Background Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a minimally invasive resection technique that allows definite diagnosis and treatment for complex colorectal lesions ≤ 30 mm unsuitable for conventional endoscopic resection. This study reports clinical outcomes from the Dutch colorectal eFTR registry. Methods Consecutive patients undergoing eFTR in 20 hospitals were prospectively included. The primary outcome was technical success, defined as macroscopic complete en bloc resection. Secondary outcomes were: clinical success, defined as tumor-free resection margins (R0 resection); full-thickness resection rate; and adverse events. Results Between July 2015 and October 2018, 367 procedures were included. Indications were difficult polyps (non-lifting sign and/or difficult location; n = 133), primary resection of suspected T1 colorectal cancer (CRC; n = 71), re-resection after incomplete resection of T1 CRC (n = 150), and subepithelial tumors (n = 13). Technical success was achieved in 308 procedures (83.9 %). In 21 procedures (5.7 %), eFTR was not performed because the lesion could not be reached or retracted into the cap. In the remaining 346 procedures, R0 resection was achieved in 285 (82.4 %) and full-thickness resection in 288 (83.2 %). The median diameter of resected specimens was 23 mm. Overall adverse event rate was 9.3 % (n = 34/367): 10 patients (2.7 %) required emergency surgery for five delayed and two immediate perforations and three cases of appendicitis. Conclusion eFTR is an effective and relatively safe en bloc resection technique for complex colorectal lesions with the potential to avoid surgery. Further studies assessing the role of eFTR in early CRC treatment with long-term outcomes are needed.

No abstract

SSA/Ps with dysplasia are frequently < 6 mm in size, located throughout the colon and 9.5 % of them contain high grade dysplasia. These findings underscore the importance of high quality colonoscopic examination to maximize protection against CRC.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Data are scarce on the efficacy and safety of the Motorized spiral enteroscopy (MSE). No data are available on the utility of this technique in patients with surgically-altered gastrointestinal (GI) anatomy. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of MSE in patients with suspected small-bowel disease including those with surgically-altered GI anatomy. METHODS: A multicenter prospective observational, uncontrolled study evaluated MSE in consecutive patients with suspected small-bowel pathology indicated for diagnostic and/or therapeutic intervention. RESULTS: A total of 170 patients (median age, 64 years; range 18-89 years; 102 male, 68 female) were included. The overall diagnostic yield was 64.1%. Endotherapy was performed in 53.5% of procedures. The median total procedure time for antegrade and retrograde approach was 45 minutes (IQR=30-80) and 40 (IQR=30-70) respectively. When total (pan-)enteroscopy was intended, this was achieved at rate of 70.3%, (28.1% by antegrade approach and 42.1% by a bi-directional approach). Surgically-altered GI anatomy was present in 34/170 (20%) of the all procedures and in 11/45 (24.4%) of the successful total enteroscopy procedures. Propofol sedation or general anesthesia were used in 92.9% and 7% of the procedures respectively. Minor adverse events were observed in 15.8% of patients, but no major adverse events. CONCLUSION: MSE seems to be effective and safe endoscopic procedure. Total (pan-)enteroscopy can be achieved, in one or two sessions, even in the presence of surgically-altered GI anatomy. The total procedure time is relatively short. For both antegrade and retrograde MSE procedures, propofol sedation seems sufficient and safe.

Background and study aims: Complete endoscopic resection and accurate histological evaluation for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) is critical to determine subsequent treatment. Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection (eFTR) is a new treatment option for T1 CRC <2cm. We aim to report clinical outcomes and short-term results. Patients and methods: Consecutive eFTR procedures for T1 CRC, prospectively recorded in our national registry between November 2015 and April 2020, were retrospectively analysed. Primary outcomes were technical success and R0 resection. Secondary outcomes were histological risk-assessment, curative resections, adverse events and short-term outcomes. Results: We included 330 procedures: 132 primary resections and 198 secondary scar resections after incomplete T1 CRC resection. Overall technical success, R0 resection and curative resection rates were 87.0% (95% CI [82.7 – 90.3%]), 85.6% (95% CI [81.2 – 89.2%]) and 60.3% (95% CI [54.7 – 65.7%]). Curative resection rate for primary resected T1 CRC was 23.7% (95% CI [15.9 – 33.6%]) and 60.8% (95% CI [50.4 – 70.4%]) after excluding deep submucosal invasion as risk-factor. Risk-stratification was possible in 99.3%. Severe adverse event rates was 2.2%. Additional oncologic surgery was performed in 49/320 (15.3%), with residual cancer in 11/49 (22.4%). Endoscopic follow-up was available in 200/242 (82.6%), with a median of 4 months and residual cancer in 1 (0.5%) following an incomplete resection. Conclusions: eFTR is a relatively safe and effective method to resect small T1 CRC, both as primary and secondary treatment. eFTR can expand endoscopic treatment options for T1 CRC and could help to reduce surgical overtreatment. Future studies should focus on long-term outcomes.