Summary Background Acute gastrointestinal bleeding is prevalent condition and iron deficiency anaemia is a common comorbidity, yet anaemia treatment guidelines for affected patients are lacking. Aim To compare efficacy and safety of intravenous ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) and oral ferrous sulphate (FeSulf) in patients with anaemia secondary to non‐variceal gastrointestinal bleeding Methods A prospective 42‐day study randomised 61 patients with haemoglobin <10 g/dL upon discharge (Day 0) to receive FCM (n = 29; Day 0: 1000 mg, Day 7: 500 or 1000 mg; per label) or FeSulf (n = 32; 325 mg/12 hours for 6 weeks). Outcome measures were assessed on Days 0 (baseline), 7, 21 and 42. The primary outcome was complete response (haemoglobin ≥12 g/dL [women], ≥13 g/dL [men]) after 6 weeks. Results A higher proportion of complete response was observed in the FCM vs the FeSulf group at Days 21 (85.7% vs 45.2%; P = 0.001) and 42 (100% vs 61.3%; P < 0.001). Additionally, the percentage of patients with partial response (haemoglobin increment ≥2 g/dL from baseline) was significantly higher in the FCM vs the FeSulf group (Day 21:100% vs 67.7%; P = 0.001, Day 42:100% vs 74.2%; P = 0.003). At Day 42, normalisation of transferrin saturation to 25% or greater was observed in 76.9% of FCM vs 24.1% of FeSulf‐treated patients (P < 0.001). No patient in the FCM group reported any adverse event vs 10 patients in the FeSulf group. Conclusion FCM provided greater and faster Hb increase and iron repletion, and was better tolerated than FeSulf in patients with iron deficiency anaemia secondary to non‐variceal acute gastrointestinal bleeding.

Biliary tract cancer, or cholangiocarcinoma, comprises a heterogeneous group of malignant tumors that can emerge at any part of the biliary tree. This group is the second most common type of primary liver cancer. Diagnosis is usually based on symptoms, which may be heterogeneous, and nonspecific biomarkers in serum and biopsy specimens, as well as on imaging techniques. Endoscopy-based diagnosis is essential, since it enables biopsy specimens to be taken. In addition, it can help with locoregional staging of distal tumors. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is a key technique for the evaluation and treatment of malignant biliary tumors. Correct staging of cholangiocarcinoma is essential in order to be able to determine the degree of resectability and assess the results of treatment. The tumor is staged based on the TNM classification of the American Joint Committee on Cancer. The approach will depend on the classification of the tumor. Thus, some patients with early-stage disease could benefit from surgery; complete surgical resection is the cornerstone of cure. However, only a minority of patients are diagnosed in the early stages and are suitable candidates for resection. In the subset of patients diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic disease, chemotherapy has been used to improve outcome and to delay tumor progression. The approach to biliary tract tumors should be multidisciplinary, involving experienced endoscopists, oncologists, radiologists, and surgeons.

No abstract

Screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is recommended by all scientific societies. However, there are differences in the recommendations they make regarding screening and surveillance. We address a series of questions that come up in the daily clinical practice of a physician. The first two questions that are raised are: (1) Who should be offered screening for CRC? and (2) When should the first colonoscopy be performed? The next step is to decide who should undergo endoscopic surveillance and at what intervals they should be performed. Chromoendoscopy is emerging as the recommended endoscopic technique for screening and surveillance. The terminology for describing lesions detected with endoscopy is also changing. The management of visible lesions or non-visible dysplasia is also a motive for the review. We end the review by addressing the follow-up for endoscopically resected lesions. These questions often cannot be answered easily due to the varying degrees of evidence available; therefore, we have made some general recommendations based on those made by the various guidelines and consensuses. The first screening colonoscopy should be offered 8 years after a IBD diagnosis and we recommend that patients be stratified according to the individual risk for each for endoscopic surveillance intervals.

Immunotherapy is any treatment aimed at boosting or enhancing the immune system. It includes a wide range of options, from vaccines to treatment for conditions such as allergy and cancer. In the case of cancer, unlike other available treatments, immunotherapy is not aimed at destroying the tumor cells but at stimulating the patient’s immune system so that it attacks the tumor. In cancer, immunotherapy provides a series of advantages. Nevertheless, immunotherapy administered for treatment of cancer is associated with immune-mediated enterocolitis. Colitis mediated by monoclonal anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 and to programmed cell death protein 1 and its ligand PDL1 shares characteristics with chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and similar findings have been reported for both the endoscopy images and the segment involved. The most frequent lesions on endoscopy are ulcer and erythema, and the most frequently affected site is the sigmoid colon. A segmental pattern has been reported to be slightly more frequent than a continuous pattern. In addition, upper gastrointestinal lesions have been reported in up to half of patients, with the most frequent findings being gastritis and erosive duodenitis. As is the case in IBD, systemic corticosteroids and immunosuppressive treatment (anti-TNF agents) are the approaches used in patients with a more unfavorable progression. Immunotherapy must be suspended completely in some cases.