BackgroundMalignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is a debilitating condition that frequently occurs in patients with malignancies of the distal stomach and (peri)ampullary region. The standard... Show moreBackgroundMalignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is a debilitating condition that frequently occurs in patients with malignancies of the distal stomach and (peri)ampullary region. The standard palliative treatment for patients with a reasonable life expectancy and adequate performance status is a laparoscopic surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ). Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) emerged as a promising alternative to the surgical approach. The present study aims to compare these treatment modalities in terms of efficacy, safety, and costs.MethodsThe ENDURO-study is a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled trial. In total, ninety-six patients with gastric outlet obstruction caused by an irresectable or metastasized malignancy will be 1:1 randomized to either SGJ or EUS-GE. The primary endpoint is time to tolerate at least soft solids. The co-primary endpoint is the proportion of patients with persisting or recurring symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction for which a reintervention is required. Secondary endpoints are technical and clinical success, quality of life, gastroenterostomy dysfunction, reinterventions, time to reintervention, adverse events, quality of life, time to start chemotherapy, length of hospital stay, readmissions, weight, survival, and costs.DiscussionThe ENDURO-study assesses whether EUS-GE, as compared to SGJ, results in a faster resumption of solid oral intake and is non-inferior regarding reinterventions for persistent or recurrent obstructive symptoms in patients with malignant GOO. This trial aims to guide future treatment strategies and to improve quality of life in a palliative setting. Show less
Background and study aims Overcoming logistical obstacles for the implementation of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) requires accurate prediction of procedure times. We aimed to... Show moreBackground and study aims Overcoming logistical obstacles for the implementation of colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) requires accurate prediction of procedure times. We aimed to evaluate existing and new prediction models for ESD duration.Patients and methods Records of all consecutive patients who underwent single, non-hybrid colorectal ESDs before 2020 at three Dutch centers were reviewed. The performance of an Eastern prediction model [GIE 2021;94(1):133-144] was assessed in the Dutch cohort. A prediction model for procedure duration was built using multivariable linear regression. The model's performance was validated using internal validation by bootstrap resampling, internal-external cross-validation and external validation in an independent Swedish ESD cohort.Results A total of 435 colorectal ESDs were analyzed (92% en bloc resections, mean duration 139 minutes, mean tumor size 39 mm). The performance of current unstandardized time scheduling practice was suboptimal (explained variance: R-2 =27%). We successfully validated the Eastern prediction model for colorectal ESD duration <60 minutes (c-statistic 0.70, 95% CI 0.62-0.77), but this model was limited due to dichotomization of the outcome and a relatively low frequency (14%) of ESDs completed <60 minutes in the Dutch centers. The model was more useful with a dichotomization cut-off of 120 minutes (c-statistic: 0.75; 88% and 17% of "easy" and "very difficult" ESDs completed <120 minutes, respectively). To predict ESD duration as continuous outcome, we developed and validated the six-variable cESD-TIME formula ( https://cesdtimeformula.shinyapps.io/calculator/ ; optimism-corrected R-2 =61%; R-2 =66% after recalibration of the slope).Conclusions We provided two useful tools for predicting colorectal ESD duration at Western centers. Further improvements and validations are encouraged with potential local adaptation to optimize time planning. Show less
Dekkers, N.; Dang, H.; Kraan, J. van der; Cessie, S. le; Oldenburg, P.P.; Schoones, J.W.; ... ; Boonstra, J.J. 2022
Background T1 rectal cancer (RC) patients are increasingly being treated by local resection alone but uniform surveillance strategies thereafter are lacking. To determine whether different local... Show moreBackground T1 rectal cancer (RC) patients are increasingly being treated by local resection alone but uniform surveillance strategies thereafter are lacking. To determine whether different local resection techniques influence the risk of recurrence and cancer-related mortality, a meta-analysis was performed.Methods A systematic search was conducted for T1RC patients treated with local surgical resection. The primary outcome was the risk of RC recurrence and RC-related mortality. Pooled estimates were calculated using mixed-effect logistic regression. We also systematically searched and evaluated endoscopically treated T1RC patients in a similar manner.Results In 2585 unique T1RC patients (86 studies) undergoing local surgical resection, the overall pooled cumulative incidence of recurrence was 9.1% (302 events, 95% CI 7.3-11.4%; I-2 = 68.3%). In meta-regression, the recurrence risk was associated with histological risk status (p < 0.005; low-risk 6.6%, 95% CI 4.4-9.7% vs. high-risk 28.2%, 95% CI 19-39.7%) and local surgical resection technique (p <0.005; TEM/TAMIS 7.7%, 95% CI 5.3-11.0% vs. other local surgical excisions 10.8%, 95% CI 6.7-16.8%). In 641 unique T1RC patients treated with flexible endoscopic excision (16 studies), the risk of recurrence (7.7%, 95% CI 5.2-11.2%), cancer-related mortality (2.3%, 95% CI 1.1-4.9), and cancer-related mortality among patients with recurrence (30.0%, 95% CI 14.7-49.4%) were comparable to outcomes after TEM/TAMIS (risk of recurrence 7.7%, 95% CI 5.3-11.0%, cancer-related mortality 2.8%, 95% CI 1.2-6.2% and among patients with recurrence 35.6%, 95% CI 21.9-51.2%).Conclusions Patients with T1 rectal cancer may have a significantly lower recurrence risk after TEM/TAMIS compared to other local surgical resection techniques. After TEM/TAMIS and endoscopic resection the recurrence risk, cancer-related mortality and cancer-related mortality among patients with recurrence were comparable. Recurrence was mainly dependent on histological risk status.[GRAPHICS]. Show less
Dekkers, N.; Dang, H.; Kraan, J. van der; Cessie, S. le; Oldenburg, P.P.; Schoones, J.W.; ... ; Boonstra, J.J. 2022
BackgroundT1 rectal cancer (RC) patients are increasingly being treated by local resection alone but uniform surveillance strategies thereafter are lacking. To determine whether different local... Show moreBackgroundT1 rectal cancer (RC) patients are increasingly being treated by local resection alone but uniform surveillance strategies thereafter are lacking. To determine whether different local resection techniques influence the risk of recurrence and cancer-related mortality, a meta-analysis was performed.MethodsA systematic search was conducted for T1RC patients treated with local surgical resection. The primary outcome was the risk of RC recurrence and RC-related mortality. Pooled estimates were calculated using mixed-effect logistic regression. We also systematically searched and evaluated endoscopically treated T1RC patients in a similar manner.ResultsIn 2585 unique T1RC patients (86 studies) undergoing local surgical resection, the overall pooled cumulative incidence of recurrence was 9.1% (302 events, 95% CI 7.3–11.4%; I2 = 68.3%). In meta-regression, the recurrence risk was associated with histological risk status (p < 0.005; low-risk 6.6%, 95% CI 4.4–9.7% vs. high-risk 28.2%, 95% CI 19–39.7%) and local surgical resection technique (p < 0.005; TEM/TAMIS 7.7%, 95% CI 5.3–11.0% vs. other local surgical excisions 10.8%, 95% CI 6.7–16.8%). In 641 unique T1RC patients treated with flexible endoscopic excision (16 studies), the risk of recurrence (7.7%, 95% CI 5.2–11.2%), cancer-related mortality (2.3%, 95% CI 1.1–4.9), and cancer-related mortality among patients with recurrence (30.0%, 95% CI 14.7–49.4%) were comparable to outcomes after TEM/TAMIS (risk of recurrence 7.7%, 95% CI 5.3–11.0%, cancer-related mortality 2.8%, 95% CI 1.2–6.2% and among patients with recurrence 35.6%, 95% CI 21.9–51.2%).ConclusionsPatients with T1 rectal cancer may have a significantly lower recurrence risk after TEM/TAMIS compared to other local surgical resection techniques. After TEM/TAMIS and endoscopic resection the recurrence risk, cancer-related mortality and cancer-related mortality among patients with recurrence were comparable. Recurrence was mainly dependent on histological risk status. Show less
Main Recommendations: 1 ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as the best tool to characterize subepithelial lesion (SEL) features (size, location, originating layer, echogenicity, shape... Show moreMain Recommendations: 1 ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as the best tool to characterize subepithelial lesion (SEL) features (size, location, originating layer, echogenicity, shape), but EUS alone is not able to distinguish among all types of SEL. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2 ESGE suggests providing tissue diagnosis for all SELs with features suggestive of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) if they are of size > 20 mm, or have high risk stigmata, or require surgical resection or oncological treatment. Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) or mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) equally for tissue diagnosis of SELs >= 20 mm in size. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 ESGE recommends against surveillance of asymptomatic gastrointestinal (GI) tract leiomyomas, lipomas, heterotopic pancreas, granular cell tumors, schwannomas, and glomus tumors, if the diagnosis is clear. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5 ESGE suggests surveillance of asymptomatic esophageal and gastric SELs without definite diagnosis, with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at 3-6 months, and then at 2-3-year intervals for lesions < 10 mm in size, and at 1-2-year intervals for lesions 10-20 mm in size. For asymptomatic SELs > 20 mm in size that are not resected, ESGE suggests surveillance with EGD plus EUS at 6 months and then at 6-12-month intervals. Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for type 1 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (g-NENs) if they grow larger than 10 mm. The choice of resection technique should depend on size, depth of invasion, and location in the stomach. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7 ESGE suggests considering removal of histologically proven gastric GISTs smaller than 20 mm as an alternative to surveillance. The decision to resect should be discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting. The choice of technique should depend on size, location, and local expertise. Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 8 ESGE suggests that, to avoid unnecessary follow-up, endoscopic resection is an option for gastric SELs smaller than 20 mm and of unknown histology after failure of attempts to obtain diagnosis. Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 9 ESGE recommends basing the surveillance strategy on the type and completeness of resection. After curative resection of benign SELs no follow-up is advised, except for type 1 gastric NEN for which surveillance at 1-2 years is advised. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 10 For lower or upper GI NEN with a positive or indeterminate margin at resection, ESGE recommends repeating endoscopy at 3-6 months and another attempt at endoscopic resection in the case of residual disease. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. Show less
