Search

Several cases have been reported that suggest the efficacy of gel immersion endoscopic mucosal resection (GI-EMR) for gastric neoplasms. However, no study has evaluated treatment outcomes of GI-EMR for gastric neoplasms. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of GI-EMR for early gastric neoplasms. Nine patients (17 lesions) undergoing gastric GI-EMR were included, with a median lesion size of 10 mm (interquartile range [IQR] 5–13 mm). All lesions were protruding or flat elevated. The median procedure time was 3 minutes (IQR 2–5) and en bloc resection was achieved in all cases. Among 15 neoplastic lesions, the R0 resection rate was 86.7% (13/15 lesions). Adverse events included immediate bleeding requiring hemostasis in two cases, which was controlled endoscopically. No delayed bleeding or perforation occurred. In conclusion, GI-EMR may be a safe and effective treatment for early, small gastric neoplasms. However, due to the small sample in the present study, further investigation is required regarding the indication for this technique.

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is vital for early pancreatic cancer diagnosis. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI), especially deep learning, have improved medical image analysis. We developed and validated the Modified Faster R-CNN (M-F-RCNN), an AI algorithm using EUS images to assist in diagnosing pancreatic cancer. Methods We collected EUS images from 155 patients across three endoscopy centers from July 2022 to July 2023. M-F-RCNN development involved enhancing feature information through data preprocessing and utilizing an improved Faster R-CNN model to identify cancerous regions. Its diagnostic capabilities were validated against an external set of 1,000 EUS images. In addition, five EUS doctors participated in a study comparing the M-F-RCNN model's performance with that of human experts, assessing diagnostic skill improvements with AI assistance. Results Internally, the M-F-RCNN model surpassed traditional algorithms with an average precision of 97.35%, accuracy of 96.49%, and recall rate of 5.44%. In external validation, its sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 91.7%, 91.5%, and 91.6%, respectively, outperforming non-expert physicians. The model also significantly enhanced the diagnostic skills of doctors. Conclusions: The M-F-RCNN model shows exceptional performance in diagnosing pancreatic cancer via EUS images, greatly improving diagnostic accuracy and efficiency, thus enhancing physician proficiency and reducing diagnostic errors., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biopsy via fine-needle biopsy/fine-needle aspiration (FNB/FNA) is currently the standard method to sample tumors in the mediastinum and abdomen. Although specimens obtained with these needles are acceptable, a histological diagnosis is not always possible. Recently, a new EUS-guided core needle biopsy (EUS-CNB) device became available. Herein, we describe the first experience with its use in a transmural fashion. Patients and methods This was a case series of patients who underwent EUS-CNB at an academic center. All patients provided written informed consent and were observed in the hospital ≥ 48 hours after the procedure. Results A total of 8 patients underwent EUSC-CNB: five in the pancreas, two in the retroperitoneum, and one in the mediastinum. The diagnostic accuracy of EUS-CNB was 100% after one actuation. In four patients, same-session FNB and EUS-CNB were obtained from the same lesion with superior tissue sample in the latter. No adverse events were documented. Conclusions To our knowledge this is the first report on transmural use of EUS-CNB in gastroenterology. Our findings suggest that the device is effective and safe. Larger studies comparing it with FNA/FNB needles will be required to further assess performance and safety., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The corresponding author has a personal relationship with the inventor of the device. The inventor of the device is paying for the article processing fee. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background and study aims There is limited consensus on the optimal method for measuring disease severity in familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). We aimed to systematically review the operating properties of existing endoscopic severity indices for FAP. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to February 2023 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that utilized endoscopic outcomes or studies that evaluated the operating properties of endoscopic disease severity indices in FAP. Results A total of 134 studies were included. We evaluated scoring indices and component items of scoring indices, such as polyp count, polyp size, and histology. Partial validation was observed for polyp count and size. The most commonly reported scoring index was the Spigelman classification system, which was used for assessing the severity of duodenal involvement. A single study reported almost perfect interobserver and intra-observer agreement for this system. The InSIGHT polyposis staging system, which was used for assessing colorectal polyp burden, has been partially validated. It showed substantial interobserver reliability; however, the intra-observer reliability was not assessed. Novel criteria for high-risk gastric polyps have been developed and assessed for interobserver reliability. However, these criteria showed a poor level of agreement. Other scoring indices assessing the anal transition zone, duodenal, and colorectal polyps have not undergone validation. Conclusions There are no fully validated endoscopic disease severity indices for FAP. Development and validation of a reliable and responsive endoscopic disease severity instrument will be informative for clinical care and RCTs of pharmacological therapies for FAP., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Disclosures: ALS: Nothing to disclose. HB: Nothing to disclose. AA: Nothing to disclose. JKM: Employee of Alimentiv Inc. AZ: Employee of Alimentiv Inc. JL: Employee of Alimentiv Inc. BGF: Received grant/research support from Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Tillotts Pharma AG, AbbVie, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Centocor Inc., Elan/Biogen, UCB Pharma, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech, ActoGenix, and Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc.; consulting fees from Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Centocor Inc., Elan/Biogen, Janssen-Ortho, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, UCB Pharma, AbbVie, Astra Zeneca, Serono, Genentech, Tillotts Pharma AG, Unity Pharmaceuticals, Albireo Pharma, Given Imaging Inc., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Novonordisk, GSK, Actogenix, Prometheus Therapeutics and Diagnostics, Athersys, Axcan, Gilead, Pfizer, Shire, Wyeth, Zealand Pharma, Zyngenia, GiCare Pharma Inc., and Sigmoid Pharma; and speaker’s fees from UCB, AbbVie, and J&J/Janssen. VJ: Received consulting/advisory board fees from AbbVie, Alimentiv Inc, Arena pharmaceuticals, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Asieris, Astra Zeneca, Avoro Capital, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Eli Lilly, Endpoint Health, Ferring, Flagship Pioneering, Fresenius Kabi, Galapagos, Gilde Healthcare, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, Metacrine, Mylan, Pandion, Pendopharm, Pfizer, Protagonist, Prometheus Biosciences, Reistone Biopharma, Roche, Sandoz, Second Genome, Sorriso pharmaceuticals, Takeda, Teva, Topivert, Ventyx, and Vividion; speaker’s fees from, Abbvie, Ferring, Bristol Myers Squibb, Galapagos, Janssen Pfizer Shire, Takeda, and Fresenius Kabi. CM: Received consulting fees from AbbVie, Alimentiv, Amgen, AVIR Pharma Inc, BioJAMP, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, McKesson, Mylan, Pendopharm, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences Inc., Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, and Tillotts Pharma; speaker's fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AVIR Pharma Inc, Alimentiv, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ferring, Fresenius Kabi, Janssen, Organon, Pendopharm, Pfizer, and Takeda; royalties from Springer Publishing; research support from Ferring and Pfizer. ED: Endoscopic equipment on loan from FujiFilm; research grant: FujiFilm; honoraria for consultancy from Olympus, Fujifilm, Ambu, and InterVenn; and speaker’s fees from Olympus, GI Supply, Norgine, IPSEN, PAION, and FujiFilm. JS: Consultant for Jansen Research and Development, Recursion Pharmaceuticals, Tempest Pharmaceuticals, and Alimentiv Inc., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background and study aims Gastric adenocarcinoma of the fundic gland type (GA-FG) is characterized by an elevated lesion with vessel dilation exhibiting branching architecture (DVBA). However, this feature is also found in fundic gland polyps (FGPs), posing a challenge in their differentiation. In this study, we aimed to investigate the clinicopathological features of gastric elevated lesions with DVBA and assess the efficacy of the white ring sign (WRS) as a novel marker for distinguishing between FGPs and GA-FGs. Methods We analyzed 159 gastric elevated lesions without DVBA and 51 gastric elevated lesions with DVBA, further dividing the latter into 39 in the WRS-positive group and 12 in the WRS-negative group. The clinicopathological features, diagnostic accuracy, and inter-rater reliability were analyzed. Results Univariate and multivariate analyses for gastric elevated lesions with DVBA identified the histological type consistent with FGPs and GA-FGs, along with the presence of round pits in the background gastric mucosa, as independent predictors. FGPs were present in 92.3% (36/39) of the WRS-positive group and GA-FGs were observed in 50.0% (6/12) of the WRS-negative group. WRS positivity and negativity exhibited high diagnostic accuracy, with 100% sensitivity, 80.0% specificity, and 94.1% accuracy for FGPs, and 100% sensitivity, 86.7% specificity, and 88.2% accuracy for GA-FGs. Kappa values for WRS between experts and nonexperts were 0.891 and 0.841, respectively, indicating excellent agreement. Conclusions WRS positivity and negativity demonstrate high diagnostic accuracy and inter-rater reliability for FGPs and GA-FGs, respectively, suggesting that WRS is a useful novel marker for distinguishing between FGPs and GA-FGs., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Mikihiro Fujiya received lecture fees from Olympus Corporation. The remaining authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Several cases have been reported that suggest the efficacy of gel immersion endoscopic mucosal resection (GI-EMR) for gastric neoplasms. However, no study has evaluated treatment outcomes of GI-EMR for gastric neoplasms. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of GI-EMR for early gastric neoplasms. Nine patients (17 lesions) undergoing gastric GI-EMR were included, with a median lesion size of 10 mm (interquartile range [IQR] 5-13 mm). All lesions were protruding or flat elevated. The median procedure time was 3 minutes (IQR 2-5) and en bloc resection was achieved in all cases. Among 15 neoplastic lesions, the R0 resection rate was 86.7% (13/15 lesions). Adverse events included immediate bleeding requiring hemostasis in two cases, which was controlled endoscopically. No delayed bleeding or perforation occurred. In conclusion, GI-EMR may be a safe and effective treatment for early, small gastric neoplasms. However, due to the small sample in the present study, further investigation is required regarding the indication for this technique., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background and study aims Simethicone is useful as premedication for upper endoscopy because of its antifoaming effects. We aimed to evaluate the effect of timing of simethicone administration on mucosal visibility. Patients and methods In this multicenter, randomized, endoscopist-blinded study, patients scheduled for upper endoscopy were randomized to receive 40 mg simethicone at the following time points prior to the procedure: 20 to 30 minutes (early group), 0 to 10 minutes (late group) or 20 mg simethicone at both time points (split-dose group). Images were taken from nine predefined locations in the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum before endoscopic flushing. Each image was scored on mucosal visibility by three independent endoscopists on a 4-point scale (lower scores indicating better visibility), with adequate mucosal visibility defined as a score ≤ 2. Primary outcome was the percentage of patients with adequate total mucosal visibility (TMV), reached if all median subscores for each location were ≤ 2. Results A total of 386 patients were included (early group: 132; late group: 128; split-dose group: 126). Percentages of adequate TMV were 55%, 42%, and 61% in the early, late, and split-dose group, respectively ( P < 0.01). Adequate TMV was significantly higher in the split-dose group compared to the late group ( P < 0.01), but not compared to the early group ( P = 0.29). Differences between groups were largest in the stomach, where percentages of adequate mucosal visibility were higher in the early (68% vs 53%, P = 0.03) and split-dose group (69% vs 53%, P = 0.02) compared to the late group. Conclusions Mucosal visibility can be optimized with early simethicone administration, either as a single administration or in a split-dose regimen., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest B.L.A.M. Weusten is a consultant for Pentax Medical, has received a speaker’s fee from Pentax Medical and has received research funding from Aqua Medical and Pentax Medical. The remaining authors disclose no conflicts., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background and study aims Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy lacks established quality indicators. We conducted an umbrella systematic review of potential quality indicators for the detection of UGI cancer and dysplasia. Methods Bibliographic databases were searched up to December 2021 for systematic reviews and primary studies. Studies reporting diagnostic accuracy, detection rates or the association of endoscopy or endoscopist-related factors with UGI cancer or dysplasia detection were included. AMSTAR2 and JBI checklists were used to assess systematic review and primary study quality. Clinical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis and findings are summarized narratively. Results Eight systematic reviews and nine primary studies were included. Image enhancement, especially narrow band imaging, had high diagnostic accuracy for dysplasia and early gastric cancer (pooled sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.84-0.89) and specificity 0.97 (0.97-0.98)). Higher detection rates with longer endoscopy examination times were reported in three studies, but no difference was observed in one study. Endoscopist biopsy rate was associated with increased gastric cancer detection (odds ratio 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-2.9). Early esophageal cancer (0.17% vs 0.14%, P =0.04) and gastric cancer (0.16% vs 0.12%, P =0.02) detection rates were higher with propofol sedation compared to no sedation. Endoscopies performed by trained endoscopists on dedicated Barrett's surveillance lists had higher detection rates (8% vs 3%, P <0.001). The neoplasia detection rate during diagnostic endoscopies for Barrett's esophagus was 7% (95% CI 4%-10%). Conclusions Image enhancement use, longer examination times, biopsy rate and propofol sedation are potential quality indicators for UGI endoscopy. Neoplasia detection rate and dedicated endoscopy lists are additional potential quality indicators for Barrett's esophagus., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background and study aims Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) is limited by low en-bloc resection rates, especially for large (> 20 mm) lesions. Underwater EMR (U-EMR) has emerged as an alternative for colorectal polyps and is being shown to improve en-bloc resection rates. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the two techniques. Methods Multiple databases were searched through November 2022 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes of U-EMR and C-EMR for colorectal polyps. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled proportions and relative risks (RRs) of R0 and en-bloc resection, polyp recurrence, resection time, and adverse events. Results Seven RCTs with 1458 patients (U-EMR: 739, C-EMR: 719) were included. The pooled rate of en-bloc resection was significantly higher with U-EMR vs C-EMR, 70.17% (confidence interval [CI] 46.68-86.34) vs 58.14% (CI 31.59-80.68), respectively, RR 1.21 (CI 1.01-1.44). R0 resection rates were higher with U-EMR vs C-EMR, 58.1% (CI 29.75-81.9) vs 44.6% (CI 17.4-75.4), RR 1.25 (CI 0.99-1.6). For large polyps (> 20 mm), en-bloc resection rates were comparable between the two techniques, RR 1.24 (CI 0.83-1.84). Resection times were comparable between U-EMR and C-EMR, standardized mean difference -1.21 min (CI -2.57 to -0.16). Overall pooled rates of perforation, and immediate and delayed bleeding were comparable between U-EMR and C-EMR. Pooled rate of polyp recurrence at surveillance colonoscopy was significantly lower with U-EMR than with C-EMR, RR 0.62 (CI 0.41-0.94). Conclusions Colorectal U-EMR results in higher en-bloc resection and lower recurrence rates when compared to C-EMR. Both techniques have comparable resection times and safety profiles., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Dr. Othman – Consultant for Abbvie, BSC, Olympus, Lumedni and ConMed Dr. Rodríguez – Consultant for Microtech Endoscopy. Dr. Draganov – Consultant for Olympus, Boston Scientific, Cook, Fujifilm, Medtronic, Merit, Lumendi, Steris, Microtech. The remaining authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background and study aims Undifferentiated early gastric cancer (UD-EGC) represents an extended indication for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) based on the existing guidelines. This study evaluated the prevalence of UD-EGC recurrence after ESD, and potentially implicated risk factors. Patients and methods Data from 17 centers were collected retrospectively including demographics, endoscopic and pathological findings, and follow-up data from UD-EGC cases treated by ESD. Patients with incomplete resection or advanced disease were excluded. Descriptive statistics quantified variables and calculated the incidence of recurrence. Chi-square test was applied to assess any link between independent variables and relapse; significantly associated variables were inserted to a multivariable regression model. Results Seventy-one patients were eligible, with 2:1 female to male ratio and age of 65.8 ± 11.8 years. Mean lesion size was 33.5 ± 18.8 mm and the most frequent histological subtype was signet ring-cells UGC (2:1). Patients were followed-up every 5.6 ± 3.7 months with a mean surveillance period of 29.3 ± 15.3 months until data collection. Four patients (5.6%) developed local recurrence 8.8 ± 6.5 months post-ESD, with no lymph node or distal metastases been reported. Lesion size was not associated with recurrence ( P = 0.32), in contrast to lymphovascular and perineural invasion which were independently associated with local recurrence ( P = 0.006 and P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusions ESD could be considered as the initial step to manage UD-EGC, providing at least an "entire-lesion" biopsy to guide therapeutic strategy. When histology confirms absence of lymphovascular and perineural invasion, this modality could be therapeutic, providing low recurrence rates., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)