Endoscopic full-thickness resection of T1 colorectal cancers:a retrospective analysis from a multicenter Dutch eFTR registry

Background Complete endoscopic resection and accurate histological evaluation for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) are critical in determining subsequent treatment. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a new treatment option for T1 CRC<2cm. We aimed to report clinical outcomes and short-term results. Methods Consecutive eFTR procedures for T1 CRC, prospectively recorded in our national registry between November 2015 and April 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes were technical success and R0 resection. Secondary outcomes were histological risk assessment, curative resection, 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% confidence interval [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 was 23.7% (95%CI 15.9%-33.6%) for primary resection of T1 CRC and 60.8% (95%CI 50.4%-70.4%) after excluding deep submucosal invasion as a risk factor. Risk stratification was possible in 99.3%. The severe adverse event rate was 2.2%. Additional oncological 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 relatively safe and effective for resection of 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

Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of non-pedunculated rectal lesions (TRIASSIC study):study protocol of a European multicenter randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: In the recent years two innovative approaches have become available for minimally invasive en bloc resections of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions (polyps and early cancers). One is Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS), the other is Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD). Both techniques are standard of care, but a direct randomised comparison is lacking. The choice between either of these procedures is dependent on local expertise or availability rather than evidence-based. The European Society for Endoscopy has recommended that a comparison between ESD and local surgical resection is needed to guide decision making for the optimal approach for the removal of large rectal lesions in Western countries. The aim of this study is to directly compare both procedures in a randomised setting with regard to effectiveness, safety and perceived patient burden. METHODS: Multicenter randomised trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with non-pedunculated lesions > 2 cm, where the bulk of the lesion is below 15 cm from the anal verge, will be randomised between either a TAMIS or an ESD procedure. Lesions judged to be deeply invasive by an expert panel will be excluded. The primary endpoint is the cumulative local recurrence rate at follow-up rectoscopy at 12 months. Secondary endpoints are: 1) Radical (R0-) resection rate; 2) Perceived burden and quality of life; 3) Cost effectiveness at 12 months; 4) Surgical referral rate at 12 months; 5) Complication rate; 6) Local recurrence rate at 6 months. For this non-inferiority trial, the total sample size of 198 is based on an expected local recurrence rate of 3% in the ESD group, 6% in the TAMIS group and considering a difference of less than 6% to be non-inferior. DISCUSSION: This is the first European randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and safety of TAMIS and ESD for the en bloc resection of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions. This is important as the detection rate of these adenomas is expected to further increase with the introduction of colorectal screening programs throughout Europe. This study will therefore support an optimal use of healthcare resources in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NL7083 , 06 July 2018

Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of non-pedunculated rectal lesions (TRIASSIC study): Study protocol of a European multicenter randomised controlled trial

Background: In the recent years two innovative approaches have become available for minimally invasive en bloc resections of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions (polyps and early cancers). One is Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS), the other is Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD). Both techniques are standard of care, but a direct randomised comparison is lacking. The choice between either of these procedures is dependent on local expertise or availability rather than evidence-based. The European Society for Endoscopy has recommended that a comparison between ESD and local surgical resection is needed to guide decision making for the optimal approach for the removal of large rectal lesions in Western countries. The aim of this study is to directly compare both procedures in a randomised setting with regard to effectiveness, safety and perceived patient burden. Methods: Multicenter randomised trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with non-pedunculated lesions > 2 cm, where the bulk of the lesion is below 15 cm from the anal verge, will be randomised between either a TAMIS or an ESD procedure. Lesions judged to be deeply invasive by an expert panel will be excluded. The primary endpoint is the cumulative local recurrence rate at follow-up rectoscopy at 12 months. Secondary endpoints are: 1) Radical (R0-) resection rate; 2) Perceived burden and quality of life; 3) Cost effectiveness at 12 months; 4) Surgical referral rate at 12 months; 5) Complication rate; 6) Local recurrence rate at 6 months. For this non-inferiority trial, the total sample size of 198 is based on an expected local recurrence rate of 3% in the ESD group, 6% in the TAMIS group and considering a difference of less than 6% to be non-inferior. Discussion: This is the first European randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and safety of TAMIS and ESD for the en bloc resection of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions. This is important as the detection rate of these adenomas is expected to further increase with the introduction of colorectal screening programs throughout Europe. This study will therefore support an optimal use of healthcare resources in the future. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register, NL7083, 06 July 2018

Lectin Complement Pathway Gene Profile of Donor and Recipient Determine the Risk of Bacterial Infections After Orthotopic Liver Transplantation

Infectious complications after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) are a major clinical problem. The lectin pathway of complement activation is liver-derived and a crucial effector of the innate immune defense against pathogens. Polymorphisms in lectin pathway genes determine their functional activity. We assessed the relationship between these polymorphic genes and clinically significant bacterial infections, i.e., sepsis, pneumonia, and intra-abdominal infection, and mortality within the first year after OLT, in relation to major risk factors in two cohorts from different transplant centers. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the mannose-binding lectin gene (MBL2), the ficolin-2 gene (FCN2), and the MBL-associated serine protease gene (MASP2) of recipients and donors were determined. Recipients receiving a donor liver in the principal cohort with polymorphisms in all three components i.e., MBL2 (XAJO; O/O), FCN2+6359T, and MASP2+371A, had a cumulative risk of an infection of 75% as compared to 18% with wild-type donor livers (P = 0.002), an observation confirmed in the second cohort (P = 0.04). In addition, a genetic (mis)match between donor and recipient conferred a two-fold higher infection risk for each separate gene. Multivariate Cox analysis revealed a stepwise increase in infection risk with the lectin pathway gene profile of the donor (hazard ratio = 4.52; P = 8.1 x 10(-6)) and the donor-recipient (mis)match genotype (hazard ratio = 6.41; P = 1.9 x 10(-7)), independent from the other risk factors sex and antibiotic prophylaxis (hazard ratio > 1.7 and P <0.02). Moreover, patients with a lectin pathway gene polymorphism and infection had a six-fold higher mortality (P = 0.9 x 10(-8)), of which 80% was infection-related. Conclusion: Donor and recipient gene polymorphisms in the lectin complement pathway are major determinants of the risk of clinically significant bacterial infection and mortality after OLT. (HEPATOLOGY 2010;52:1100-1110

Randomized Comparison of Surveillance Intervals in Familial Colorectal Cancer

Purpose Colonoscopic surveillance is recommended for individuals with familial colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the appropriate screening interval has not yet been determined. The aim of this randomized trial was to compare a 3-year with a 6-year screening interval. Patients and Methods Individuals between ages 45 and 65 years with one first-degree relative with CRC age <50 years or two first-degree relatives with CRC were selected. Patients with zero to two adenomas at baseline were randomly assigned to one of two groups: group A (colonoscopy at 6 years) or group B (colonoscopy at 3 and 6 years). The primary outcome measure was advanced adenomatous polyps (AAPs). Risk factors studied included sex, age, type of family history, and baseline endoscopic findings. Results A total of 528 patients were randomly assigned (group A, n = 262; group B, n = 266). Intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant difference in the proportion of patients with AAPs at the first follow-up examination at 6 years in group A (6.9%) versus 3 years in group B (3.5%). Also, the proportion of patients with AAPs at the final follow-up examination at 6 years in group A (6.9%) versus 6 years in group B (3.4%) was not significantly different. Only AAPs at baseline was a significant predictor for the presence of AAPs at first follow-up. After correction for the difference in AAPs at baseline, differences between the groups in the rate of AAPs at first follow-up and at the final examination were statistically significant. Conclusion In view of the relatively low rate of AAPs at 6 years and the absence of CRC in group A, we consider a 6-year surveillance interval appropriate. A surveillance interval of 3 years might be considered in patients with AAPs and patients with three adenomas. (C) 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncolog