1.8%-2.9%). The risk of non-anastomotic CRC is shown in figure A (figure 1A) and significantly decreased after 36 months or more from resection, compared with that before this time point (odds ratio for non-anastomotic CRCs at 36–48 months vs 6–12 months after surgery, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37–0.98; P=.031); 53.7% of all non-anastomotic CRCs were detected within 36 months from surgery. One hundred fifty-eight anastomotic CRCs were detected over more than 16-years follow-up (cumulative incidence of 2.7%; 95% CI, 1.9%-3.9%). The risk of anastomotic CRCs is shown in figure B (figure 1B), and was significantly lower after 24 months or more from resection than before (odds ratio for CRCs at anastomoses at 25–36 months after surgery vs. 6–12 months, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.32–0.98; P=.036); 90.8% of anastomotic CRCs were detected within 36 months from surgery. Conclusions After surgery for CRC, the highest risk of anastomotic and non-anastomotic CRCs is highest during 36 months after surgery - risk decreases thereafter. Patients who have undergone CRC resection should be evaluated by colonoscopy more closely during this time period. Longer intervals may be considered thereafter.

Background Patients with prior colorectal cancer (CRC) are at slightly increased risk of metachronous colorectal neoplasms, therefore endoscopic surveillance is indicated. Current recommendations of repeating examinations at 1, 3 and 5 years after surgery, are not tailored according to risk stratification. Our aim was to find predictive factors of colorectal neoplasms to build a predictive model, to spare colonoscopies for low-risk patients. Methods Multicenter retrospective study including patients with colon carcinoma surgically resected from 2001 to 2008 (training cohort) and from 2009 to 2013 (validation cohort). A predictive model for neoplasms occurrence at second surveillance colonoscopy was developed and externally validated. Results 396 and 131 patients were included in training and validation cohort respectively. Patients with ≥1 adenoma at the 2nd surveillance colonoscopy were 113/396 (28.5%) and 21/131 (16.5%) in the two groups. In the validation cohort, 3 cancers were found. Four variables were associated with higher risk of metachronous colorectal adenomas at 2nd surveillance colonoscopy on multivariate analysis: age >65 years old, left colectomy, ≥1 advanced adenoma at basal colonoscopy and ≥1 adenoma at first surveillance colonoscopy (table 1). The predictive model showed fair discrimination, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.69 and 0.64, in training and validation cohort respectively. In validation group, If patients with a low-risk profile (i.e. none of the risk factors) skip the 2nd surveillance colonoscopy, 25/131 (19.1%) exams would be saved while missing 2/21 (9.5%) patients with ≥1 adenoma; no cancer would be missed. Conclusions We provided a risk-stratification tool for adenoma occurrence after colon surgery, which could prove cost-effective to select patients who could skip the second surveillance colonoscopy.

Main Recommendations 1 We recommend post-surgery endoscopic surveillance for CRC patients after intent-to-cure surgery and appropriate oncological treatment for both local and distant disease.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2 We recommend a high quality perioperative colonoscopy before surgery for CRC or within 6 months following surgery.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 3 We recommend performing surveillance colonoscopy 1 year after CRC surgery.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 We do not recommend an intensive endoscopic surveillance strategy, e. g. annual colonoscopy, because of a lack of proven benefit.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5 After the first surveillance colonoscopy following CRC surgery, we suggest the second colonoscopy should be performed 3 years later, and the third 5 years after the second. If additional high risk neoplastic lesions are detected, subsequent surveillance examinations at shorter intervals may be considered.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6 After the initial surveillance colonoscopy, we suggest halting post-surgery endoscopic surveillance at the age of 80 years, or earlier if life-expectancy is thought to be limited by comorbidities.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 In patients with a low risk pT1 CRC treated by endoscopy with an R0 resection, we suggest the same endoscopic surveillance schedule as for any CRC.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Background & Aims Outcomes of endoscopic surveillance after surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) vary with the incidence and timing of CRC detection at anastomoses or non-anastomoses in the colorectum. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the incidence of CRCs identified during surveillance colonoscopies of patients who have already undergone surgery for this cancer. Methods We searched PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials through January 1, 2018 to identify studies investigating rates of CRCs at anastomoses or other locations in the colorectum after curative surgery for primary CRC. We collected data from published randomized controlled, prospective, and retrospective cohort studies. Data were analyzed by multivariate meta-analytic models. Results From 2373 citations, we selected 27 studies with data on 15,803 index CRCs for analysis (89% of patients with stage I–III CRC). Overall, 296 CRCs at non-anastomotic locations were reported over time periods of more than 16 years (cumulative incidence, 2.2% of CRCs; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8%–2.9%). The risk of CRC at a non-anastomotic location was significantly reduced more than 36 months after resection compared with before this time point (odds ratio for non-anastomotic CRCs at 36–48 months vs 6–12 months after surgery, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.37–0.98; P = .031); 53.7% of all non-anastomotic CRCs were detected within 36 months of surgery. One hundred and fifty-eight CRCs were detected at anastomoses (cumulative incidence of 2.7%; 95% CI, 1.9%–3.9%). The risk of CRCs at anastomoses was significantly lower 24 months after resection than before (odds ratio for CRCs at anastomoses at 25–36 months after surgery vs 6–12 months, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.32–0.98; P = .036); 90.8% of all CRCs at anastomoses were detected within 36 months of surgery. Conclusions After surgery for CRC, the highest risk of CRCs at anastomoses and at other locations in the colorectum is highest during 36 months after surgery—risk decreases thereafter. Patients who have undergone CRC resection should be evaluated by colonoscopy more closely during this time period. Longer intervals may be considered thereafter.

BACKGROUND: Presurgical carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) level predicts overall survival (OS) in resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PaC). The aim of this pooled analysis was to evaluate if presurgical CA19-9 level can also predict local control (LC) and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS). METHODS: Seven hundred patients with PaC from eight institutions who underwent surgical resection ± adjuvant treatment between 2000 and 2014 were analyzed. Patients were divided based on four presurgical CA19-9 level cutoffs (5, 37, 100, 353 U/ml). Weibull regression model to identify independent predictors of OS on 404 patients with complete information was fitted. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 17 months (range: 2-225 months). Univariate analysis showed a better prognosis in pT1-2, pN0, diameter 353.1: 10.9%, 50.2%, and 23.4%, respectively. At multivariate analysis, CA19-9 >100 and 30 mm (P50.0 Gy showed improved OS (P

Background: Hospitalization is a strong predictor for inadequate colon cleansing before colonoscopy. We aimed to identify factors associated to inadequate colon cleansing among inpatients, and to derive and validate a predictive model. Methods: Multicentre prospective observational study in 12 Italian hospitals. Consecutive adult inpatients were enrolled from February to May 2019 (derivation cohort) and from June to August 2019 (validation cohort). Inadequate cleansing was defined as BBPS

Background: Simkania negevensis is an obligate intracellular Gram-negative bacterium (family Simkaniaceae, order Chlamydiales) that has been isolated from domestic and mains water supplies, is able to infect human macrophages, and can induce an inflammatory response in the host. Methods: From June to December 2016, in a single-center observational study, colonic Crohn’s disease patients and controls (subjects undergoing screening for colorectal cancer) underwent blood tests to identify serum-specific immunoglobulinG (IgG) and immunoglobulinA (IgA) to S.negevensis and a colonoscopy with biopsies for detection of S.negevensis DNA by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Results: Forty-three Crohn’s disease patients and 18 controls were enrolled. Crohn’s disease patients had higher prevalence of IgA antibodies to S.negevensis compared with controls (20.9% versus 0%, p = 0.04). Simkaniaceae negevensis DNA was detected in 34.9% and 5.6% of intestinal biopsies in Crohn’s disease patients and controls, respectively (p = 0.02). All Crohn’s disease patients with PCR-positive biopsies for S.negevensis were IgG seropositive, with specific IgA in 60% of them (p < 0.001). Immunosuppressive therapies, extraintestinal manifestations, or disease activity did not influence the presence of S.negevensis in the Crohn’s disease population. Conclusions: We identified S.negevensis in Crohn’s disease patients by demonstrating the presence of S.negevensis mucosal DNA and seropositivity to the bacterium. These results could support the presence of an acute or persistent S.negevensis infection and suggest a possible role in the pathogenesis of Crohn’s disease.

Radiotherapy (RT) is a treatment option for advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC), often combined with sequential and/or concurrent chemotherapy. The use of modern RT techniques requires accurate clinical target volume (CTV) definition and delineation. However, guidelines for CTV delineation in BTC are lacking. Therefore, the aim of this study was to propose a computer tomography (CT) atlas for CTV definition of BTC. We previously proposed guidelines to define the nodal CTV (CTV-N) in BTC. In this study, based on a literature analysis, we defined the margins to be added to the gross tumor volume (GTV; subclinical and microscopic disease) to define the primary tumor CTV (CTV-T). An abdominal contrast enhanced planning CT scan was performed on three different patients with unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CC), extrahepatic CC and gallbladder cancer. The GTV and anatomical reference structures were outlined on CT images. Then, based on our guidelines, the CTV-T and CTV-N were delineated and merged to define the final CTV in the three patients. An atlas, showing the defined CTV, was generated from the reference CT images to illustrate the CTV for intra-hepatic CC, extra-hepatic CC and gallbladder cancer. This atlas can be used as an aid for CTV definition in patients with BTC treated with modern RT techniques.

NA

Background and aim To assess the rate of adverse events and the technical success rate of biliary stenting with or without EBS. Methods A literature search up to February 2017 was performed. Studies assessing adverse events (AEs) and technical success rates of stenting with or without EBS were considered. Results Seven studies (870 patients; 12 treatment arms) were included. Early AEs, i. e. those occurring within 30 days, were significantly lower in no-EBS vs. EBS-group (11 % vs. 20.1 %; OR: 0.36, 95 %CI: 0.13 – 1.00). Rates of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis were not significantly different in the two groups (no-EBS vs. EBS: 6.1 % vs 5 %; OR: 1.33, 95 %CI: 0.68 – 2.59). The rate of bleeding was significantly lower in patients without EBS (no-EBS vs EBS: 0 % vs 5 %; OR: 0.12, 95 % CI: 0.03 – 0.45). Rates of cholangitis were significantly lower in patients without EBS (no-EBS vs. EBS: 3.3 % vs. 7.4 %; OR: 0.38, 95 %CI: 0.17 – 0.83). Both late AEs and mortality rates did not significantly differ between no-EBS and EBS patients (19.9 % vs. 18.9 %; OR: 0.93, 95 %CI: 0.56 – 1.53, and 2.5 % vs. 2.9 %; OR: 1.18, 95 %CI: 0.22 – 6.29, respectively). The technical success rate for stent insertion also did not differ (98 % vs. 97.6 %; OR: 1.05, 95 %CI: 0.42 – 2.63). Conclusion EBS seems to be associated, in the first 30 days after the procedure, with an increased risk of cholangitis and bleeding. No difference was observed in the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Aims. Patients with prior colorectal cancer (CRC) are at slightly increased risk of metachronous colorectal neoplasms, therefore endoscopic surveillance is indicated. Current recommendations of repeating examinations at 1, 3 and 5 years after surgery, are not tailored according to risk stratification. Our aim was to find predictive factors of colorectal neoplasms to build a predictive model, to spare colonoscopies for low-risk patients. Methods. Multicenter retrospective study including patients with colon carcinoma surgically resected from 2001 to 2008 (training cohort) and from 2009 to 2013 (validation cohort). A predictive model for neoplasms occurrence at second surveillance colonoscopy was developed and externally validated. Results 396 and 131 patients were included in training and validation cohort, respectively. Patients with ≥1 adenoma at 2nd surveillance colonoscopy were 113/396 (28.5%) and 21/131 (16.5%) in the two groups. In validation cohort, 3 cancers were found. Four variables identified the low-risk patient's profile of developing metachronous colorectal adenomas: age ≤65 years old, right colectomy, no advanced adenoma at basal colonoscopy and no adenoma at first surveillance colonoscopy. The predictive model showed fair discrimination, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.69 and 0.64, in training and validation cohort. In validation group, If patients with a low-risk profile skip the 2nd surveillance colonoscopy, 25/131 (19.1%) exams would be saved while missing 2/21 (9.5%) patients with ≥1 adenoma; no advanced adenoma nor cancer would be missed. Conclusions We provided a risk-stratification tool for adenoma occurrence after colon surgery, which could prove cost-effective to select patients who could skip the second surveillance colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Endocuff - a plastic device with flexible projections - mounted on the distal tip of the colonoscope, promises improved colonic mucosa inspection. AIM: To elucidate the effect of Endocuff on adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced ADR (AADR) and mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (MAC). METHODS: Literature searches identified randomized-controlled trials evaluating Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) vs conventional colonoscopy (CC) in terms of ADR, AADR and MAC. The effect size on study outcomes was calculated using fixed or random effect model, as appropriate, and it is shown as relative risk (RR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] and mean difference (MD) (95%CI). The rate of device removal in EAC arms was also calculated. RESULTS: We identified nine studies enrolling 6038 patients. All studies included mixed population (screening, surveillance and diagnostic examinations). Seven and two studies evaluated the first and the second-generation device, respectively. EAC was associated with increased ADR compared to CC [RR (95%CI): 1.18 (1.05-1.32); Ι 2 = 71%]; EAC benefits more endoscopists with ADR ≤ 35% compared to those with ADR > 35% [RR (95%CI): 1.37 (1.08-1.74); Ι 2 = 49% vs 1.10 (0.99-1.24); Ι 2 = 71%]. In terms of AADR and MAC, no difference was detected between EAC and CC [RR (95%CI): 1.03 (0.85-1.25); Ι 2 = 15% and MD (95%CI): 0.30 (-0.17-0.78); Ι 2 = 99%]. Subgroup analysis did not show any difference between the two device generations regarding all three endpoints. In EAC arms, the device had to be removed in 3% (95%CI: 2%-5%) of the cases mainly due to tortuous sigmoid or presence of diverticula along it. CONCLUSION: EAC increases ADR compared to CC, especially for endoscopists with lower ADR. On the other hand, no significant effect on AADR and MAC was detected.

Objective Although split regimen is associated with higher adenoma detection and is recommended for elective colonoscopy, its adoption remains suboptimal. The identification of patient-related barriers may improve its implementation. Our aim was to assess patients' attitude towards split regimen and patient-related factors associated with its uptake. Design In a multicentre, prospective study, outpatients undergoing colonoscopy from 8:00 to 14:00 were given written instructions for 4â €..L polyethylene glycol bowel preparation, offering the choice between split-dose and day-before regimens and emphasising the superiority of split regimen on colonoscopy outcomes. Uptake of split regimen and association with patient-related factors were explored by a 20-item questionnaire. Results Of the 1447 patients (mean age 59.2±13.5â €..years, men 54.3%), 61.7% and 38.3% chose a split-dose and day-before regimens, respectively. A linear correlation was observed between time of colonoscopy appointments and split-dose uptake, from 27.3% in 8:00 patients to 96% in 14:00 patients (p1â €..h (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.79), low education level (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.96) and female gender (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.95) were inversely correlated with the uptake of split-dose. Overall, the risk of travel interruption and faecal incontinence was slightly increased in split regimen patients (3.0% vs 1.4% and 1.5% vs 0.9%, respectively; p=NS). Split regimen was an independent predictor of adequate colon cleansing (OR 3.34, 95% CI 2.40 to 4.63) and polyp detection (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.92). Conclusion Patient attitude towards split regimen is suboptimal, especially for early morning examinations. Interventions to improve patient compliance (ie, policies to reorganise colonoscopy timetable, educational initiatives for patient and healthcare providers) should be considered. Trial registration number NCT02287051; pre-result.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) positioning is the recommended method for palliation of dysphagia from esophageal cancer, although it is not adverse event-free. The present study was aimed at identifying predictors for adverse events and at proposing a statistical model to predict them. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database. All patients who underwent SEMS placement for stricture due to esophageal cancer between 2002 and 2011 in a tertiary-care center were identified. Multivariable regression analysis in the presence of competing risk events was used to identify factors associated with SEMS-related adverse events and to build a prediction model. RESULTS: A total of 267 patients were included. According to the competing risk regression analysis, only 2 variables were significantly associated with the risk of SEMS-related adverse events: prior chemoradiotherapy (CRT), yielding a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.687 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.076-2.644), and the SEMS length (HR 0.884; 95% CI, 0.798-0.980) for every 10-mm length increase. Based on the estimated probability curves, after 4 months from SEMS placement, the probability of an adverse event in patients who did receive prior CRT was 50.9% compared with 34.4% in those who did not receive prior therapy, which was reduced to 9.2% and 15.1%, respectively, if a 180 mm-length stent was used. The ability of the predictive model to differentiate between patients who did and did not experience the adverse event was moderate (c-index: 0.617). CONCLUSION: The rate of SEMS-related adverse events was higher in patients with previous CRT and lower in patients receiving longer stents. Both factors were used to build an accurate predictive model. Background and Aims Self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) positioning is the recommended method for palliation of dysphagia from esophageal cancer, although it is not adverse event-free. The present study was aimed at identifying predictors for adverse events and at proposing a statistical model to predict them. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database. All patients who underwent SEMS placement for stricture due to esophageal cancer between 2002 and 2011 in a tertiary-care center were identified. Multivariable regression analysis in the presence of competing risk events was used to identify factors associated with SEMS-related adverse events and to build a prediction model. Results A total of 267 patients were included. According to the competing risk regression analysis, only 2 variables were significantly associated with the risk of SEMS-related adverse events: prior chemoradiotherapy (CRT), yielding a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.687 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.076-2.644), and the SEMS length (HR 0.884; 95% CI, 0.798-0.980) for every 10-mm length increase. Based on the estimated probability curves, after 4 months from SEMS placement, the probability of an adverse event in patients who did receive prior CRT was 50.9% compared with 34.4% in those who did not receive prior therapy, which was reduced to 9.2% and 15.1%, respectively, if a 180 mm-length stent was used. The ability of the predictive model to differentiate between patients who did and did not experience the adverse event was moderate (c-index: 0.617). Conclusion The rate of SEMS-related adverse events was higher in patients with previous CRT and lower in patients receiving longer stents. Both factors were used to build an accurate predictive model.

Item does not contain fulltext This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), the European Society of Digestive Endoscopy (ESDO), and the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations for malignant disease 1 ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) for palliative treatment of malignant dysphagia over laser therapy, photodynamic therapy, and esophageal bypass (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 2 For patients with longer life expectancy, ESGE recommends brachytherapy as a valid alternative or in addition to stenting in esophageal cancer patients with malignant dysphagia. Brachytherapy may provide a survival advantage and possibly a better quality of life compared to SEMS placement alone. (Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.) 3 ESGE recommends esophageal SEMS placement as the preferred treatment for sealing malignant tracheoesophageal or bronchoesophageal fistula (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 ESGE does not recommend the use of concurrent external radiotherapy and esophageal stent treatment. SEMS placement is also not recommended as a bridge to surgery or prior to preoperative chemoradiotherapy. It is associated with a high incidence of adverse events and alternative satisfactory options such as placement of a feeding tube are available. (Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.) Main recommendations for benign disease 1 ESGE recommends against the use of self-expandable stents (SEMSs) as first-line therapy for the management of benign esophageal strictures because of the potential for adverse events, the availability of alternative therapies, and costs (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 2 ESGE suggests consideration of temporary placement of SEMSs as therapy for refractory benign esophageal strictures (weak recommendation, moderate evidence). Stents should usually be removed at a maximum of 3 months (strong recommendation, weak quality evidence). 3 ESGE suggests that fully covered SEMSs be preferred over partially covered SEMSs for the treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures, because of their lack of embedment and ease of removability (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 For the removal of partially covered esophageal SEMSs that are embedded, ESGE recommends the stent-in-stent technique (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 5 ESGE recommends that temporary stent placement can be considered for treating esophageal leaks, fistulas, and perforations. The optimal stenting duration remains unclear and should be individualized. (Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.) 6 ESGE recommends placement of a SEMS for the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding refractory to medical, endoscopic, and/or radiological therapy, or as initial therapy for patients with massive esophageal variceal bleeding (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

In the last decade, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become more popular in Asia and, more recently, also in Europe and North America, however the issue of quality control has never been raised. Therefore, there is an urgent need to identify possible quality indicators to monitor as part of internal audit process. This is particularly compelling, since the diffusion of ESD outside Asian, super-expert, high-volume, tertiary referral centers. In the current review, we raised the issue of quality control for ESD and proposed a list of ten possible quality indicators that should be monitored by each endoscopist and reported in every study reporting results on ESD procedures. We feel that these quality indicators should be used in clinical practice by endoscopists to benchmark the data with the internationally recommended standards.

Background and study aims Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), a minimally invasive treatment for early gastrointestinal (GI) cancer, is considered challenging and risky in the colorectum. As such, most patients undergoing ESD are hospitalized due to the perceived increased risk of adverse events. The aim of this study was to compare the costs, safety and efficacy of colorectal-ESD in an outpatient vs inpatient setting in a tertiary level center. Methods This is a retrospective study on consecutive patients admitted for colorectal-ESD. Patients were divided into outpatients (Group-A, same-day discharge), and inpatients (Group-B, admitted for at least one night). Data on overall costs, outcomes and adverse events were assessed for each group. Results A total of 136 patients were considered. Fourteen were excluded because ESD was not performed due to intraprocedural suspicion of invasive cancer. Eighty-three patients were treated as outpatients (Group-A, 68%) and 39 (Group-B, 32%) were hospitalized. R0-rate was 90.4% in Group-A and 89.7% in Group-B(P = 0.98). One perforation occurred in Group-A (1.2%) and 2 in Group-B(5.1%, P = 0.2). Mean Length of stay (LOS) was 1 day for outpatients and 3.3 days for inpatients. Management of Group-A as outpatients produced a cost savings of 941€ on average per patient. Conclusions Outpatient colorectal-ESD is a feasible, cost-effective strategy to manage superficial colorectal tumors with outcomes comparable to inpatient colorectal-ESD. By using proper selection criteria, outpatient ESD could be considered the first-line approach for most patients.

Background and study aims This study was designed to evaluate the impact of additional tissue obtained with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided 25-gauge core biopsy needle (25G-PC) following an unsuccessful fine-needle biopsy (FNB) performed with larger-bore needles for the characterization of gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions (GI-SELs). Patients and methods We prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed information in our database from January 2013 to June 2017 for all patients with GI-SELs who received a EUS-guided FNB (EUS-FNB) with 25G-PC during the same procedure after failure of biopsy performed with larger-bore needle. Diagnostic yield, diagnostic accuracy and procedural complications were evaluated. Results Sixteen patients were included in this study, 10 men and 6 women, median age 67.8 (range 43 to 76 years). Five patients were found to have a SEL localized in the distal duodenum, five in the gastric antrum, two in the gastric fundus and four in the gastric body. The mean size of the lesions was 20.5 mm (range 18 – 24 mm). EUS-FNB with 25G-PC enabled final diagnosis in nine patients (56.2 %). Regarding the subgroup of duodenal lesions, the procedure was successful in four of five (80 %). Final diagnoses with EUS-guided sampling were GIST (n = 6), leiomyoma (n = 2) and metastatic ovarian carcinoma (n = 1). No procedure-related complications were recorded. Conclusion In patients with small GI-SELs, additional tissue obtained with 25G-PC could represents a “rescue” strategy after an unsuccessful procedure with larger-bore needles, especially when lesions are localized in the distal duodenum.

The Rome IV Committee introduced a major change in the classification of functional gastrointestinal disorders, proposing a more restrictive definition of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). It was suggested that hypersensitive esophagus (HE) may sit more firmly within the functional realm. It was suggested that GERD diagnosis should be based upon abnormal acid exposure time (AET) only, implying no advantage of impedance-pH over pH monitoring. Symptom association probability (SAP), symptom index (SI) and heartburn relief with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy were regarded as unreliable, whereas a lack of response to PPI was considered as evidence of functional heartburn. These assumptions are contradicted by numerous studies showing the clinical relevance of weakly acidic refluxes and the diagnostic utility of SAP, SI and new impedance parameters, namely the post-reflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave (PSPW) index and the mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI). The PSPW index and MNBI provide significant diagnostic advantage, particularly in patients with normal AET who can be classified as HE when both parameters are abnormal, even though SAP and SI are negative. Visceral pain modulators are recommended by the Rome IV Committee despite scanty evidence of efficacy, but a positive outcome with medical or surgical anti-reflux treatment has been reported by several studies of HE patients. Therefore, we believe that patients with endoscopy-negative heartburn should be investigated by means of impedance-pH monitoring with analysis of PSPW index and MNBI: such an approach provides accurate identification of HE cases, who remain, in our opinion, within the realm of GERD and should be treated accordingly.