Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) placement is the preferred approach for biliary drainage in patients with suspected distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). However, FCSEMS placement is associated with a high risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Endoscopic sphincterotomy prior to FCSEMS placement may reduce PEP risk.ObjectiveTo compare endoscopic sphincterotomy to no sphincterotomy prior to FCSEMS placement.DesignThis multicentre, randomised, superiority trial was conducted in 17 hospitals and included patients with suspected distal MBO. Patients were randomised during ERCP to receive either endoscopic sphincterotomy (sphincterotomy group) or no sphincterotomy (control group) prior to FCSEMS placement. The primary outcome was PEP within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included procedure-related complications and 30-day mortality. An interim analysis was performed after 50% of patients (n=259) had completed follow-up.ResultsBetween May 2016 and June 2023, 297 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, with 156 in the sphincterotomy group and 141 in the control group. After the interim analysis, the study was terminated prematurely due to futility. PEP did not differ between groups, occurring in 26 patients (17%) in the sphincterotomy group compared with 30 patients (21%) in the control group (relative risk 0.78, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.26, p=0.37). There were no significant differences in bleeding, perforation, cholangitis, cholecystitis or 30-day mortality.ConclusionThis trial found that endoscopic sphincterotomy was not superior to no sphincterotomy in reducing PEP in patients with distal MBO. Therefore, there was insufficient evidence to recommend routine endoscopic sphincterotomy prior to FCEMS placement.Trial registration numberNL5130.

Background Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) followed by esophagectomy is a standard treatment for potentially curable esophageal cancer. Active surveillance in patients with a clinically complete response (cCR) 12 weeks after nCRT is regarded as possible alternative to standard surgery. The aim of this study is to monitor the safety, adherence and effectiveness of active surveillance in patients outside a randomized trial. Methods This nationwide prospective cohort study aims to accrue operable patients with non-metastatic histologically proven adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction. Patients receive nCRT and response evaluation consists of upper endoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies, endoscopic ultrasonography plus fine-needle aspiration of suspicious lymph nodes and 18 F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography scan. When residue or regrowth of tumor in the absence of distant metastases is detected, surgical resection is advised. Patients with cCR after nCRT are suitable to undergo active surveillance. Patients can consult an independent physician or psychologist to support decision-making. Primary endpoint is the number and severity of adverse events in patients with cCR undergoing active surveillance, defined as complications from response evaluations, delayed surgery and the development of distant metastases. Secondary endpoints include timing and quality of diagnostic modalities, overall survival, progression-free survival, fear of cancer recurrence and decisional regret. Discussion Active surveillance after nCRT may be an alternative to standard surgery in patients with esophageal cancer. Similar to organ-sparing approaches applied in other cancer types, the safety and efficacy of active surveillance needs monitoring before data from randomized trials are available. Trial registration The SANO-2 study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT04886635 (May 14, 2021) – Retrospectively registered.

Background Acute cholangitis is an infection of the biliary tract that is managed with adequate biliary drainage combined with antibiotic treatment. The international Tokyo Guidelines 2018 recommend 4 to 7 days of antibiotic treatment after adequate biliary drainage, but observational data suggest shorter treatment may be sufficient. We assessed whether 1 day of antibiotic treatment is non-inferior to 4–7 days of antibiotic treatment for acute cholangitis after adequate biliary drainage. Methods The COBRA-trial is a multicentre, open-label, parallel group randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with blinded outcome assessment. A total of 416 patients with acute cholangitis will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention group (1 day of antibiotic treatment after adequate biliary drainage) or to the control group (4–7 days of antibiotic treatment after adequate biliary drainage). Patients with acute cholangitis due to common bile duct stones, benign or malignant distal biliary obstruction, or distal biliary stent dysfunction are eligible. Randomization will take place once adequate biliary drainage is achieved by ERCP. Main exclusion criteria are concomitant pancreatitis, liver abscess, cholecystitis, and another infectious diagnosis at the time of randomization, use of systemic maintenance antibiotics, and specific immunosuppressants. Patients will be stratified for blood culture results at the time of randomization and aetiology of cholangitis. The primary endpoint is clinical cure, defined as the patient being symptom-free by day 14, with no relapse or death occurring by day 30. Secondary endpoints include 30-day and 90-day all-cause mortality, relapse of cholangitis by day 90, time from ERCP to first relapse, any other subsequent infection requiring antibiotic treatment within 90 days, duration of initial hospital stay, number of days treated with antibiotics by day 30, subsequent infections with multidrug resistant (MDR) bacteria, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Discussion This trial assesses whether a short course of antibiotic treatment for acute cholangitis is as safe and effective compared to a longer course of antibiotic treatment. If confirmed, the results could substantially reduce antibiotic exposure and healthcare resource utilization, thereby contributing to global efforts to minimize unnecessary antibiotic treatment. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05750966, registered on March 2nd, 2023.

Background Despite trimodality treatment, 10% to 20% of patients with esophageal cancer experience interval metastases after surgery. Restaging may identify patients who should not proceed to surgery, as well as a subgroup with limited metastases for whom long-term disease-control can be obtained. This study aimed to determine the proportion of patients with interval metastases after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and to evaluate treatment and survival. Methods Patients who had cT2-4aN0-3M0 esophageal cancer treated with nCRT were identified from a trial database. Metastases detected up to 14 weeks after nCRT on 18 F-FDG-PET/CT or during surgery were categorized as oligometastases (≤3 lesions located in one single organ or one extra-regional lymph node station) or as non-oligometastases. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with metastases after nCRT. The secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and the site and treatment of metastases. Results Between 2013 and 2021, 973 patients received nCRT, and 10.3% had interval metastases. Of 100 patients, 30 (30%) had oligometastases, located mostly in non-regional lymph nodes (33.3%) or bones (26.7%). The median OS of this group was 13.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 9.2–27.1 months). Of 30 patients, 12 (40%) with oligometastases underwent potentially curative treatment, with a median OS of 22.8 months (95% CI 10.4–NA). The patients with non-oligometastases underwent mostly systemic therapy or BSC and had a median OS of 9 months (95% CI 7.4–10.9 months). Conclusions Interval metastases were detected in about 10% of patients after nCRT, underscoring the importance of re-staging with 18 F-FDG-PET/CT for those who proceed to surgery. A favorable survival might be accomplished for a subgroup of patients with oligometastases.

Background Recent developments in esophageal cancer treatment, including studies exploring active surveillance following chemoradiotherapy, have led to a need for clear terminology and definitions regarding different multimodal treatment options. Objective The aim of this study was to reach worldwide consensus on the definitions and semantics of multimodal esophageal cancer treatment. Methods In total, 72 experts working in the field of multimodal esophageal cancer treatment were invited to participate in this Delphi study. The study comprised three Delphi surveys sent out by email and one online meeting. Input for the Delphi survey consisted of terminology obtained from a systematic literature search. Participants were asked to respond to open questions and to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed with different statements. Consensus was reached when there was ≥75% agreement among respondents. Results Forty-nine of 72 invited experts (68.1%) participated in the first online Delphi survey, 45 (62.5%) in the second survey, 21 (46.7%) of 45 in the online meeting, and 39 (86.7%) of 45 in the final survey. Consensus on neoadjuvant and definitive chemoradiotherapy with or without surgery was reached for 27 of 31 items (87%). No consensus was reached on follow-up after treatment with definitive chemoradiotherapy. Conclusion(s) Consensus was reached on most statements regarding terminology and definitions of multimodal esophageal cancer treatment. Implementing uniform criteria facilitates comparison of studies and promotes international research collaborations.

Background The sole presence of deep submucosal invasion is shown to be associated with a limited risk of lymph node metastasis. This justifies a local excision of suspected deep submucosal invasive colon carcinomas (T1 CCs) as a first step treatment strategy. Recently Colonoscopy-Assisted Laparoscopic Wedge Resection (CAL-WR) has been shown to be able to resect pT1 CRCs with a high R0 resection rate, but the long term outcomes are lacking. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety, effectiveness and long-term oncological outcomes of CAL-WR as primary treatment for patients with suspected superficial and also deeply-invasive T1 CCs. Methods In this prospective multicenter clinical trial, patients with a macroscopic and/or histologically suspected T1 CCs will receive CAL-WR as primary treatment in order to prevent unnecessary major surgery for low-risk T1 CCs. To make a CAL-WR technically feasible, the tumor may not include > 50% of the circumference and has to be localized at least 25 cm proximal from the anus. Also, there should be sufficient distance to the ileocecal valve to place a linear stapler. Before inclusion, all eligible patients will be assessed by an expert panel to confirm suspicion of T1 CC, estimate invasion depth and subsequent advise which local resection techniques are possible for removal of the lesion. The primary outcome of this study is the proportion of patients with pT1 CC that is curatively treated with CAL-WR only and in whom thus organ-preservation could be achieved. Secondary outcomes are 1) CAL-WR’s technical success and R0 resection rate for T1 CC, 2) procedure-related morbidity and mortality, 3) 5-year overall and disease free survival, 4) 3-year metastasis free survival, 5) procedure-related costs and 6) impact on quality of life. A sample size of 143 patients was calculated. Discussion CAL-WR is a full-thickness local resection technique that could also be effective in removing pT1 colon cancer. With the lack of current endoscopic local resection techniques for > 15 mm pT1 CCs with deep submucosal invasion, CAL-WR could fill the gap between endoscopy and major oncologic surgery. The present study is the first to provide insight in the long-term oncological outcomes of CAL-WR. Trial registration CCMO register (ToetsingOnline), NL81497.075.22, protocol version 2.3 (October 2022).

Background Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for large colorectal polyps is in most cases the preferred treatment to prevent progression to colorectal carcinoma. The most common complication after EMR is delayed bleeding, occurring in 7% overall and in approximately 10% of polyps ≥ 2 cm in the proximal colon. Previous research has suggested that prophylactic clipping of the mucosal defect after EMR may reduce the incidence of delayed bleeding in polyps with a high bleeding risk. Methods The CLIPPER trial is a multicenter, parallel-group, single blinded, randomized controlled superiority study. A total of 356 patients undergoing EMR for large (≥ 2 cm) non-pedunculated polyps in the proximal colon will be included and randomized to the clip group or the control group. Prophylactic clipping will be performed in the intervention group to close the resection defect after the EMR with a distance of < 1 cm between the clips. Primary outcome is delayed bleeding within 30 days after EMR. Secondary outcomes are recurrent or residual polyps and clip artifacts during surveillance colonoscopy after 6 months, as well as cost-effectiveness of prophylactic clipping and severity of delayed bleeding. Discussion The CLIPPER trial is a pragmatic study performed in the Netherlands and is powered to determine the real-time efficacy and cost-effectiveness of prophylactic clipping after EMR of proximal colon polyps ≥ 2 cm in the Netherlands. This study will also generate new data on the achievability of complete closure and the effects of clip placement on scar surveillance after EMR, in order to further promote the debate on the role of prophylactic clipping in everyday clinical practice. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03309683 . Registered on 13 October 2017. Start recruitment: 05 March 2018. Planned completion of recruitment: 31 August 2021.

ObjectiveLumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are believed to clinically improve endoscopic transluminal drainage of infected necrosis when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents. However, comparative data from prospective studies are very limited.DesignPatients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, who underwent an endoscopic step-up approach with LAMS within a multicentre prospective cohort study were compared with the data of 51 patients in the randomised TENSION trial who had been assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach with double-pigtail plastic stents. The clinical study protocol was otherwise identical for both groups. Primary end point was the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. Secondary end points included mortality, major complications, hospital stay and healthcare costs.ResultsA total of 53 patients were treated with LAMS in 16 hospitals during 27 months. The need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy was 64% (n=34) and was not different from the previous trial using plastic stents (53%, n=27)), also after correction for baseline characteristics (OR 1.21 (95% CI 0.45 to 3.23)). Secondary end points did not differ between groups either, which also included bleeding requiring intervention—5 patients (9%) after LAMS placement vs 11 patients (22%) after placement of plastic stents (relative risk 0.44; 95% CI 0.16 to 1.17). Total healthcare costs were also comparable (mean difference −€6348, bias-corrected and accelerated 95% CI −€26 386 to €10 121).ConclusionOur comparison of two patient groups from two multicentre prospective studies with a similar design suggests that LAMS do not reduce the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis. Also, the rate of bleeding complications was comparable.