Background: Endoscopic submucosal resection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are well established as curable and safety procedures for treating superficial tumors of the stomach, esophagus and colon. However, a majority of endoscopic resection strategies for non-ampullary superficial duodenal tumors (NASDTs) remains undefined. The aim of this study was to clarify which was the right method for NASDT treatment - EMR or ESD. Summary: We analyzed 129 consecutive endoscopic resection (74 ESD and 55 EMR) procedures performed with NADSTs and divided the ESD group into 49 large ESD groups (more than 20 mm in diameter) and 25 small ESD groups (less than 20 mm in diameter). With respect to the technical outcomes of EMR/ESD for small size NASDTs, EMR was safer than ESD, but its nature of curability was inferior to that of ESD. The rates of complication such as perforation or delayed bleeding were significantly higher in both ESD groups than in the EMR group. However, the prophylactic endoscopic closure of large mucosal defects after ESD was useful for resolving those complications. The limitations of our study were involvement of a single-center, limited sample size, short follow-up duration and the retrospective design, which may have introduced selection bias. However, the present findings suggest that adequate endoscopic treatment strategy for NASDTs can lead to favorable outcomes and an excellent prognosis. Key Message: It is necessary to select EMR or ESD adequately for R0 resection of small NASDTs, according to their size and location. For large NASDTs, duodenal ESD with essential management is feasible and useful as a therapeutic procedure.

No abstract

No abstract

Background and study aims Delayed bleeding is one of the most serious adverse events of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), especially in patients taking antithrombotic therapy. This study aimed to evaluate the utility and safety of a shielding method with autologous fibrin glue and polyglycolic acid (PGA) sheets for patients undergoing gastric ESD who are receiving antithrombotic therapy. Patients and methods One hundred twenty-three patients who were treated with gastric ESD while receiving antithrombotic therapy between December 2014 and September 2017 were enrolled in this study. Patients who received the shielding method were classified into the shielding group. Others were classified into the conventional group. Various clinico-pathological factors were retrospectively compared between the two groups. Results The shielding group consisted of 38 patients, and the conventional group consisted of the remaining 85 patients. In the shielding group, the rate of continuation of antithrombotic therapy was significantly higher (68.4 % vs 41.2 %). Incidence of delayed bleeding was lower in the shielding group (2.6 %, 1/38) than in the conventional group (14.1 %, 12/85). In the propensity score-adjusted logistic regression analysis, the delayed bleeding rate in the shielding group tended to be lower than in the conventional group (P = 0.070). Allogeneic transfusion was performed in eight patients (8/85, 9.4 %) in the conventional group and none in the shielding group (P = 0.047). No adverse event associated with endoscopic shielding were observed in the shielding group. Conclusions This study suggests that a shielding method with autologous fibrin glue and PGA sheet effectively prevents delayed bleeding after gastric ESD in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy.

Objective According to consensus guidelines, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is defined as a clinicopathological entity whose symptoms and histology must always be considered together. However, endoscopic findings typical of EoE are often seen in asymptomatic esophageal eosinophilia (aEE). We aimed to clarify the clinicopathological features of aEE. Methods We retrospectively compared cases of aEE and those of symptomatic EoE. Patients or MaterialsWe reviewed 146 patients who underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and were confirmed histopathologically to have esophageal eosinophil infiltration of at least 15 eosinophils per highpower field. They were divided into the aEE group (n=75) and the EoE group (n=71). Patients' clinicopathological findings were then collected and examined. ResultsThe EoE group experienced dysphagia (47.9%), heartburn (40.8%), food impaction (40.8%), chest pain (16.9%), and other symptoms (8.5%). There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to age, sex, current smoking status, or alcohol consumption. The aEE group had a significantly higher body mass index (p<0.01) and significantly lower frequency of concurrent allergic diseases (p<0.01) than the EoE group. No significant differences were found between the two groups with regard to the mean peripheral blood eosinophil count, non-specific immunoglobulin E concentration, peak eosinophil infiltration in the biopsy specimens, EoE histology scoring system, phenotype and location of typical endoscopic findings of EoE, or thickness of the esophagus wall or the mucosal and submucosal layer as measured by endoscopic ultrasonography. Two patients in the aEE group who were followed up without treatment subsequently developed esophageal symptoms. Conclusions aEE and EoE may have the same clinicopathological features.