Main recommendations: ESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and... Show moreMain recommendations: ESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based). ESGE does not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection. ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the treatment of choice for most superficial esophageal squamous cell and superficial gastric lesions. For Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated lesions, ESGE suggests the use of ESD for lesions suspicious of submucosal invasion (Paris type 0-Is, 0-IIc), for malignant lesions > 20 mm, and for lesions in scarred/fibrotic areas. ESGE does not recommend routine use of ESD for duodenal or small-bowel lesions. ESGE suggests that ESD should be considered for en bloc resection of colorectal (but particularly rectal) lesions with suspicion of limited submucosal invasion (demarcated depressed area with irregular surface pattern or a large protruding or bulky component, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm) or for lesions that otherwise cannot be completely removed by snare-based techniques. ESGE recommends that an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with histology no more advanced than intramucosal cancer (no more than m2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma), well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion or ulceration, should be considered a very low risk (curative) resection, and no further staging procedure or treatment is generally recommended. ESGE recommends that the following should be considered to be a low risk (curative) resection and no further treatment is generally recommended: an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with superficial submucosal invasion (sm1), that is well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion, of size <= 20 mm for an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma or <= 30 mm for a stomach lesion or of any size for a BE-related or colorectal lesion, and with no lymphovascular invasion, and no budding grade 2 or 3 for colorectal lesions. ESGE recommends that, after an endoscopically complete resection, if there is a positive horizontal margin or if resection is piecemeal, but there is no submucosal invasion and no other high risk criteria are met, this should be considered a local-risk resection and endoscopic surveillance or re-treatment is recommended rather than surgery or other additional treatment. ESGE recommends that when there is a diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion, or deeper infiltration than sm1, or positive vertical margins, or undifferentiated tumor, or, for colorectal lesions, budding grade 2 or 3, this should be considered a high risk (noncurative) resection, and complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments should be considered on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion. ESGE recommends scheduled endoscopic surveillance with high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based) with biopsies of only the suspicious areas after a curative ESD. Show less
ESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye... Show moreESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based).ESGE does not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection.ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the treatment of choice for most superficial esophageal squamous cell and superficial gastric lesions.For Barrett’s esophagus (BE)-associated lesions, ESGE suggests the use of ESD for lesions suspicious of submucosal invasion (Paris type 0-Is, 0-IIc), for malignant lesions > 20 mm, and for lesions in scarred/fibrotic areas.ESGE does not recommend routine use of ESD for duodenal or small-bowel lesions.ESGE suggests that ESD should be considered for en bloc resection of colorectal (but particularly rectal) lesions with suspicion of limited submucosal invasion (demarcated depressed area with irregular surface pattern or a large protruding or bulky component, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm) or for lesions that otherwise cannot be completely removed by snare-based techniques.ESGE recommends that an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with histology no more advanced than intramucosal cancer (no more than m2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma), well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion or ulceration, should be considered a very low risk (curative) resection, and no further staging procedure or treatment is generally recommended.ESGE recommends that the following should be considered to be a low risk (curative) resection and no further treatment is generally recommended: an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with superficial submucosal invasion (sm1), that is well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion, of size ≤ 20 mm for an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma or ≤ 30 mm for a stomach lesion or of any size for a BE-related or colorectal lesion, and with no lymphovascular invasion, and no budding grade 2 or 3 for colorectal lesions.ESGE recommends that, after an endoscopically complete resection, if there is a positive horizontal margin or if resection is piecemeal, but there is no submucosal invasion and no other high risk criteria are met, this should be considered a local-risk resection and endoscopic surveillance or re-treatment is recommended rather than surgery or other additional treatment.ESGE recommends that when there is a diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion, or deeper infiltration than sm1, or positive vertical margins, or undifferentiated tumor, or, for colorectal lesions, budding grade 2 or 3, this should be considered a high risk (noncurative) resection, and complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments should be considered on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE recommends scheduled endoscopic surveillance with high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based) with biopsies of only the suspicious areas after a curative ESD. Show less
Background In the recent years two innovative approaches have become available for minimally invasiveen blocresections of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions (polyps and early cancers). One is... Show moreBackground In the recent years two innovative approaches have become available for minimally invasiveen blocresections of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions (polyps and early cancers). One is Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS), the other is Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD). Both techniques are standard of care, but a direct randomised comparison is lacking. The choice between either of these procedures is dependent on local expertise or availability rather than evidence-based. The European Society for Endoscopy has recommended that a comparison between ESD and local surgical resection is needed to guide decision making for the optimal approach for the removal of large rectal lesions in Western countries. The aim of this study is to directly compare both procedures in a randomised setting with regard to effectiveness, safety and perceived patient burden. Methods Multicenter randomised trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with non-pedunculated lesions > 2 cm, where the bulk of the lesion is below 15 cm from the anal verge, will be randomised between either a TAMIS or an ESD procedure. Lesions judged to be deeply invasive by an expert panel will be excluded. The primary endpoint is the cumulative local recurrence rate at follow-up rectoscopy at 12 months. Secondary endpoints are: 1) Radical (R0-) resection rate; 2) Perceived burden and quality of life; 3) Cost effectiveness at 12 months; 4) Surgical referral rate at 12 months; 5) Complication rate; 6) Local recurrence rate at 6 months. For this non-inferiority trial, the total sample size of 198 is based on an expected local recurrence rate of 3% in the ESD group, 6% in the TAMIS group and considering a difference of less than 6% to be non-inferior. Discussion This is the first European randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and safety of TAMIS and ESD for theen blocresection of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions. This is important as the detection rate of these adenomas is expected to further increase with the introduction of colorectal screening programs throughout Europe. This study will therefore support an optimal use of healthcare resources in the future. Show less
IMPORTANCE For patients with painful chronic pancreatitis, surgical treatment is postponed until medical and endoscopic treatment have failed. Observational studies have suggested that earlier... Show moreIMPORTANCE For patients with painful chronic pancreatitis, surgical treatment is postponed until medical and endoscopic treatment have failed. Observational studies have suggested that earlier surgery could mitigate disease progression, providing better pain control and preserving pancreatic function.OBJECTIVE To determine whether early surgery is more effective than the endoscopy-first approach in terms of clinical outcomes.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The ESCAPE trial was an unblinded, multicenter, randomized clinical superiority trial involving 30 Dutch hospitals participating in the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. From April 2011 until September 2016, a total of 88 patients with chronic pancreatitis, a dilated main pancreatic duct, and who only recently started using prescribed opioids for severe pain (strong opioids for <= 2 months or weak opioids for <= 6 months) were included. The 18-month follow-up period ended in March 2018.INTERVENTIONS There were 44 patients randomized to the early surgery group who underwent pancreatic drainage surgery within 6 weeks after randomization and 44 patients randomized to the endoscopy-first approach group who underwent medical treatment, endoscopy including lithotripsy if needed, and surgery if needed.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was pain, measured on the Izbicki pain score and integrated over 18 months (range, 0-100 [increasing score indicates more pain severity]). Secondary outcomes were pain relief at the end of follow-up; number of interventions, complications, hospital admissions; pancreatic function; quality of life (measured on the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]); and mortality.RESULTS Among 88 patients who were randomized (mean age, 52 years; 21 (24%) women), 85 (97%) completed the trial. During 18 months of follow-up, patients in the early surgery group had a lower Izbicki pain score than patients in the group randomized to receive the endoscopy-first approach group (37 vs 49; between-group difference, -12 points [95% CI, -22 to -2]; P = .02). Complete or partial pain relief at end of follow-up was achieved in 23 of 40 patients (58%) in the early surgery vs 16 of 41 (39%)in the endoscopy-first approach group (P = .10). The total number of interventions was lower in the early surgery group (median, 1 vs 3; P < .001). Treatment complications (27% vs 25%), mortality (0% vs 0%), hospital admissions, pancreatic function, and quality of life were not significantly different between early surgery and the endoscopy-first approach.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with chronic pancreatitis, early surgery compared with an endoscopy-first approach resulted in lower pain scores when integrated over 18 months. However, further research is needed to assess persistence of differences over time and to replicate the study findings. Show less
Background Hypnotherapy for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) has been used primarily in patients with refractory symptoms in specialised departments and delivered on an individual basis. We aimed to... Show moreBackground Hypnotherapy for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) has been used primarily in patients with refractory symptoms in specialised departments and delivered on an individual basis. We aimed to test the hypothesis that hypnotherapy would be more effective than educational supportive therapy, and that group hypnotherapy would be non-inferior to individual hypnotherapy for patients with IBS referred from primary and secondary care.Methods We did a multicentre randomised controlled trial (IMAGINE) in 11 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with IBS, aged 18-65 years, who were referred from primary or secondary care were randomly allocated (3:3:1) in blocks of six using a computer-based random number table procedure by staff not involved in the treatment to receive six sessions of individual or group hypnotherapy or group educational supportive therapy (control group). The primary outcome was adequate relief of IBS symptoms, with responders defined as patients who reported adequate relief when asked once weekly on three or four occasions in 4 consecutive weeks. We compared hypnotherapy (both groups) with control in the intention-to-treat population (excluding individuals subsequently found to be ineligible for enrolment), and assessed non-inferiority of group hypnotherapy versus individual hypnotherapy in the per-protocol population (with a non-inferiority margin of 15%) at 3 months and 12 months. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number IS RCTN22888906, and is completed.Findings Between May 31, 2011, and April 6, 2016, 494 patients referred for psychological treatment for IBS were assessed for eligibility, of whom 354 were randomly allocated to the three groups: 150 to individual hypnotherapy, 150 to group hypnotherapy, and 54 to educational supportive therapy. After exclusion of individuals subsequently found to be ineligible for enrolment, 142 patients in the individual hypnotherapy group, 146 in the group hypnotherapy group, and 54 in the control group were included in the intention-to-treat population. Of these, 22 (15%) patients in the individual hypnotherapy group, 22 (15%) in the group hypnotherapy group, and 11 (20%) in the control group dropped out before or during therapy. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the adequate response rate was 40.8% (95% CI 31.7-50.5) in the individual hypnotherapy group, 33.2% (24.3-43.5) in the group hypnotherapy group, and 16.7% (7.6-32.6) in the control group at 3 months. At 12 months, 40.8% (31.3-51.1) of patients in the individual hypnotherapy group, 49.5% (38.8-60.0) of patients in the group hypnotherapy group, and 22.6% (11.5-39.5) of patients in the control group reported adequate relief. Hypnotherapy was more effective than control at 3 months (odds ratio 2.9, 95% CI 1.2-7.4,13=0.0240) and 12 months (2.8, 1.2-6.7, p=0.0185). In the per-protocol analysis, 49.9% (39.2-60.6) in the individual hypnotherapy group and 42.7% (32.3-53.8) in the group hypnotherapy group had adequate relief at 3 months, and 55.5% (43.4-67.1) of individual and 51.7% (40.2-63.0) of group hypnotherapy patients reported adequate relief at 12 months. Group hypnotherapy was therefore non-inferior to individual hypnotherapy. Eight unexpected serious adverse reactions (six in the individual hypnotherapy group and two in the group hypnotherapy group) were reported, most of which were cancer or inflammatory bowel disease, and were judged by the medical ethics committee as not being related to the therapy.Interpretation Hypnotherapy should be considered as a possible treatment for patients with IBS in primary and secondary care. Furthermore, group therapy could allow many more patients to be treated for the same cost. Copyright (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
