Background & Aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a widely accepted treatment option for superficial gastric neoplasia in Asia, but there are few data on outcomes of gastric ESD from North America. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of gastric ESD in North America. Methods:We analyzed data from 347 patients who underwent gastric ESD at 25 centers, from 2010 through 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, lesion characteristics, procedure details and related adverse events, treatment outcomes, local recurrence, and vital status at the last follow up. For the 277 patients with available follow-up data, the median interval between initial ESD and last clinical or endoscopic evaluation was 364 days. The primary endpoint was the rate of en bloc and R0 resection. Secondary outcomes included curative resection, rates of adverse events and recurrence, and gastric cancer-related death.

Background and study aims Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with the double-balloon endoluminal intervention platform (DEIP) is a novel technique for removal of complex colon polyps (> 2 cm) or those located in anatomically difficult positions. DEIP helps create a therapeutic zone with improved visualization and stability, facilitating polyp removal. We aimed to compare the outcomes of DEIP with the conventional cap-assisted ESD (standard ESD) technique for colon polyp resection, in particular, the ability to complete the ESD procedure without resorting to hybrid ESD or piecemeal resection. Patients and methods This was a retrospective cohort of all patients who underwent colon ESD in a single large tertiary referral center between September 2016 and October 2019. Information was collected on patient demographics and study outcomes including procedure time, rates of en bloc and curative resection, operative and postoperative complications. All patients were followed up for 1 month after the procedure. Results 111 patients were included in the study (DEIP 60, standard ESD 51). There was no statistically significant difference between mean procedures time (± SD) in the two groups, mean (81.9 ± 35.4 min standard vs. 96.4 ± 42.2 min in DEIP). Mean polyp size (± SD) was similar between the two groups (7.6 ± 6.0 cm2 vs. 6.2 ± 5.5 cm2, P = .2). There were no significant differences in en bloc and curative resection rates or operative and postoperative complications between the two techniques. Conclusion Procedure time was similar using both techniques. However, DEIP enabled the entire procedure to be performed using the ESD technique without resorting to snare resection, which may affect the en bloc and curative resection rate. There were no significant differences in en bloc and curative resection rates between the two groups, probably due to the small sample size.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic necrosectomy has emerged as the preferred treatment modality for walled-off pancreatic necrosis. This study was designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of direct endoscopic necrosectomy with and without hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) lavage. METHODS: Retrospective chart reviews were performed for all patients undergoing endoscopic transmural management of walled-off pancreatic necrosis at 9 major medical centers from November 2011 to August 2018. Clinical success was defined as the resolution of the collection by imaging within 6 months, without requiring non‐endoscopic procedures or surgery. RESULTS: Of 293 patients, 204 met the inclusion criteria. Technical and clinical success rates were 100% (204/204) and 81% (166/189), respectively. For patients, 122 (59.8%) patients had at least one H2O2 necrosectomy (H2O2 group) and 82 (40.2%) patients had standard endoscopic necrosectomy. Clinical success was higher in the H2O2 group: 106/113 (93.8%) vs 60/76 (78.9%), P = 0.002. On a multivariate analysis, the use of H2O2 was associated with higher clinical success rate (odds ratio 3.30, P = 0.033) and earlier resolution (odds ratio 2.27, P < 0.001). During a mean follow-up of 274 days, 27 complications occurred. Comparing procedures performed with and without H2O2 (n = 250 vs 183), there was no difference in post‐procedure bleeding (7 vs 9, P = 0.25), perforation (2 vs 3, P = 0.66), infection (1 vs 2, P = 0.58), or overall complication rate (n = 13 [5.2%] vs 14 [7.7%], P = 0.30). DISCUSSION: H2O2-assisted endoscopic necrosectomy had a higher clinical success rate and a shorter time to resolution with equivalent complication rates relative to standard necrosectomy.See the visual abstract at http://links.lww.com/AJG/B714. JOURNAL/ajgast/04.03/00000434-202104000-00022/inline-graphic1/v/2023-07-18T070751Z/r/image-tiff

No abstract

This study aims to evaluate the prognostic value of MUC expression in US GC patients. A total of 70 tumor specimens were collected from GC patients who underwent surgery or endoscopic resection between 2013 and 2019 at a tertiary referral center in the US. MUC expression status including MUC1, MUC2, MUC5AC, and MUC6 was evaluated by immunohistochemical staining. The positive rates of MUC1, MUC2, MUC5AC, and MUC6 were 71.4%, 78.6%, 74.3%, and 33.3%, respectively. Patients with positive MUC1 expression had a significantly higher rate of aggressive pathologic features including diffuse-type cancer (42.0% vs. 0%; p < 0.001), advanced GC (80.0% vs. 30.0%, p < 0.001), lymph node metastasis (62.0% vs. 20.0%; p = 0.001), and distant metastasis (32.0% vs. 5.0%; p = 0.017) compared with those with negative MUC1 expression. However, the differences in the pathologic features were not observed according to MUC2, MUC5AC, and MUC6 expression status. In early gastric cancer (EGC), patients with a high level of MUC1 expression showed a higher rate of lymphovascular invasion (71.4% vs. 21.4%; p = 0.026) and EGC meeting non-curative resection (85.7% vs. 42.9%; p = 0.061) than those with negative MUC1. In US GC patients, MUC1 expression is associated with aggressive pathological features, and might be a useful prognostic marker.