GE Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology最新文献

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1159/000526427.].

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1159/000522172.].

Introduction: Gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors (GI-NETs) are being more frequently diagnosed and treated by endoscopic resection (ER) techniques. However, comparison studies of the different ER techniques or long-term outcomes are rarely reported.

Methods: This was a single-center retrospective study analyzing short and long-term outcomes after ER of gastric, duodenum, and rectal GI-NETs. Comparison between standard EMR (sEMR), EMR with a cap (EMRc), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was made.

Results: Fifty-three patients with GI-NET (25 gastric, 15 duodenal, and 13 rectal; sEMR = 21; EMRc = 19; ESD = 13) were included in the analysis. Median tumor size was 11 mm (range 4-20), significantly larger in the ESD and EMRc groups compared to the sEMR group (p < 0.05). Complete ER was possible in all cases with 68% histological complete resection (no difference between the groups). Complication rate was significantly higher in the EMRc group (EMRc 32%, ESD 8%, and EMRs 0%, p = 0.01). Local recurrence occurred in only one patient, and systemic recurrence in 6%, with size ≥ 12 mm being a risk factor for systemic recurrence (p = 0.05). Specific disease-free survival after ER was 98%.

Conclusion: ER is a safe and highly effective treatment particularly for less than 12 mm luminal GI-NETs. EMRc is associated with a high complication rate and should be avoided. sEMR is an easy and safe technique that is associated with long-term curability, and it is probably the best therapeutic option for most luminal GI-NETs. ESD appears to be the best option for lesions that cannot be resected en bloc with sEMR. Multicenter, prospective randomized trials should confirm these results.

Introduction: The incidence of rectal neuroendocrine tumors (r-NETs) is increasing, and most small r-NETs can be treated endoscopically. The optimal endoscopic approach is still debatable. Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) leads to frequent incomplete resection. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) allows higher complete resection rates but is also associated with higher complication rates. According to some studies, cap-assisted EMR (EMR-C) is an effective and safe alternative for endoscopic resection of r-NETs.

Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EMR-C for r-NETs ≤10 mm without muscularis propria invasion or lymphovascular infiltration.

Methods: Single-center prospective study including consecutive patients with r-NETs ≤10 mm without muscularis propria invasion or lymphovascular invasion confirmed by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), submitted to EMR-C between January 2017 and September 2021. Demographic, endoscopic, histopathologic, and follow-up data were retrieved from medical records.

Results: A total of 13 patients (male: 54%; n = 7) with a median age of 64 (interquartile range: 54-76) years were included. Most lesions were located at the lower rectum (69.2%, n = 9), and median lesion size was 6 (interquartile range: 4.5-7.5) mm. On EUS evaluation, 69.2% (n = 9) of tumors were limited to muscularis mucosa. EUS accuracy for the depth of invasion was 84.6%. We found a strong correlation between size measurements by histology and EUS (r = 0.83, p < 0.01). Overall, 15.4% (n = 2) were recurrent r-NETs and had been pretreated by conventional EMR. Resection was histologically complete in 92% (n = 12) of cases. Histologic analysis revealed grade 1 tumor in 76.9% (n = 10) of cases. Ki-67 index was inferior to 3% in 84.6% (n = 11) of cases. The median procedure time was 5 (interquartile range: 4-8) min. Only 1 case of intraprocedural bleeding was reported and was successfully controlled endoscopically. Follow-up was available in 92% (n = 12) of cases with a median follow-up of 6 (interquartile range: 12-24) months with no evidence of residual or recurrent lesion on endoscopic or EUS evaluation.

Conclusion: EMR-C is fast, safe, and effective for resection of small r-NETs without high-risk features. EUS accurately assesses risk factors. Prospective comparative trials are needed to define the best endoscopic approach.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1159/000525963.].

Background: Bowel preparation is a major quality criterion for colonoscopies. Models developed to identify patients with inadequate preparation have not been validated in external cohorts. We aim to validate these models and determine their applicability.

Methods: Colonoscopies between April and November 2019 were retrospectively included. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale ≥2 per segment was considered adequate. Insufficient data, incomplete colonoscopies, and total colectomies were excluded. Two models were tested: model 1 (tricyclic antidepressants, opioids, diabetes, constipation, abdominal surgery, previous inadequate preparation, inpatient status, and American Society of Anesthesiology [ASA] score ≥3); model 2 (co-morbidities, tricyclic antidepressants, constipation, and abdominal surgery).

Results: We included 514 patients (63% males; age 61.7 ± 15.6 years), 441 with adequate preparation. The main indications were inflammatory bowel disease (26.1%) and endoscopic treatment (24.9%). Previous surgery (36.2%) and ASA score ≥3 (23.7%) were the most common comorbidities. An ASA score ≥3 was the only identified predictor for inadequate preparation in this study (p < 0.001, OR 3.28). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of model 1 were 60.3, 64.2, 21.8, and 90.7%, respectively. Model 2 had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 57.5, 67.4, 22.6, and 90.5%, respectively. The AUC for the ROC curves was 0.62 for model 1, 0.62 for model 2, and 0.65 for the ASA score.

Conclusions: Although both models accurately predict adequate bowel preparation, they are still unreliable in predicting inadequate preparation and, as such, new models, or further optimization of current ones, are needed. Utilizing the ASA score might be an appropriate approximation of the risk for inadequate bowel preparation in tertiary hospital populations.

Dyspepsia incorporates a set of symptoms originating from the gastroduodenal region, frequently encountered in the adult population in the Western world. Most patients with symptoms compatible with dyspepsia eventually end up, in the absence of a potential organic cause, being diagnosed with functional dyspepsia. Many have been the new insights in the pathophysiology behind functional dyspeptic symptoms, namely, hypersensitivity to acid, duodenal eosinophilia, and altered gastric emptying, among others. Since these discoveries, new therapies have been proposed. Even so, an established mechanism for functional dyspepsia is not yet a reality, which makes its treatment a clinical challenge. In this paper, we review some of the possible approaches to treatment, both well established and some new therapeutic targets. Recommendations about dose and time of use are also made.