Search

Background The long-term outcomes and safety of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of sporadic duodenal adenoma (SDA), and the management of adverse events need to be confirmed. Methods A bicentric retrospective study was performed including all patients who underwent EMR for SDAs from 2003-2016. The primary aim was to evaluate the efficiency of EMR for SDA. The secondary objectives were to assess safety, recurrence management, predictive factors for treatment success, and adverse events. Results One hundred thirty patients (134 procedures) were included (median age 65 years, 49.3% male). The mean SDA size was 20.7 (range 5-50) mm. Of the SDAs, 58.2% were category 3 of the Vienna classification, 35.8% were category 4, and 5.9% were category 5. The median follow up was 25.0 (range 2-120) months. Complete mucosal resection was achieved for 129/134 lesions (96.2%), with en bloc resection in 59/134 (44%). Recurrence occurred in 28.6% of cases (30/105 procedures). Recurrence was successfully treated by new endoscopic procedures in 72.2% (13/18) and by surgery in 27.8% (5/18). Delayed bleeding occurred in 13.4% of cases (18/134) and was successfully managed endoscopically. The perforation rate was 3.7% (5/134); perforations were managed without surgery in 60% (3/5 patients) of cases. Conclusions Endoscopic treatment of SDA appears to be effective and relatively safe in tertiary centers. All bleeding complications were endoscopically controlled, and perforation was rare. Recurrence was frequent but could be managed endoscopically. EMR is confirmed as a first-line treatment in cases of SDA, and surgery is useful only if repeated EMRs fail. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & Aims: The use of endoscopic treatment for early colorectal cancer (ECC) is increasing. The European guidelines suggest performing piecemeal endoscopic resection (pmR) for benign lesions and en bloc resection for ECC, especially for patients with favorable lymph node involvement risk evaluations. However, en bloc resections for lesions larger than two centimeters require invasive endoscopic techniques. Our retrospective single-center study aimed to determine the clinical impact of performing pmR for ECC rather than traditional en bloc resection. Methods: A single-center study was performed between January 2012 and September 2017. All ECC patients were included. The main objective was to evaluate the number of patients who potentially underwent unnecessary surgery due to piecemeal resection. The secondary endpoints were as follows: disease-free survival (DFS), defined as the time from pmR to endoscopic failure (local recurrence not treatable by endoscopy), complication rate, number of patients who did not undergo surgery by default, and factors predictive of outcomes and complications. Results: One hundred and forty-six ECC endoscopically treated patients were included. In total, 85 patients were excluded (71 who underwent en bloc resection, 14 with pending follow-up). Data from 61 patients (33 women and 28 men) were analyzed. Two patients underwent potentially unnecessary surgery [3.28% (0.9%- 11.2%)]. The DFS rate was 87% (75%-93%) at 6 months and 85% [72%-92%] at 12 months. The median followup time was 16.5 months (12.4-20.9). Three patients (4.9%) had complications. One patient did not undergo surgery by default. A Paris classification of 0-2c (HR=9.3 (2.4-35.9), p<0.001) and Vienna classification of 5 [HR=16.3 (3.3-80.4), p<0.001] were factors associated with poor DFS. Conclusion: Performing pmR in place of en bloc resection for ECC had a limited impact on patients. If the pathology (especially deep margins) is analyzable, careful monitoring could be acceptable in ECC patients who undergo pmR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]