From the AGA Journals

The American Gastroenterological Association recently published a clinical practice update concerning endoscopic evaluation and management of early complications after bariatric/metabolic surgery.

The seven best practice advice statements, based on available evidence and expert opinion, range from a general call for high familiarity with available interventions to specific approaches for managing postoperative leaks.

According to lead author Vivek Kumbhari, MD, PhD, director of advanced endoscopy, department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., and colleagues, the update was written in consideration of increasing rates of bariatric/metabolic surgery.

“Bariatric/metabolic surgery is unmatched with respect to its weight loss and metabolic benefits,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “The selection criteria will continue to broaden, likely resulting in increasing numbers of less robust patients undergoing surgery (e.g., children, elderly, and those with significant cardiorespiratory comorbidities).”

Although the 90-day overall complication rate across all patients undergoing bariatric/metabolic surgery is only 4%, Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues noted that this rate is considerably higher, at 20.1%, among patients aged older than 65 years.

“As utilization escalates, so will the number of patients who suffer early complications,” they wrote.

The first three items of best practice advice describe who should be managing complications after bariatric/metabolic surgery, and how.

Foremost, Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues called for a multidisciplinary approach; they suggested that endoscopists should work closely with related specialists, such as bariatric/metabolic surgeons and interventional radiologists.

“Timely communication between the endoscopist, radiologist, surgeon, nutritionists, and inpatient medical team or primary care physician will result in efficient, effective care with prompt escalation and deescalation,” they wrote. “Daily communication is advised.”

The next two best practice advice statements encourage high familiarity with endoscopic treatments, postsurgical anatomy, interventional radiology, and surgical interventions, including risks and benefits of each approach.

“The endoscopist should ... have expertise in interventional endoscopy techniques, including but not limited to using concomitant fluoroscopy, stent deployment and retrieval, pneumatic balloon dilation, incisional therapies, endoscopic suturing, and managing percutaneous drains,” the investigators wrote. “Having the ability to perform a wide array of therapies will enhance the likelihood that the optimal endoscopic strategy will be employed, as opposed to simply performing a technique with which the endoscopist has experience.”

Following these best practices, Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues advised screening patients with postoperative complications for comorbidities, both medical in nature (such as infection) and psychological.

“Patients often have higher depression and anxiety scores, as well as a lower physical quality of life, and medical teams sometimes neglect the patient’s psychological state,” they wrote. “It is imperative that the multidisciplinary team recognize and acknowledge the patient’s psychological comorbidities and engage expertise to manage them.”

Next, the investigators advised that endoscopic intervention should be considered regardless of time interval since surgery, including the immediate postoperative period.

“Endoscopy is often indicated as the initial therapeutic modality, and it can safely be performed,” Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues wrote. “When endoscopy is performed, it is advised to use carbon dioxide for insufflation. Caution should be used when advancing the endoscope into the small bowel, as it is best to minimize pressure along the fresh staple lines. In cases in which the patient is critically ill or the interventional endoscopist does not have extensive experience with such a scenario, the endoscopy should be performed in the operating room with a surgeon present (preferably the surgeon who performed the operation).”

Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues discussed functional stenosis, which can precipitate and propagate leaks. They noted that “downstream stenosis is frequently seen at the level of the incisura angularis or in the proximal stomach when a sleeve gastrectomy is performed in a patient with a prior laparoscopic adjustable gastric band.”

To address stenosis, the update calls for “aggressive dilation” using a large pneumatic balloon, preferably with fluoroscopy to make sure the distal end of the balloon does not cross the pylorus. The investigators noted that endoscopic suturing may be needed if a tear involving the muscularis propria is encountered.

Lastly, the clinical practice update offers comprehensive guidance for managing staple-line leaks, which “most commonly occur along the staple line of the proximal stomach.”

As leaks are thought to stem from ischemia, “most leaks are not present upon completion of the operation, and they develop over the subsequent weeks, often in the setting of downstream stenosis,” the investigators wrote.

To guide management of staple-line leaks, the investigators presented a treatment algorithm that incorporates defect size, time since surgery, and presence or absence of stenosis.

For example, a defect smaller than 10 mm occurring within 6 weeks of surgery and lacking stenosis may be managed with a percutaneous drain and diversion. In contrast, a defect of similar size, also without stenosis, but occurring later than 6 weeks after the initial procedure, should be managed with endoscopic internal drainage or vacuum therapy.

“Clinicians should recognize that the goal for endoscopic management of staple-line leaks is often not necessarily initial closure of the leak site, but rather techniques to promote drainage of material from the perigastric collection into the gastric lumen such that the leak site closes by secondary intention,” wrote Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues.

The clinical practice update was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board. The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Apollo Endosurgery, and others.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently published a clinical practice update concerning endoscopic evaluation and management of early complications after bariatric/metabolic surgery.

The seven best practice advice statements, based on available evidence and expert opinion, range from a general call for high familiarity with available interventions to specific approaches for managing postoperative leaks.

According to lead author Vivek Kumbhari, MD, PhD, director of advanced endoscopy, department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., and colleagues, the update was written in consideration of increasing rates of bariatric/metabolic surgery.

“Bariatric/metabolic surgery is unmatched with respect to its weight loss and metabolic benefits,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “The selection criteria will continue to broaden, likely resulting in increasing numbers of less robust patients undergoing surgery (e.g., children, elderly, and those with significant cardiorespiratory comorbidities).”

Although the 90-day overall complication rate across all patients undergoing bariatric/metabolic surgery is only 4%, Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues noted that this rate is considerably higher, at 20.1%, among patients aged older than 65 years.

“As utilization escalates, so will the number of patients who suffer early complications,” they wrote.

The first three items of best practice advice describe who should be managing complications after bariatric/metabolic surgery, and how.

Foremost, Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues called for a multidisciplinary approach; they suggested that endoscopists should work closely with related specialists, such as bariatric/metabolic surgeons and interventional radiologists.

“Timely communication between the endoscopist, radiologist, surgeon, nutritionists, and inpatient medical team or primary care physician will result in efficient, effective care with prompt escalation and deescalation,” they wrote. “Daily communication is advised.”

The next two best practice advice statements encourage high familiarity with endoscopic treatments, postsurgical anatomy, interventional radiology, and surgical interventions, including risks and benefits of each approach.

“The endoscopist should ... have expertise in interventional endoscopy techniques, including but not limited to using concomitant fluoroscopy, stent deployment and retrieval, pneumatic balloon dilation, incisional therapies, endoscopic suturing, and managing percutaneous drains,” the investigators wrote. “Having the ability to perform a wide array of therapies will enhance the likelihood that the optimal endoscopic strategy will be employed, as opposed to simply performing a technique with which the endoscopist has experience.”

Following these best practices, Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues advised screening patients with postoperative complications for comorbidities, both medical in nature (such as infection) and psychological.

“Patients often have higher depression and anxiety scores, as well as a lower physical quality of life, and medical teams sometimes neglect the patient’s psychological state,” they wrote. “It is imperative that the multidisciplinary team recognize and acknowledge the patient’s psychological comorbidities and engage expertise to manage them.”

Next, the investigators advised that endoscopic intervention should be considered regardless of time interval since surgery, including the immediate postoperative period.

“Endoscopy is often indicated as the initial therapeutic modality, and it can safely be performed,” Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues wrote. “When endoscopy is performed, it is advised to use carbon dioxide for insufflation. Caution should be used when advancing the endoscope into the small bowel, as it is best to minimize pressure along the fresh staple lines. In cases in which the patient is critically ill or the interventional endoscopist does not have extensive experience with such a scenario, the endoscopy should be performed in the operating room with a surgeon present (preferably the surgeon who performed the operation).”

Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues discussed functional stenosis, which can precipitate and propagate leaks. They noted that “downstream stenosis is frequently seen at the level of the incisura angularis or in the proximal stomach when a sleeve gastrectomy is performed in a patient with a prior laparoscopic adjustable gastric band.”

To address stenosis, the update calls for “aggressive dilation” using a large pneumatic balloon, preferably with fluoroscopy to make sure the distal end of the balloon does not cross the pylorus. The investigators noted that endoscopic suturing may be needed if a tear involving the muscularis propria is encountered.

Lastly, the clinical practice update offers comprehensive guidance for managing staple-line leaks, which “most commonly occur along the staple line of the proximal stomach.”

As leaks are thought to stem from ischemia, “most leaks are not present upon completion of the operation, and they develop over the subsequent weeks, often in the setting of downstream stenosis,” the investigators wrote.

To guide management of staple-line leaks, the investigators presented a treatment algorithm that incorporates defect size, time since surgery, and presence or absence of stenosis.

For example, a defect smaller than 10 mm occurring within 6 weeks of surgery and lacking stenosis may be managed with a percutaneous drain and diversion. In contrast, a defect of similar size, also without stenosis, but occurring later than 6 weeks after the initial procedure, should be managed with endoscopic internal drainage or vacuum therapy.

“Clinicians should recognize that the goal for endoscopic management of staple-line leaks is often not necessarily initial closure of the leak site, but rather techniques to promote drainage of material from the perigastric collection into the gastric lumen such that the leak site closes by secondary intention,” wrote Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues.

The clinical practice update was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board. The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Apollo Endosurgery, and others.

The American Gastroenterological Association recently published a clinical practice update concerning endoscopic evaluation and management of early complications after bariatric/metabolic surgery.

The seven best practice advice statements, based on available evidence and expert opinion, range from a general call for high familiarity with available interventions to specific approaches for managing postoperative leaks.

According to lead author Vivek Kumbhari, MD, PhD, director of advanced endoscopy, department of gastroenterology and hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., and colleagues, the update was written in consideration of increasing rates of bariatric/metabolic surgery.

“Bariatric/metabolic surgery is unmatched with respect to its weight loss and metabolic benefits,” the investigators wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. “The selection criteria will continue to broaden, likely resulting in increasing numbers of less robust patients undergoing surgery (e.g., children, elderly, and those with significant cardiorespiratory comorbidities).”

Although the 90-day overall complication rate across all patients undergoing bariatric/metabolic surgery is only 4%, Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues noted that this rate is considerably higher, at 20.1%, among patients aged older than 65 years.

“As utilization escalates, so will the number of patients who suffer early complications,” they wrote.

The first three items of best practice advice describe who should be managing complications after bariatric/metabolic surgery, and how.

Foremost, Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues called for a multidisciplinary approach; they suggested that endoscopists should work closely with related specialists, such as bariatric/metabolic surgeons and interventional radiologists.

“Timely communication between the endoscopist, radiologist, surgeon, nutritionists, and inpatient medical team or primary care physician will result in efficient, effective care with prompt escalation and deescalation,” they wrote. “Daily communication is advised.”

The next two best practice advice statements encourage high familiarity with endoscopic treatments, postsurgical anatomy, interventional radiology, and surgical interventions, including risks and benefits of each approach.

“The endoscopist should ... have expertise in interventional endoscopy techniques, including but not limited to using concomitant fluoroscopy, stent deployment and retrieval, pneumatic balloon dilation, incisional therapies, endoscopic suturing, and managing percutaneous drains,” the investigators wrote. “Having the ability to perform a wide array of therapies will enhance the likelihood that the optimal endoscopic strategy will be employed, as opposed to simply performing a technique with which the endoscopist has experience.”

Following these best practices, Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues advised screening patients with postoperative complications for comorbidities, both medical in nature (such as infection) and psychological.

“Patients often have higher depression and anxiety scores, as well as a lower physical quality of life, and medical teams sometimes neglect the patient’s psychological state,” they wrote. “It is imperative that the multidisciplinary team recognize and acknowledge the patient’s psychological comorbidities and engage expertise to manage them.”

Next, the investigators advised that endoscopic intervention should be considered regardless of time interval since surgery, including the immediate postoperative period.

“Endoscopy is often indicated as the initial therapeutic modality, and it can safely be performed,” Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues wrote. “When endoscopy is performed, it is advised to use carbon dioxide for insufflation. Caution should be used when advancing the endoscope into the small bowel, as it is best to minimize pressure along the fresh staple lines. In cases in which the patient is critically ill or the interventional endoscopist does not have extensive experience with such a scenario, the endoscopy should be performed in the operating room with a surgeon present (preferably the surgeon who performed the operation).”

Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues discussed functional stenosis, which can precipitate and propagate leaks. They noted that “downstream stenosis is frequently seen at the level of the incisura angularis or in the proximal stomach when a sleeve gastrectomy is performed in a patient with a prior laparoscopic adjustable gastric band.”

To address stenosis, the update calls for “aggressive dilation” using a large pneumatic balloon, preferably with fluoroscopy to make sure the distal end of the balloon does not cross the pylorus. The investigators noted that endoscopic suturing may be needed if a tear involving the muscularis propria is encountered.

Lastly, the clinical practice update offers comprehensive guidance for managing staple-line leaks, which “most commonly occur along the staple line of the proximal stomach.”

As leaks are thought to stem from ischemia, “most leaks are not present upon completion of the operation, and they develop over the subsequent weeks, often in the setting of downstream stenosis,” the investigators wrote.

To guide management of staple-line leaks, the investigators presented a treatment algorithm that incorporates defect size, time since surgery, and presence or absence of stenosis.

For example, a defect smaller than 10 mm occurring within 6 weeks of surgery and lacking stenosis may be managed with a percutaneous drain and diversion. In contrast, a defect of similar size, also without stenosis, but occurring later than 6 weeks after the initial procedure, should be managed with endoscopic internal drainage or vacuum therapy.

“Clinicians should recognize that the goal for endoscopic management of staple-line leaks is often not necessarily initial closure of the leak site, but rather techniques to promote drainage of material from the perigastric collection into the gastric lumen such that the leak site closes by secondary intention,” wrote Dr. Kumbhari and colleagues.

The clinical practice update was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board. The investigators disclosed relationships with Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Apollo Endosurgery, and others.

The gender gap in gastroenterology persists – currently, women constitute 39% of fellows, but only 22% of senior AGA members and less than 18% of all practicing gastroenterologists – and it has gained even greater significance within the “current historical moment” of the COVID pandemic and growing cognizance of systemic sexism and racism, according to experts.

During the pandemic, women have been more likely to stay home to care for ill family members and children affected by school closures, which increases their already disproportionate share of unpaid work, wrote Jessica Bernica, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston with her associates in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. They noted that, according to one study, this “holds true for female physicians, who despite their more privileged positions, also experience higher demands at home, impacting their ability to contribute to teaching, service, and research.”

At the same time, the pandemic has brought into focus which jobs are “truly essential” – and that they are “overwhelmingly [held] by women and people of color, who are often underpaid and undervalued,” the experts wrote. The growing focus on systemic racism has also increased awareness of the chronic gender discrimination faced by female minorities, as well as by women in general, they added. In the field of gastroenterology, inherent gender bias – both systemic and self-directed – can bar women from advancing beginning as early as medical school.

To help address these issues, the experts outlined key opportunities for change as women navigate professional “forks in the road” throughout their careers.
 

Throughout their careers

During medical school and residency, women can specifically request gastroenterology rotations (“ideally with both inpatient and outpatient exposure”), attend society conferences, participate in research themselves, and join a research track or serve as chief medical resident. When applying for gastroenterology fellowships, they can prioritize programs with female faculty, which were recently found to be more likely to hire female fellows.

During fellowship, women can avail themselves of female mentors, who can help them strategize about ways to address gender bias, connect with GI groups and societies, and learn endoscopy techniques, including “unique approaches ... [that] overcome the challenges of standard scope sizes and accessibility.” At the institutional level, opportunities to affect positive changes for women trainees include “formal education on the benefits of hands-on learning and encouraging explicit and open communication between parties regarding invitation to, comfort with, and type of physical contact prior to a case.”

After fellowship, early-career gastroenterologists should scrutinize contracts for details on pay and research support, and they should ideally join a practice that either already has many women physicians on staff, or that ensures salary transparency and has “parental leave policies that are compatible with [applicants’] personal and professional goals.” But the experts advocated caution about part-time positions, which may purport to offer more flexibility but turn into full-time work for part-time pay and can preclude participation in practice management.

The experts recommended midcareer female gastroenterologists call out their own achievements rather than waiting for recognition, “actively seek promotion and tenure,” negotiate their salaries (as men tend to do routinely), and think twice before accepting professional roles that are uncompensated or do not clearly promote career advancement.

Senior gastroenterologists have unique opportunities to spearhead changes in institutional policies and practices, according to the experts. Specific examples include “explicitly stating [in job listings] that salary is negotiable, creating transparent written compensation plans, and conducting audits of job offers” to help mitigate any inequities in pay or hiring practices. In addition, senior women gastroenterologists can mentor individual women in the field, implement formal trainings on implicit bias, ensure that their practice or department tracks the gender of gastroenterologists who join, leave, or are promoted.

The experts did not report receiving funding for the work. They reported having no conflicts of interest.

The gender gap in gastroenterology persists – currently, women constitute 39% of fellows, but only 22% of senior AGA members and less than 18% of all practicing gastroenterologists – and it has gained even greater significance within the “current historical moment” of the COVID pandemic and growing cognizance of systemic sexism and racism, according to experts.

During the pandemic, women have been more likely to stay home to care for ill family members and children affected by school closures, which increases their already disproportionate share of unpaid work, wrote Jessica Bernica, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston with her associates in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. They noted that, according to one study, this “holds true for female physicians, who despite their more privileged positions, also experience higher demands at home, impacting their ability to contribute to teaching, service, and research.”

At the same time, the pandemic has brought into focus which jobs are “truly essential” – and that they are “overwhelmingly [held] by women and people of color, who are often underpaid and undervalued,” the experts wrote. The growing focus on systemic racism has also increased awareness of the chronic gender discrimination faced by female minorities, as well as by women in general, they added. In the field of gastroenterology, inherent gender bias – both systemic and self-directed – can bar women from advancing beginning as early as medical school.

To help address these issues, the experts outlined key opportunities for change as women navigate professional “forks in the road” throughout their careers.
 

Throughout their careers

During medical school and residency, women can specifically request gastroenterology rotations (“ideally with both inpatient and outpatient exposure”), attend society conferences, participate in research themselves, and join a research track or serve as chief medical resident. When applying for gastroenterology fellowships, they can prioritize programs with female faculty, which were recently found to be more likely to hire female fellows.

During fellowship, women can avail themselves of female mentors, who can help them strategize about ways to address gender bias, connect with GI groups and societies, and learn endoscopy techniques, including “unique approaches ... [that] overcome the challenges of standard scope sizes and accessibility.” At the institutional level, opportunities to affect positive changes for women trainees include “formal education on the benefits of hands-on learning and encouraging explicit and open communication between parties regarding invitation to, comfort with, and type of physical contact prior to a case.”

After fellowship, early-career gastroenterologists should scrutinize contracts for details on pay and research support, and they should ideally join a practice that either already has many women physicians on staff, or that ensures salary transparency and has “parental leave policies that are compatible with [applicants’] personal and professional goals.” But the experts advocated caution about part-time positions, which may purport to offer more flexibility but turn into full-time work for part-time pay and can preclude participation in practice management.

The experts recommended midcareer female gastroenterologists call out their own achievements rather than waiting for recognition, “actively seek promotion and tenure,” negotiate their salaries (as men tend to do routinely), and think twice before accepting professional roles that are uncompensated or do not clearly promote career advancement.

Senior gastroenterologists have unique opportunities to spearhead changes in institutional policies and practices, according to the experts. Specific examples include “explicitly stating [in job listings] that salary is negotiable, creating transparent written compensation plans, and conducting audits of job offers” to help mitigate any inequities in pay or hiring practices. In addition, senior women gastroenterologists can mentor individual women in the field, implement formal trainings on implicit bias, ensure that their practice or department tracks the gender of gastroenterologists who join, leave, or are promoted.

The experts did not report receiving funding for the work. They reported having no conflicts of interest.

The gender gap in gastroenterology persists – currently, women constitute 39% of fellows, but only 22% of senior AGA members and less than 18% of all practicing gastroenterologists – and it has gained even greater significance within the “current historical moment” of the COVID pandemic and growing cognizance of systemic sexism and racism, according to experts.

During the pandemic, women have been more likely to stay home to care for ill family members and children affected by school closures, which increases their already disproportionate share of unpaid work, wrote Jessica Bernica, MD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston with her associates in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. They noted that, according to one study, this “holds true for female physicians, who despite their more privileged positions, also experience higher demands at home, impacting their ability to contribute to teaching, service, and research.”

At the same time, the pandemic has brought into focus which jobs are “truly essential” – and that they are “overwhelmingly [held] by women and people of color, who are often underpaid and undervalued,” the experts wrote. The growing focus on systemic racism has also increased awareness of the chronic gender discrimination faced by female minorities, as well as by women in general, they added. In the field of gastroenterology, inherent gender bias – both systemic and self-directed – can bar women from advancing beginning as early as medical school.

To help address these issues, the experts outlined key opportunities for change as women navigate professional “forks in the road” throughout their careers.
 

Throughout their careers

During medical school and residency, women can specifically request gastroenterology rotations (“ideally with both inpatient and outpatient exposure”), attend society conferences, participate in research themselves, and join a research track or serve as chief medical resident. When applying for gastroenterology fellowships, they can prioritize programs with female faculty, which were recently found to be more likely to hire female fellows.

During fellowship, women can avail themselves of female mentors, who can help them strategize about ways to address gender bias, connect with GI groups and societies, and learn endoscopy techniques, including “unique approaches ... [that] overcome the challenges of standard scope sizes and accessibility.” At the institutional level, opportunities to affect positive changes for women trainees include “formal education on the benefits of hands-on learning and encouraging explicit and open communication between parties regarding invitation to, comfort with, and type of physical contact prior to a case.”

After fellowship, early-career gastroenterologists should scrutinize contracts for details on pay and research support, and they should ideally join a practice that either already has many women physicians on staff, or that ensures salary transparency and has “parental leave policies that are compatible with [applicants’] personal and professional goals.” But the experts advocated caution about part-time positions, which may purport to offer more flexibility but turn into full-time work for part-time pay and can preclude participation in practice management.

The experts recommended midcareer female gastroenterologists call out their own achievements rather than waiting for recognition, “actively seek promotion and tenure,” negotiate their salaries (as men tend to do routinely), and think twice before accepting professional roles that are uncompensated or do not clearly promote career advancement.

Senior gastroenterologists have unique opportunities to spearhead changes in institutional policies and practices, according to the experts. Specific examples include “explicitly stating [in job listings] that salary is negotiable, creating transparent written compensation plans, and conducting audits of job offers” to help mitigate any inequities in pay or hiring practices. In addition, senior women gastroenterologists can mentor individual women in the field, implement formal trainings on implicit bias, ensure that their practice or department tracks the gender of gastroenterologists who join, leave, or are promoted.

The experts did not report receiving funding for the work. They reported having no conflicts of interest.

Experts assessed different chemopreventive agents meant to reduce the incidence of colorectal neoplasia and associated mortality based on whether these agents were effective and safe, but they found few fit both criteria, according to a new clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.

That said, the update does advise that clinicians use low-dose aspirin therapy in patients who are younger than 70 years with at least a 10-year life expectancy, are not at high risk for bleeding, and have at least a 10% cardiovascular disease risk over the next decade.

This best practice advice statement reflects “high-quality trial data” for this patient population and also echoes U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations, wrote Peter S. Liang, MD, MPH, and his associates on behalf of the American Gastroenterological Association. However, they note that low-dose aspirin therapy has shown inconsistent results for older patients and that its chemopreventive benefits always should be weighed against an individual’s bleeding risk.

Published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the clinical practice update also recommends considering low-dose aspirin therapy for patients with a history of colorectal neoplasia, based on data from several trials in which daily doses of 81-325 mg were associated with a significantly lower likelihood of recurrence of earlier-stage adenomas (the findings did not extend to patients with more advanced lesions). Evidence on sessile serrated polyps is sparser, but there is some indication for a benefit in this setting, the experts noted.

Their best-practice advice also covers nonaspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, metformin, calcium, vitamin D, folic acid, and statins. Among these agents, only metformin receives even a conditional green light. “Because of the results of a large number of observational studies, a small adenoma trial, as well as a favorable safety profile, metformin may be considered for chemoprevention against colorectal neoplasia in individuals with diabetes,” the experts concluded. Support for this best-practice advice includes a meta-analysis of colorectal cancer–specific survival in 17 observational studies, a meta-analysis of colorectal cancer incidence in 14 observational studies, and a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which 250 mg daily metformin was safe and associated with a 40% lower risk of recurrent adenoma.

For calcium, study findings have been mixed, and a recent large clinical trial found no overall benefit for adenoma prevention. Because high-dose calcium has been linked to kidney toxicity, hypercalcemia, and prostate cancer, its risks likely outweigh any benefits, the experts concluded. Vitamin D (as monotherapy or with calcium) also has shown no overall benefit for preventing adenomas or sessile serrated lesions. A large ongoing, randomized trial will examine colorectal cancer incidence among adults receiving 5 years of oral vitamin D or placebo, but its results will not be available until at least 2025.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are not recommended to prevent colorectal neoplasia among average-risk individuals. Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors pose “substantial cardiovascular risks,” while nonselective NSAIDs are associated with a significantly increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding. Meta-analyses have shown no benefit of folic acid for preventing colorectal neoplasia, and observational studies on statins have produced only mixed results.

No funding sources were reported. The experts reported having no conflicts of interest.

Experts assessed different chemopreventive agents meant to reduce the incidence of colorectal neoplasia and associated mortality based on whether these agents were effective and safe, but they found few fit both criteria, according to a new clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.

That said, the update does advise that clinicians use low-dose aspirin therapy in patients who are younger than 70 years with at least a 10-year life expectancy, are not at high risk for bleeding, and have at least a 10% cardiovascular disease risk over the next decade.

This best practice advice statement reflects “high-quality trial data” for this patient population and also echoes U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations, wrote Peter S. Liang, MD, MPH, and his associates on behalf of the American Gastroenterological Association. However, they note that low-dose aspirin therapy has shown inconsistent results for older patients and that its chemopreventive benefits always should be weighed against an individual’s bleeding risk.

Published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the clinical practice update also recommends considering low-dose aspirin therapy for patients with a history of colorectal neoplasia, based on data from several trials in which daily doses of 81-325 mg were associated with a significantly lower likelihood of recurrence of earlier-stage adenomas (the findings did not extend to patients with more advanced lesions). Evidence on sessile serrated polyps is sparser, but there is some indication for a benefit in this setting, the experts noted.

Their best-practice advice also covers nonaspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, metformin, calcium, vitamin D, folic acid, and statins. Among these agents, only metformin receives even a conditional green light. “Because of the results of a large number of observational studies, a small adenoma trial, as well as a favorable safety profile, metformin may be considered for chemoprevention against colorectal neoplasia in individuals with diabetes,” the experts concluded. Support for this best-practice advice includes a meta-analysis of colorectal cancer–specific survival in 17 observational studies, a meta-analysis of colorectal cancer incidence in 14 observational studies, and a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which 250 mg daily metformin was safe and associated with a 40% lower risk of recurrent adenoma.

For calcium, study findings have been mixed, and a recent large clinical trial found no overall benefit for adenoma prevention. Because high-dose calcium has been linked to kidney toxicity, hypercalcemia, and prostate cancer, its risks likely outweigh any benefits, the experts concluded. Vitamin D (as monotherapy or with calcium) also has shown no overall benefit for preventing adenomas or sessile serrated lesions. A large ongoing, randomized trial will examine colorectal cancer incidence among adults receiving 5 years of oral vitamin D or placebo, but its results will not be available until at least 2025.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are not recommended to prevent colorectal neoplasia among average-risk individuals. Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors pose “substantial cardiovascular risks,” while nonselective NSAIDs are associated with a significantly increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding. Meta-analyses have shown no benefit of folic acid for preventing colorectal neoplasia, and observational studies on statins have produced only mixed results.

No funding sources were reported. The experts reported having no conflicts of interest.

Experts assessed different chemopreventive agents meant to reduce the incidence of colorectal neoplasia and associated mortality based on whether these agents were effective and safe, but they found few fit both criteria, according to a new clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association.

That said, the update does advise that clinicians use low-dose aspirin therapy in patients who are younger than 70 years with at least a 10-year life expectancy, are not at high risk for bleeding, and have at least a 10% cardiovascular disease risk over the next decade.

This best practice advice statement reflects “high-quality trial data” for this patient population and also echoes U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations, wrote Peter S. Liang, MD, MPH, and his associates on behalf of the American Gastroenterological Association. However, they note that low-dose aspirin therapy has shown inconsistent results for older patients and that its chemopreventive benefits always should be weighed against an individual’s bleeding risk.

Published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, the clinical practice update also recommends considering low-dose aspirin therapy for patients with a history of colorectal neoplasia, based on data from several trials in which daily doses of 81-325 mg were associated with a significantly lower likelihood of recurrence of earlier-stage adenomas (the findings did not extend to patients with more advanced lesions). Evidence on sessile serrated polyps is sparser, but there is some indication for a benefit in this setting, the experts noted.

Their best-practice advice also covers nonaspirin nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, metformin, calcium, vitamin D, folic acid, and statins. Among these agents, only metformin receives even a conditional green light. “Because of the results of a large number of observational studies, a small adenoma trial, as well as a favorable safety profile, metformin may be considered for chemoprevention against colorectal neoplasia in individuals with diabetes,” the experts concluded. Support for this best-practice advice includes a meta-analysis of colorectal cancer–specific survival in 17 observational studies, a meta-analysis of colorectal cancer incidence in 14 observational studies, and a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in which 250 mg daily metformin was safe and associated with a 40% lower risk of recurrent adenoma.

For calcium, study findings have been mixed, and a recent large clinical trial found no overall benefit for adenoma prevention. Because high-dose calcium has been linked to kidney toxicity, hypercalcemia, and prostate cancer, its risks likely outweigh any benefits, the experts concluded. Vitamin D (as monotherapy or with calcium) also has shown no overall benefit for preventing adenomas or sessile serrated lesions. A large ongoing, randomized trial will examine colorectal cancer incidence among adults receiving 5 years of oral vitamin D or placebo, but its results will not be available until at least 2025.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are not recommended to prevent colorectal neoplasia among average-risk individuals. Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors pose “substantial cardiovascular risks,” while nonselective NSAIDs are associated with a significantly increased risk for gastrointestinal bleeding. Meta-analyses have shown no benefit of folic acid for preventing colorectal neoplasia, and observational studies on statins have produced only mixed results.

No funding sources were reported. The experts reported having no conflicts of interest.

For adult outpatients with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease, new guidelines from the American Gastroenterological Association strongly recommend induction and maintenance therapy with anti–tumor necrosis factor–alpha agents or ustekinumab over no treatment.

“Although [related] evidence supporting infliximab and adalimumab was moderate certainty, the evidence for certolizumab pegol was low certainty,” wrote Joseph D. Feuerstein, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and his associates, on behalf of the AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee in Gastroenterology. Vedolizumab received a conditional recommendation based on less robust evidence for induction in this setting.

Outcomes in Crohn’s disease have improved, likely “because of earlier diagnosis, increasing use of biologics, escalation or alteration of therapy based on disease severity, and endoscopic management of colorectal cancer,” Dr. Feuerstein and his associates wrote.

This update reflects these changes, strongly recommending biologic monotherapy over thiopurine monotherapy for induction. It also suggests “early induction with a biologic, with or without an immunomodulator, rather than delaying their use until after failure of 5-aminosalicylates and/or corticosteroids.” For the latter assessment, the guidelines noted that some studies were open label (which increases risk of bias) and that upfront combination therapy with a biologic and an immunomodulator could sometimes lead to overtreatment. Nonetheless, studies shown associations between the step-up approach and “a potential risk of harm from disease progression related to inadequate disease therapy.”

The guidelines also recommend that patients who have never received biologic drugs receive induction therapy with infliximab, adalimumab, or ustekinumab, rather than certolizumab pegol. This strong recommendation reflects the findings of a network meta-analysis conducted by the AGA in which certolizumab pegol was least effective, with no evidence for clear differences in efficacy among infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab. A network meta-analysis is a type of study that enables experts to compare therapies indirectly when head-to-head trials are lacking.

For patients who are naive to both biologics and immunomodulators, the guidelines suggest combination treatment with infliximab or adalimumab plus a thiopurine rather than monotherapy with either biologic. Because of a lack of randomized controlled trials, no recommendation is made regarding combination therapy with ustekinumab or vedolizumab.

For patients who have received but never responded to anti-TNF-alpha therapy (so-called primary nonresponders), ustekinumab is strongly recommended, and vedolizumab is conditionally recommended. For patients who initially responded to infliximab and then lost their response (secondary nonresponders), adalimumab and ustekinumab are strongly recommended, while vedolizumab receives another conditional recommendation.

For patients with moderate to severe luminal disease, induction and maintenance with infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, vedolizumab, or ustekinumab are recommended over no treatment. Thiopurine monotherapy is suggested over no treatment for maintenance of remission, but not for induction. For methotrexate, subcutaneous or intramuscular monotherapy is suggested over no treatment. The sole available trial on oral methotrexate (12.5 mg/week) was negative, and “it is not clear if a higher dose would have been more effective,” according to the guidelines. They strongly recommend against using 5-aminosalicytes or sulfasalazine because of lack of efficacy for maintaining remission and suggest not using natalizumab because of the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Corticosteroids are considered preferable to no treatment for induction but not for maintenance.

For patients with fistulizing disease, infliximab has “the most robust evidence” and receives a strong recommendation for induction and maintenance, while adalimumab, ustekinumab, and vedolizumab receive conditional recommendations. “In contrast, evidence suggests certolizumab pegol may not be effective for induction of fistula remission,” the guidelines state. For patients with perianal disease with an active fistula but no abscess, combining biologics with antibiotics is strongly recommended over biologic monotherapy.

The guidelines define moderate to severe Crohn’s disease as a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of 220 or higher, the typical cutoff used in clinical trials. The recommendations apply to outpatient management, but in most cases would also apply to inpatients.

An expert commentary accompanying the guidelines praises their “rigorous methods” based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Edith Y. Ho, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and her associates also laud the “innovative methods” that were used to compare treatments and assess data quality. In addition to the network meta-analysis, the guidelines set an a priori minimal clinically important difference (MCID) score of 10% for risk of treatment failure versus placebo. This led to more clinically relevant guidance, such as the conditional recommendation for vedolizumab in luminal disease since this drug did not meet the MCID threshold. Finally, the commentators emphasized that the guidelines are meant to facilitate, not dictate, treatment decisions: “Choice of therapies and treatment strategies will continue to rely on clinical judgment as well, and will continue to be informed by patient-specific values and preferences.”

The AGA Institute was the sole source of funding. Four coauthors disclosed ties to Celgene, Takeda, Pendopharm, Merck Canada, Guardant Health, Ferring, and AbbVie. Dr. Feurstein and the other guidelines coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest. Some authors on the editorial disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Pfizer, and Janssen, but the remaining had no conflicts to disclose.

For adult outpatients with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease, new guidelines from the American Gastroenterological Association strongly recommend induction and maintenance therapy with anti–tumor necrosis factor–alpha agents or ustekinumab over no treatment.

“Although [related] evidence supporting infliximab and adalimumab was moderate certainty, the evidence for certolizumab pegol was low certainty,” wrote Joseph D. Feuerstein, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and his associates, on behalf of the AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee in Gastroenterology. Vedolizumab received a conditional recommendation based on less robust evidence for induction in this setting.

Outcomes in Crohn’s disease have improved, likely “because of earlier diagnosis, increasing use of biologics, escalation or alteration of therapy based on disease severity, and endoscopic management of colorectal cancer,” Dr. Feuerstein and his associates wrote.

This update reflects these changes, strongly recommending biologic monotherapy over thiopurine monotherapy for induction. It also suggests “early induction with a biologic, with or without an immunomodulator, rather than delaying their use until after failure of 5-aminosalicylates and/or corticosteroids.” For the latter assessment, the guidelines noted that some studies were open label (which increases risk of bias) and that upfront combination therapy with a biologic and an immunomodulator could sometimes lead to overtreatment. Nonetheless, studies shown associations between the step-up approach and “a potential risk of harm from disease progression related to inadequate disease therapy.”

The guidelines also recommend that patients who have never received biologic drugs receive induction therapy with infliximab, adalimumab, or ustekinumab, rather than certolizumab pegol. This strong recommendation reflects the findings of a network meta-analysis conducted by the AGA in which certolizumab pegol was least effective, with no evidence for clear differences in efficacy among infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab. A network meta-analysis is a type of study that enables experts to compare therapies indirectly when head-to-head trials are lacking.

For patients who are naive to both biologics and immunomodulators, the guidelines suggest combination treatment with infliximab or adalimumab plus a thiopurine rather than monotherapy with either biologic. Because of a lack of randomized controlled trials, no recommendation is made regarding combination therapy with ustekinumab or vedolizumab.

For patients who have received but never responded to anti-TNF-alpha therapy (so-called primary nonresponders), ustekinumab is strongly recommended, and vedolizumab is conditionally recommended. For patients who initially responded to infliximab and then lost their response (secondary nonresponders), adalimumab and ustekinumab are strongly recommended, while vedolizumab receives another conditional recommendation.

For patients with moderate to severe luminal disease, induction and maintenance with infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, vedolizumab, or ustekinumab are recommended over no treatment. Thiopurine monotherapy is suggested over no treatment for maintenance of remission, but not for induction. For methotrexate, subcutaneous or intramuscular monotherapy is suggested over no treatment. The sole available trial on oral methotrexate (12.5 mg/week) was negative, and “it is not clear if a higher dose would have been more effective,” according to the guidelines. They strongly recommend against using 5-aminosalicytes or sulfasalazine because of lack of efficacy for maintaining remission and suggest not using natalizumab because of the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Corticosteroids are considered preferable to no treatment for induction but not for maintenance.

For patients with fistulizing disease, infliximab has “the most robust evidence” and receives a strong recommendation for induction and maintenance, while adalimumab, ustekinumab, and vedolizumab receive conditional recommendations. “In contrast, evidence suggests certolizumab pegol may not be effective for induction of fistula remission,” the guidelines state. For patients with perianal disease with an active fistula but no abscess, combining biologics with antibiotics is strongly recommended over biologic monotherapy.

The guidelines define moderate to severe Crohn’s disease as a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of 220 or higher, the typical cutoff used in clinical trials. The recommendations apply to outpatient management, but in most cases would also apply to inpatients.

An expert commentary accompanying the guidelines praises their “rigorous methods” based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Edith Y. Ho, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and her associates also laud the “innovative methods” that were used to compare treatments and assess data quality. In addition to the network meta-analysis, the guidelines set an a priori minimal clinically important difference (MCID) score of 10% for risk of treatment failure versus placebo. This led to more clinically relevant guidance, such as the conditional recommendation for vedolizumab in luminal disease since this drug did not meet the MCID threshold. Finally, the commentators emphasized that the guidelines are meant to facilitate, not dictate, treatment decisions: “Choice of therapies and treatment strategies will continue to rely on clinical judgment as well, and will continue to be informed by patient-specific values and preferences.”

The AGA Institute was the sole source of funding. Four coauthors disclosed ties to Celgene, Takeda, Pendopharm, Merck Canada, Guardant Health, Ferring, and AbbVie. Dr. Feurstein and the other guidelines coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest. Some authors on the editorial disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Pfizer, and Janssen, but the remaining had no conflicts to disclose.

For adult outpatients with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease, new guidelines from the American Gastroenterological Association strongly recommend induction and maintenance therapy with anti–tumor necrosis factor–alpha agents or ustekinumab over no treatment.

“Although [related] evidence supporting infliximab and adalimumab was moderate certainty, the evidence for certolizumab pegol was low certainty,” wrote Joseph D. Feuerstein, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and his associates, on behalf of the AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee in Gastroenterology. Vedolizumab received a conditional recommendation based on less robust evidence for induction in this setting.

Outcomes in Crohn’s disease have improved, likely “because of earlier diagnosis, increasing use of biologics, escalation or alteration of therapy based on disease severity, and endoscopic management of colorectal cancer,” Dr. Feuerstein and his associates wrote.

This update reflects these changes, strongly recommending biologic monotherapy over thiopurine monotherapy for induction. It also suggests “early induction with a biologic, with or without an immunomodulator, rather than delaying their use until after failure of 5-aminosalicylates and/or corticosteroids.” For the latter assessment, the guidelines noted that some studies were open label (which increases risk of bias) and that upfront combination therapy with a biologic and an immunomodulator could sometimes lead to overtreatment. Nonetheless, studies shown associations between the step-up approach and “a potential risk of harm from disease progression related to inadequate disease therapy.”

The guidelines also recommend that patients who have never received biologic drugs receive induction therapy with infliximab, adalimumab, or ustekinumab, rather than certolizumab pegol. This strong recommendation reflects the findings of a network meta-analysis conducted by the AGA in which certolizumab pegol was least effective, with no evidence for clear differences in efficacy among infliximab, adalimumab, and ustekinumab. A network meta-analysis is a type of study that enables experts to compare therapies indirectly when head-to-head trials are lacking.

For patients who are naive to both biologics and immunomodulators, the guidelines suggest combination treatment with infliximab or adalimumab plus a thiopurine rather than monotherapy with either biologic. Because of a lack of randomized controlled trials, no recommendation is made regarding combination therapy with ustekinumab or vedolizumab.

For patients who have received but never responded to anti-TNF-alpha therapy (so-called primary nonresponders), ustekinumab is strongly recommended, and vedolizumab is conditionally recommended. For patients who initially responded to infliximab and then lost their response (secondary nonresponders), adalimumab and ustekinumab are strongly recommended, while vedolizumab receives another conditional recommendation.

For patients with moderate to severe luminal disease, induction and maintenance with infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, vedolizumab, or ustekinumab are recommended over no treatment. Thiopurine monotherapy is suggested over no treatment for maintenance of remission, but not for induction. For methotrexate, subcutaneous or intramuscular monotherapy is suggested over no treatment. The sole available trial on oral methotrexate (12.5 mg/week) was negative, and “it is not clear if a higher dose would have been more effective,” according to the guidelines. They strongly recommend against using 5-aminosalicytes or sulfasalazine because of lack of efficacy for maintaining remission and suggest not using natalizumab because of the risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Corticosteroids are considered preferable to no treatment for induction but not for maintenance.

For patients with fistulizing disease, infliximab has “the most robust evidence” and receives a strong recommendation for induction and maintenance, while adalimumab, ustekinumab, and vedolizumab receive conditional recommendations. “In contrast, evidence suggests certolizumab pegol may not be effective for induction of fistula remission,” the guidelines state. For patients with perianal disease with an active fistula but no abscess, combining biologics with antibiotics is strongly recommended over biologic monotherapy.

The guidelines define moderate to severe Crohn’s disease as a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score of 220 or higher, the typical cutoff used in clinical trials. The recommendations apply to outpatient management, but in most cases would also apply to inpatients.

An expert commentary accompanying the guidelines praises their “rigorous methods” based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Edith Y. Ho, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and her associates also laud the “innovative methods” that were used to compare treatments and assess data quality. In addition to the network meta-analysis, the guidelines set an a priori minimal clinically important difference (MCID) score of 10% for risk of treatment failure versus placebo. This led to more clinically relevant guidance, such as the conditional recommendation for vedolizumab in luminal disease since this drug did not meet the MCID threshold. Finally, the commentators emphasized that the guidelines are meant to facilitate, not dictate, treatment decisions: “Choice of therapies and treatment strategies will continue to rely on clinical judgment as well, and will continue to be informed by patient-specific values and preferences.”

The AGA Institute was the sole source of funding. Four coauthors disclosed ties to Celgene, Takeda, Pendopharm, Merck Canada, Guardant Health, Ferring, and AbbVie. Dr. Feurstein and the other guidelines coauthors reported having no conflicts of interest. Some authors on the editorial disclosed relationships with AbbVie, Pfizer, and Janssen, but the remaining had no conflicts to disclose.

Granularly mixed laterally spreading colorectal tumors (GM-LSTs) that are located in the rectum or are larger than 4 cm should be considered to be at high risk of developing into covert submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC), and should be treated by en bloc resection, according to a retrospective analysis of patients from seven Italian centers.

GM-LSTs are 1-cm or larger nonpolypoid lesions with lateral growth. They make up 1%-6% of colorectal lesions, and are important clinically because of the possibility that they are SMICs that aren’t visibly apparent.

On the one hand, homogeneous granular-type LSTs have been found to have a very low SMIC risk (0.5%) and are candidates for piecemeal removal, while non-granular LSTs present higher risk, suggesting that en bloc resection would be an appropriate strategy. Piecemeal attempts that discover a SMIC can lead to follow-up surgery because it may not be possible to evaluate submucosal invasion at pathology. Further surgery can be particularly onerous in rectal lesions, where it can reduce quality of life.

On the other hand, granularly mixed LSTs present a conundrum: SMIC risk falls somewhere between the granular and nongranular LSTs, and they make up about 25% of laterally spreading tumors.
 

A deeper look

To better characterize GM-LSTs and predict which might be covert SMICs, Ferdinando D’Amico at Humanitas University in Milan and colleagues analyzed data from 693 patients with colorectal GM-LSTs at seven Italian centers, between 2016 and 2019. The results appeared in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Median age was 69 years, and 50.6% of patients were men.

Of patients in the study, 9.5% were found to have SMICs at histology. Of these, 62.1% occurred in lesions 4 cm or larger, and none in lesions smaller than 2 cm, and 63.6% occurred in the rectum. Overall, 24.2% of patients underwent en bloc resection.

A multivariate analysis found that lesion size was associated with risk of covert SMIC (odds ratio per mm, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.03). A cutoff of 4.0 cm yielded the optimal discrimination for SMIC risk, with a 6.0% risk below that size and 14.8% above (OR, 2.32; P = .002). The researchers also considered GM-LST location in this multivariate analysis, and found a greater risk of SMIC in those located in the rectum than for those in other colonic segments (15.1% vs. 5.8%; OR, 3.08; P = .004). A logistic regression model combining size and location yielded a sensitivity of 47.0%, specificity 82.6%, and area under the curve of 0.69.

When lesions of 4 cm or greater in the rectal area were compared with nonrectal lesions less than 4 cm, the number needed to treat (NNT) to detect one covert SMIC dropped from 20 to 5.

“The 22% risk of covert SMIC for ≥4-cm rectal GM-LSTs equals the 21.4% previously reported as the highest risk for nongranular LSTs, justifying the need for an aggressive treatment, especially when considering that the unexpected finding of a covert SMIC after piecemeal resection of a rectal lesion may result in an unnecessary surgery, with major consequences for the patient. Thus, referral of these patients to a center with adequate competence in advanced resection, including [endoscopic submucosal dissection], should be recommended,” the authors wrote.

They noted that the NNT of 5 is low enough to compensate for the risk of conducting ESD instead of piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection. Meanwhile, the NNT of 20 for smaller, nonrectal tumors puts them close to the risk category of homogeneous granular LSTs, which wouldn’t justify a more complex procedure and could instead be resected piecemeal.

For rectal lesions less than 4 cm or nonrectal lesions 4 cm or larger, SMIC risk is below 10%. In deciding which approach to take, endoscopists must weigh the low risk of surgery after discovery of an unexpected SMIC. The authors suggest use of dye or virtual chromoendoscopy for lesion characterization, along with optical magnification if available.

The study had some limitations. One is that the authors did not assess how frequently the SMIC was limited to the dominant nodule, which might affect resection strategies. Another is that the actual SMIC rate in GM-LSTs may have been underestimated: Not only were signs of overt invasion an exclusion criterion, but also patients with difficult-to-treat SMIC lesions might have been referred elsewhere.

The authors disclosed no funding source and declared that they had no relevant financial disclosures.

Granularly mixed laterally spreading colorectal tumors (GM-LSTs) that are located in the rectum or are larger than 4 cm should be considered to be at high risk of developing into covert submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC), and should be treated by en bloc resection, according to a retrospective analysis of patients from seven Italian centers.

GM-LSTs are 1-cm or larger nonpolypoid lesions with lateral growth. They make up 1%-6% of colorectal lesions, and are important clinically because of the possibility that they are SMICs that aren’t visibly apparent.

On the one hand, homogeneous granular-type LSTs have been found to have a very low SMIC risk (0.5%) and are candidates for piecemeal removal, while non-granular LSTs present higher risk, suggesting that en bloc resection would be an appropriate strategy. Piecemeal attempts that discover a SMIC can lead to follow-up surgery because it may not be possible to evaluate submucosal invasion at pathology. Further surgery can be particularly onerous in rectal lesions, where it can reduce quality of life.

On the other hand, granularly mixed LSTs present a conundrum: SMIC risk falls somewhere between the granular and nongranular LSTs, and they make up about 25% of laterally spreading tumors.
 

A deeper look

To better characterize GM-LSTs and predict which might be covert SMICs, Ferdinando D’Amico at Humanitas University in Milan and colleagues analyzed data from 693 patients with colorectal GM-LSTs at seven Italian centers, between 2016 and 2019. The results appeared in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Median age was 69 years, and 50.6% of patients were men.

Of patients in the study, 9.5% were found to have SMICs at histology. Of these, 62.1% occurred in lesions 4 cm or larger, and none in lesions smaller than 2 cm, and 63.6% occurred in the rectum. Overall, 24.2% of patients underwent en bloc resection.

A multivariate analysis found that lesion size was associated with risk of covert SMIC (odds ratio per mm, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.03). A cutoff of 4.0 cm yielded the optimal discrimination for SMIC risk, with a 6.0% risk below that size and 14.8% above (OR, 2.32; P = .002). The researchers also considered GM-LST location in this multivariate analysis, and found a greater risk of SMIC in those located in the rectum than for those in other colonic segments (15.1% vs. 5.8%; OR, 3.08; P = .004). A logistic regression model combining size and location yielded a sensitivity of 47.0%, specificity 82.6%, and area under the curve of 0.69.

When lesions of 4 cm or greater in the rectal area were compared with nonrectal lesions less than 4 cm, the number needed to treat (NNT) to detect one covert SMIC dropped from 20 to 5.

“The 22% risk of covert SMIC for ≥4-cm rectal GM-LSTs equals the 21.4% previously reported as the highest risk for nongranular LSTs, justifying the need for an aggressive treatment, especially when considering that the unexpected finding of a covert SMIC after piecemeal resection of a rectal lesion may result in an unnecessary surgery, with major consequences for the patient. Thus, referral of these patients to a center with adequate competence in advanced resection, including [endoscopic submucosal dissection], should be recommended,” the authors wrote.

They noted that the NNT of 5 is low enough to compensate for the risk of conducting ESD instead of piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection. Meanwhile, the NNT of 20 for smaller, nonrectal tumors puts them close to the risk category of homogeneous granular LSTs, which wouldn’t justify a more complex procedure and could instead be resected piecemeal.

For rectal lesions less than 4 cm or nonrectal lesions 4 cm or larger, SMIC risk is below 10%. In deciding which approach to take, endoscopists must weigh the low risk of surgery after discovery of an unexpected SMIC. The authors suggest use of dye or virtual chromoendoscopy for lesion characterization, along with optical magnification if available.

The study had some limitations. One is that the authors did not assess how frequently the SMIC was limited to the dominant nodule, which might affect resection strategies. Another is that the actual SMIC rate in GM-LSTs may have been underestimated: Not only were signs of overt invasion an exclusion criterion, but also patients with difficult-to-treat SMIC lesions might have been referred elsewhere.

The authors disclosed no funding source and declared that they had no relevant financial disclosures.

Granularly mixed laterally spreading colorectal tumors (GM-LSTs) that are located in the rectum or are larger than 4 cm should be considered to be at high risk of developing into covert submucosal invasive cancer (SMIC), and should be treated by en bloc resection, according to a retrospective analysis of patients from seven Italian centers.

GM-LSTs are 1-cm or larger nonpolypoid lesions with lateral growth. They make up 1%-6% of colorectal lesions, and are important clinically because of the possibility that they are SMICs that aren’t visibly apparent.

On the one hand, homogeneous granular-type LSTs have been found to have a very low SMIC risk (0.5%) and are candidates for piecemeal removal, while non-granular LSTs present higher risk, suggesting that en bloc resection would be an appropriate strategy. Piecemeal attempts that discover a SMIC can lead to follow-up surgery because it may not be possible to evaluate submucosal invasion at pathology. Further surgery can be particularly onerous in rectal lesions, where it can reduce quality of life.

On the other hand, granularly mixed LSTs present a conundrum: SMIC risk falls somewhere between the granular and nongranular LSTs, and they make up about 25% of laterally spreading tumors.
 

A deeper look

To better characterize GM-LSTs and predict which might be covert SMICs, Ferdinando D’Amico at Humanitas University in Milan and colleagues analyzed data from 693 patients with colorectal GM-LSTs at seven Italian centers, between 2016 and 2019. The results appeared in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Median age was 69 years, and 50.6% of patients were men.

Of patients in the study, 9.5% were found to have SMICs at histology. Of these, 62.1% occurred in lesions 4 cm or larger, and none in lesions smaller than 2 cm, and 63.6% occurred in the rectum. Overall, 24.2% of patients underwent en bloc resection.

A multivariate analysis found that lesion size was associated with risk of covert SMIC (odds ratio per mm, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.03). A cutoff of 4.0 cm yielded the optimal discrimination for SMIC risk, with a 6.0% risk below that size and 14.8% above (OR, 2.32; P = .002). The researchers also considered GM-LST location in this multivariate analysis, and found a greater risk of SMIC in those located in the rectum than for those in other colonic segments (15.1% vs. 5.8%; OR, 3.08; P = .004). A logistic regression model combining size and location yielded a sensitivity of 47.0%, specificity 82.6%, and area under the curve of 0.69.

When lesions of 4 cm or greater in the rectal area were compared with nonrectal lesions less than 4 cm, the number needed to treat (NNT) to detect one covert SMIC dropped from 20 to 5.

“The 22% risk of covert SMIC for ≥4-cm rectal GM-LSTs equals the 21.4% previously reported as the highest risk for nongranular LSTs, justifying the need for an aggressive treatment, especially when considering that the unexpected finding of a covert SMIC after piecemeal resection of a rectal lesion may result in an unnecessary surgery, with major consequences for the patient. Thus, referral of these patients to a center with adequate competence in advanced resection, including [endoscopic submucosal dissection], should be recommended,” the authors wrote.

They noted that the NNT of 5 is low enough to compensate for the risk of conducting ESD instead of piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection. Meanwhile, the NNT of 20 for smaller, nonrectal tumors puts them close to the risk category of homogeneous granular LSTs, which wouldn’t justify a more complex procedure and could instead be resected piecemeal.

For rectal lesions less than 4 cm or nonrectal lesions 4 cm or larger, SMIC risk is below 10%. In deciding which approach to take, endoscopists must weigh the low risk of surgery after discovery of an unexpected SMIC. The authors suggest use of dye or virtual chromoendoscopy for lesion characterization, along with optical magnification if available.

The study had some limitations. One is that the authors did not assess how frequently the SMIC was limited to the dominant nodule, which might affect resection strategies. Another is that the actual SMIC rate in GM-LSTs may have been underestimated: Not only were signs of overt invasion an exclusion criterion, but also patients with difficult-to-treat SMIC lesions might have been referred elsewhere.

The authors disclosed no funding source and declared that they had no relevant financial disclosures.

A novel oncogene may be a key driver in hepatoblastoma, according to a new study. Hepatoblastoma is the most common form of pediatric cancer, and many tumors harbor beta-catenin mutations and alterations to the Hippo tumor suppression pathway.

In mice, cells can be turned cancerous by coexpressing beta-catenin mutants and the Hippo effector YAP. Some hepatoblastomas have mutations in NFE2L2/NRF2 (NFE2L2), which is a transcription factor that can either promote or suppress tumorigenesis.

In a report in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, researchers led by Huabo Wang, PhD, of the UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh investigated the potential role of NFE2L2 by expressing all combinations of mutant beta-catenin, YAP^S127A, and two NFE2L2 mutants previously discovered in patients (L30P and R34P).

The researchers found that both the L30P and R34P mutations led to an increase in cellular growth and to both necrosis and cyst formation, which are both clinically uncommon. Any two of beta-catenin, YAP^S127A, and L30P/R34P caused tumor formation, indicating that NFE2L2 is an oncogene, according to the authors.

Among tumors with changes in all three regions, unbiased RNA sequencing across all combinations of mutations revealed 22 RNA transcripts common to all of them. These are probably the most important contributors to cell transformation and may also be related to increased growth, cystogenesis, and necrosis found in these tumors. Of those transcripts, 10 were highly correlated with survival in human hepatoblastomas, and 17 correlated with survival in more than one adult cancer.

Although hepatoblastomas have fewer mutations than most tumors, around 5%-10% have mutations in NFE2L2. About half have an increase in the copy number of NFE2L2.

The results suggest that wild-type NFE2L2 plays a role in suppressing cell proliferation in response to oxidative, metabolic, and electrophilic stresses. But the picture is more complex than that because NFE2L2’s pathway can have opposite effects, depending on the timing and context. Early in the oncogenesis pathway, it may protect against the damaging effects of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Later, it can make cells more tolerant to the effects of oncoproteins and promote tumor evolution, expansion, and even resistance to therapy.

Previous in vitro and tumor xenograft studies had suggested that NFE2L2 targets might play a role in apoptosis, metabolism, angiogenesis, and chemotherapeutic drug detoxification. The new results show that the L30P/R34P mutations can accelerate tumorigenesis caused by beta-catenin mutations and can promote transformation when co-expressed with either beta-catenin or YAP^S127A. That suggests that some hepatoblastomas may be driven at least in part by changes to NFE2L2. The researchers speculate that it may also be involved in combination with other oncoproteins in other types of tumors.

The researchers noted that the cysts seen in tumors with NFE2L2 mutations are bloodless, and resembled cysts that are sometimes seen in human hepatoblastomas. They were unrelated to tumor growth rate.

“Our findings demonstrate that NFE2L2 mutants alter redox balance in beta-catenin/YAP^S127A HBs and increase growth, cystogenesis, and necrosis. The unanticipated oncogenicity of L30P/R34P when coexpressed with beta-catenin or YAP^S127A also demonstrated their direct role in transformation in vivo and unequivocally established NFE2L2 as an oncoprotein that can be activated by mutation, overexpression, or other factors that perturb the normal NFE2L2:KEAP1 balance,” the authors wrote.

The study received funding from various nonindustry sources. The study authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A novel oncogene may be a key driver in hepatoblastoma, according to a new study. Hepatoblastoma is the most common form of pediatric cancer, and many tumors harbor beta-catenin mutations and alterations to the Hippo tumor suppression pathway.

In mice, cells can be turned cancerous by coexpressing beta-catenin mutants and the Hippo effector YAP. Some hepatoblastomas have mutations in NFE2L2/NRF2 (NFE2L2), which is a transcription factor that can either promote or suppress tumorigenesis.

In a report in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, researchers led by Huabo Wang, PhD, of the UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh investigated the potential role of NFE2L2 by expressing all combinations of mutant beta-catenin, YAP^S127A, and two NFE2L2 mutants previously discovered in patients (L30P and R34P).

The researchers found that both the L30P and R34P mutations led to an increase in cellular growth and to both necrosis and cyst formation, which are both clinically uncommon. Any two of beta-catenin, YAP^S127A, and L30P/R34P caused tumor formation, indicating that NFE2L2 is an oncogene, according to the authors.

Among tumors with changes in all three regions, unbiased RNA sequencing across all combinations of mutations revealed 22 RNA transcripts common to all of them. These are probably the most important contributors to cell transformation and may also be related to increased growth, cystogenesis, and necrosis found in these tumors. Of those transcripts, 10 were highly correlated with survival in human hepatoblastomas, and 17 correlated with survival in more than one adult cancer.

Although hepatoblastomas have fewer mutations than most tumors, around 5%-10% have mutations in NFE2L2. About half have an increase in the copy number of NFE2L2.

The results suggest that wild-type NFE2L2 plays a role in suppressing cell proliferation in response to oxidative, metabolic, and electrophilic stresses. But the picture is more complex than that because NFE2L2’s pathway can have opposite effects, depending on the timing and context. Early in the oncogenesis pathway, it may protect against the damaging effects of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Later, it can make cells more tolerant to the effects of oncoproteins and promote tumor evolution, expansion, and even resistance to therapy.

Previous in vitro and tumor xenograft studies had suggested that NFE2L2 targets might play a role in apoptosis, metabolism, angiogenesis, and chemotherapeutic drug detoxification. The new results show that the L30P/R34P mutations can accelerate tumorigenesis caused by beta-catenin mutations and can promote transformation when co-expressed with either beta-catenin or YAP^S127A. That suggests that some hepatoblastomas may be driven at least in part by changes to NFE2L2. The researchers speculate that it may also be involved in combination with other oncoproteins in other types of tumors.

The researchers noted that the cysts seen in tumors with NFE2L2 mutations are bloodless, and resembled cysts that are sometimes seen in human hepatoblastomas. They were unrelated to tumor growth rate.

“Our findings demonstrate that NFE2L2 mutants alter redox balance in beta-catenin/YAP^S127A HBs and increase growth, cystogenesis, and necrosis. The unanticipated oncogenicity of L30P/R34P when coexpressed with beta-catenin or YAP^S127A also demonstrated their direct role in transformation in vivo and unequivocally established NFE2L2 as an oncoprotein that can be activated by mutation, overexpression, or other factors that perturb the normal NFE2L2:KEAP1 balance,” the authors wrote.

The study received funding from various nonindustry sources. The study authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

A novel oncogene may be a key driver in hepatoblastoma, according to a new study. Hepatoblastoma is the most common form of pediatric cancer, and many tumors harbor beta-catenin mutations and alterations to the Hippo tumor suppression pathway.

In mice, cells can be turned cancerous by coexpressing beta-catenin mutants and the Hippo effector YAP. Some hepatoblastomas have mutations in NFE2L2/NRF2 (NFE2L2), which is a transcription factor that can either promote or suppress tumorigenesis.

In a report in Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology, researchers led by Huabo Wang, PhD, of the UPMC Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh investigated the potential role of NFE2L2 by expressing all combinations of mutant beta-catenin, YAP^S127A, and two NFE2L2 mutants previously discovered in patients (L30P and R34P).

The researchers found that both the L30P and R34P mutations led to an increase in cellular growth and to both necrosis and cyst formation, which are both clinically uncommon. Any two of beta-catenin, YAP^S127A, and L30P/R34P caused tumor formation, indicating that NFE2L2 is an oncogene, according to the authors.

Among tumors with changes in all three regions, unbiased RNA sequencing across all combinations of mutations revealed 22 RNA transcripts common to all of them. These are probably the most important contributors to cell transformation and may also be related to increased growth, cystogenesis, and necrosis found in these tumors. Of those transcripts, 10 were highly correlated with survival in human hepatoblastomas, and 17 correlated with survival in more than one adult cancer.

Although hepatoblastomas have fewer mutations than most tumors, around 5%-10% have mutations in NFE2L2. About half have an increase in the copy number of NFE2L2.

The results suggest that wild-type NFE2L2 plays a role in suppressing cell proliferation in response to oxidative, metabolic, and electrophilic stresses. But the picture is more complex than that because NFE2L2’s pathway can have opposite effects, depending on the timing and context. Early in the oncogenesis pathway, it may protect against the damaging effects of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Later, it can make cells more tolerant to the effects of oncoproteins and promote tumor evolution, expansion, and even resistance to therapy.

Previous in vitro and tumor xenograft studies had suggested that NFE2L2 targets might play a role in apoptosis, metabolism, angiogenesis, and chemotherapeutic drug detoxification. The new results show that the L30P/R34P mutations can accelerate tumorigenesis caused by beta-catenin mutations and can promote transformation when co-expressed with either beta-catenin or YAP^S127A. That suggests that some hepatoblastomas may be driven at least in part by changes to NFE2L2. The researchers speculate that it may also be involved in combination with other oncoproteins in other types of tumors.

The researchers noted that the cysts seen in tumors with NFE2L2 mutations are bloodless, and resembled cysts that are sometimes seen in human hepatoblastomas. They were unrelated to tumor growth rate.

“Our findings demonstrate that NFE2L2 mutants alter redox balance in beta-catenin/YAP^S127A HBs and increase growth, cystogenesis, and necrosis. The unanticipated oncogenicity of L30P/R34P when coexpressed with beta-catenin or YAP^S127A also demonstrated their direct role in transformation in vivo and unequivocally established NFE2L2 as an oncoprotein that can be activated by mutation, overexpression, or other factors that perturb the normal NFE2L2:KEAP1 balance,” the authors wrote.

The study received funding from various nonindustry sources. The study authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Thermal ablation of the defect margin after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-T) is associated with reduced recurrence in the treatment of large (≥20-mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs), according to a prospective international cohort study.

Residual or recurrent adenomas (RRAs) are found during 15%-20% of first surveillance endoscopies. EMR-T was previously shown in a randomized trial to be effective at reducing adenoma recurrence during surveillance endoscopy (relative risk, 0.3; P < .01).

The U.S. Multi-Society Task Force currently recommends EMR-T for LNPCPs, but real-world effectiveness remains unknown, wrote Mayenaaz Sidhu, MBBS, of the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Westmead Hospital in Sydney and colleagues in Gastroenterology. Therefore, they undertook an international, multicenter, prospective trial to evaluate the technique in the real world.

The researchers analyzed data from consecutive patients who were referred for treatment of LNPCPs at six tertiary centers. Between May 2016 and August 2020, the study included 1,049 LNPCPs from 1,049 patients. The mean age was 67.3 years, and the median lesion size was 35 mm. Of LNPCPs, 58.7% were tubulovillous adenomas. EMR was technically successful in 98.9% of cases. Overall, 19.1% of cases required an auxiliary modality to completely remove polypoid tissue; most often this was cold avulsion with adjuvant snare-tip soft coagulation (44.4%).

Complete EMR-T was achieved in 95.4% cases. Reasons for failure included extensive post-EMR defect (n = 29), unstable colonoscope position or difficult access (n = 14), and intraprocedural adverse events (n = 5).

Of 803 patients eligible for surveillance colonoscopy, 94% underwent the procedure at a median interval of 6 months. Overall, RRAs were found in 3% of cases. Among lesions with complete EMR-T, 1.4% (10 of 707) had RRAs at first surveillance colonoscopy versus 27.1% (13 of 48) with incomplete EMR-T (P < .001). In cases with incomplete EMR-T, lesions were larger (median size, 42.50 mm vs. 37.60 mm; P = .03), there was longer procedure time (mean, 60.2 vs. 35.0 minutes; P = .01), and there was a greater likelihood of referral for surgery (8.3% vs. 3.0%; P = .04).

Intraprocedural bleeding occurred in 6% of cases, and endoscopic hemostasis was achieved in all. Clinically significant post-EMR bleeding occurred in 6.8% of cases, 59.2% of which were managed conservatively, and the remainder were evaluated endoscopically. Bleeding was controlled in every case.

Unlike RRA risk scores that use size, morphology, site, and access score, EMR-T can be used proactively to reduce RRA frequency. It is believed to work by thermally ablating microscopic tissue at the margin. The adverse events reported in the current study were similar to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

“These findings clearly support and exceed those of a recent randomized trial for EMR-T in the colorectum. They likely reflect refinements in the performance of EMR-T over time, due to greater technical experience and enhanced confidence in its safety. At its inception, the approach to EMR-T may have been timid, however, as experience grew and the safety of EMR-T became evident, a meticulous approach to uniform and complete thermal ablation of the defect margin became the standard of care,” the authors wrote.

They added that EMR-T has been shown to benefit in complex LNPCPs, including those that have undergone previous excision attempts and those involving the anorectal junction. The procedure has no added cost, since many endoscopists can readily use snare-tip soft coagulation to manage bleeding events.

“Thermal ablation of the defect margin should be viewed as an essential component of high-quality EMR for LNPCPs, consistent with recent recommendations by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer,” the authors wrote.

The study was funded by the Cancer Institute of New South Wales, the Gallipoli Medical Research Foundation, and the University of British Columbia. One author reported research support for Olympus, Cook Medical, and Boston Scientific, but the remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

Thermal ablation of the defect margin after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-T) is associated with reduced recurrence in the treatment of large (≥20-mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs), according to a prospective international cohort study.

Residual or recurrent adenomas (RRAs) are found during 15%-20% of first surveillance endoscopies. EMR-T was previously shown in a randomized trial to be effective at reducing adenoma recurrence during surveillance endoscopy (relative risk, 0.3; P < .01).

The U.S. Multi-Society Task Force currently recommends EMR-T for LNPCPs, but real-world effectiveness remains unknown, wrote Mayenaaz Sidhu, MBBS, of the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Westmead Hospital in Sydney and colleagues in Gastroenterology. Therefore, they undertook an international, multicenter, prospective trial to evaluate the technique in the real world.

The researchers analyzed data from consecutive patients who were referred for treatment of LNPCPs at six tertiary centers. Between May 2016 and August 2020, the study included 1,049 LNPCPs from 1,049 patients. The mean age was 67.3 years, and the median lesion size was 35 mm. Of LNPCPs, 58.7% were tubulovillous adenomas. EMR was technically successful in 98.9% of cases. Overall, 19.1% of cases required an auxiliary modality to completely remove polypoid tissue; most often this was cold avulsion with adjuvant snare-tip soft coagulation (44.4%).

Complete EMR-T was achieved in 95.4% cases. Reasons for failure included extensive post-EMR defect (n = 29), unstable colonoscope position or difficult access (n = 14), and intraprocedural adverse events (n = 5).

Of 803 patients eligible for surveillance colonoscopy, 94% underwent the procedure at a median interval of 6 months. Overall, RRAs were found in 3% of cases. Among lesions with complete EMR-T, 1.4% (10 of 707) had RRAs at first surveillance colonoscopy versus 27.1% (13 of 48) with incomplete EMR-T (P < .001). In cases with incomplete EMR-T, lesions were larger (median size, 42.50 mm vs. 37.60 mm; P = .03), there was longer procedure time (mean, 60.2 vs. 35.0 minutes; P = .01), and there was a greater likelihood of referral for surgery (8.3% vs. 3.0%; P = .04).

Intraprocedural bleeding occurred in 6% of cases, and endoscopic hemostasis was achieved in all. Clinically significant post-EMR bleeding occurred in 6.8% of cases, 59.2% of which were managed conservatively, and the remainder were evaluated endoscopically. Bleeding was controlled in every case.

Unlike RRA risk scores that use size, morphology, site, and access score, EMR-T can be used proactively to reduce RRA frequency. It is believed to work by thermally ablating microscopic tissue at the margin. The adverse events reported in the current study were similar to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

“These findings clearly support and exceed those of a recent randomized trial for EMR-T in the colorectum. They likely reflect refinements in the performance of EMR-T over time, due to greater technical experience and enhanced confidence in its safety. At its inception, the approach to EMR-T may have been timid, however, as experience grew and the safety of EMR-T became evident, a meticulous approach to uniform and complete thermal ablation of the defect margin became the standard of care,” the authors wrote.

They added that EMR-T has been shown to benefit in complex LNPCPs, including those that have undergone previous excision attempts and those involving the anorectal junction. The procedure has no added cost, since many endoscopists can readily use snare-tip soft coagulation to manage bleeding events.

“Thermal ablation of the defect margin should be viewed as an essential component of high-quality EMR for LNPCPs, consistent with recent recommendations by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer,” the authors wrote.

The study was funded by the Cancer Institute of New South Wales, the Gallipoli Medical Research Foundation, and the University of British Columbia. One author reported research support for Olympus, Cook Medical, and Boston Scientific, but the remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

Thermal ablation of the defect margin after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-T) is associated with reduced recurrence in the treatment of large (≥20-mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs), according to a prospective international cohort study.

Residual or recurrent adenomas (RRAs) are found during 15%-20% of first surveillance endoscopies. EMR-T was previously shown in a randomized trial to be effective at reducing adenoma recurrence during surveillance endoscopy (relative risk, 0.3; P < .01).

The U.S. Multi-Society Task Force currently recommends EMR-T for LNPCPs, but real-world effectiveness remains unknown, wrote Mayenaaz Sidhu, MBBS, of the department of gastroenterology and hepatology at Westmead Hospital in Sydney and colleagues in Gastroenterology. Therefore, they undertook an international, multicenter, prospective trial to evaluate the technique in the real world.

The researchers analyzed data from consecutive patients who were referred for treatment of LNPCPs at six tertiary centers. Between May 2016 and August 2020, the study included 1,049 LNPCPs from 1,049 patients. The mean age was 67.3 years, and the median lesion size was 35 mm. Of LNPCPs, 58.7% were tubulovillous adenomas. EMR was technically successful in 98.9% of cases. Overall, 19.1% of cases required an auxiliary modality to completely remove polypoid tissue; most often this was cold avulsion with adjuvant snare-tip soft coagulation (44.4%).

Complete EMR-T was achieved in 95.4% cases. Reasons for failure included extensive post-EMR defect (n = 29), unstable colonoscope position or difficult access (n = 14), and intraprocedural adverse events (n = 5).

Of 803 patients eligible for surveillance colonoscopy, 94% underwent the procedure at a median interval of 6 months. Overall, RRAs were found in 3% of cases. Among lesions with complete EMR-T, 1.4% (10 of 707) had RRAs at first surveillance colonoscopy versus 27.1% (13 of 48) with incomplete EMR-T (P < .001). In cases with incomplete EMR-T, lesions were larger (median size, 42.50 mm vs. 37.60 mm; P = .03), there was longer procedure time (mean, 60.2 vs. 35.0 minutes; P = .01), and there was a greater likelihood of referral for surgery (8.3% vs. 3.0%; P = .04).

Intraprocedural bleeding occurred in 6% of cases, and endoscopic hemostasis was achieved in all. Clinically significant post-EMR bleeding occurred in 6.8% of cases, 59.2% of which were managed conservatively, and the remainder were evaluated endoscopically. Bleeding was controlled in every case.

Unlike RRA risk scores that use size, morphology, site, and access score, EMR-T can be used proactively to reduce RRA frequency. It is believed to work by thermally ablating microscopic tissue at the margin. The adverse events reported in the current study were similar to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

“These findings clearly support and exceed those of a recent randomized trial for EMR-T in the colorectum. They likely reflect refinements in the performance of EMR-T over time, due to greater technical experience and enhanced confidence in its safety. At its inception, the approach to EMR-T may have been timid, however, as experience grew and the safety of EMR-T became evident, a meticulous approach to uniform and complete thermal ablation of the defect margin became the standard of care,” the authors wrote.

They added that EMR-T has been shown to benefit in complex LNPCPs, including those that have undergone previous excision attempts and those involving the anorectal junction. The procedure has no added cost, since many endoscopists can readily use snare-tip soft coagulation to manage bleeding events.

“Thermal ablation of the defect margin should be viewed as an essential component of high-quality EMR for LNPCPs, consistent with recent recommendations by the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer,” the authors wrote.

The study was funded by the Cancer Institute of New South Wales, the Gallipoli Medical Research Foundation, and the University of British Columbia. One author reported research support for Olympus, Cook Medical, and Boston Scientific, but the remaining authors disclosed no conflicts.

For patients with mild or remitted ulcerative colitis, a catered, low-fat, high-fiber diet improved quality of life and stool markers of dysbiosis and inflammation, according to the findings of a small crossover trial.

Lisovskaya/iStock/Getty Images

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease often ask what they should eat, but few studies have addressed that question, Julia Fritsch, of the University of Miami and her associates wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Building on previous findings that a high-fat diet may contribute to inflammatory bowel disease, they randomly assigned 38 adults whose ulcerative colitis was in remission or mild (with a flare within the past 18 months) to receive either a low-fat diet (with 10% of daily calories from fat and high amounts of fruit and vegetables) or an “improved American standard diet” (with 35%-40% of daily calories from fat but more fruit and vegetables than Americans typically eat). Each diet was catered, delivered to patients’ homes, and lasted 4 weeks, followed by a 2-week washout period, after which each participant switched to the other diet.

Of the 38 patients, 17 completed the study. Food recall surveys over 24 hours showed that both diets were healthier than what participants ate at baseline, and daily web-based food diaries (such as www.nutrihand.com/Static/index.html) confirmed that more than 94% of patients adhered to the amount of fat in each diet. Even though participants in both groups ate only about half of the provided fruits and vegetables, the primary outcome of quality of life based on the short inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire (SIBDQ) significantly improved from a median of 4.98 (interquartile range, 4.1-6.0) at baseline to 5.77 (IQR, 5-6.4) with the low-fat diet and 5.55 (IQR, 4.75-6.25) with the improved American standard diet. Both diets also produced significant improvements in quality of life as measured by the 36-Item Short Form Survey and in disease activity as measured by the partial Mayo score.

Notably, however, only the low-fat diet significantly reduced serum amyloid A, which is a marker of mucosal inflammation, and intestinal dysbiosis, which was quantified by 16S RNA ribosomal sequencing. “Of note, there were several variables that were associated with changes in the microbiota composition,” the researchers wrote. These included the SIBDQ, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, interleukin-1 beta, and 32 dietary components such as protein, potassium, iron, and zinc.

“These data suggest that even patients in remission [from ulcerative colitis] could benefit from a healthier diet,” the investigators concluded. “Just as importantly, neither diet exacerbated symptoms, which is notable given the higher fiber in both catered diets.” They called catering “a feasible way to perform a diet intervention study with high adherence,” noting that “catering a diet for a patient with IBD for a year costs between $19,000 and $21,000 per patient. The cost of a patient on a biologic such as ustekinumab is approximately $130,752 to $261,504.”

The study was supported by the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation Broad Medical Research Program, Micky and Madeleine Arison Family Foundation Crohn’s and Colitis Discovery Laboratory, and the Martin Kalser Chair. The senior author disclosed ties to Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, AbbVie, Seres Therapeutics, Shire, Landos, Pfizer, and several other pharmaceutical companies. The other researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

For patients with mild or remitted ulcerative colitis, a catered, low-fat, high-fiber diet improved quality of life and stool markers of dysbiosis and inflammation, according to the findings of a small crossover trial.

Lisovskaya/iStock/Getty Images

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease often ask what they should eat, but few studies have addressed that question, Julia Fritsch, of the University of Miami and her associates wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Building on previous findings that a high-fat diet may contribute to inflammatory bowel disease, they randomly assigned 38 adults whose ulcerative colitis was in remission or mild (with a flare within the past 18 months) to receive either a low-fat diet (with 10% of daily calories from fat and high amounts of fruit and vegetables) or an “improved American standard diet” (with 35%-40% of daily calories from fat but more fruit and vegetables than Americans typically eat). Each diet was catered, delivered to patients’ homes, and lasted 4 weeks, followed by a 2-week washout period, after which each participant switched to the other diet.

Of the 38 patients, 17 completed the study. Food recall surveys over 24 hours showed that both diets were healthier than what participants ate at baseline, and daily web-based food diaries (such as www.nutrihand.com/Static/index.html) confirmed that more than 94% of patients adhered to the amount of fat in each diet. Even though participants in both groups ate only about half of the provided fruits and vegetables, the primary outcome of quality of life based on the short inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire (SIBDQ) significantly improved from a median of 4.98 (interquartile range, 4.1-6.0) at baseline to 5.77 (IQR, 5-6.4) with the low-fat diet and 5.55 (IQR, 4.75-6.25) with the improved American standard diet. Both diets also produced significant improvements in quality of life as measured by the 36-Item Short Form Survey and in disease activity as measured by the partial Mayo score.

Notably, however, only the low-fat diet significantly reduced serum amyloid A, which is a marker of mucosal inflammation, and intestinal dysbiosis, which was quantified by 16S RNA ribosomal sequencing. “Of note, there were several variables that were associated with changes in the microbiota composition,” the researchers wrote. These included the SIBDQ, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, interleukin-1 beta, and 32 dietary components such as protein, potassium, iron, and zinc.

“These data suggest that even patients in remission [from ulcerative colitis] could benefit from a healthier diet,” the investigators concluded. “Just as importantly, neither diet exacerbated symptoms, which is notable given the higher fiber in both catered diets.” They called catering “a feasible way to perform a diet intervention study with high adherence,” noting that “catering a diet for a patient with IBD for a year costs between $19,000 and $21,000 per patient. The cost of a patient on a biologic such as ustekinumab is approximately $130,752 to $261,504.”

The study was supported by the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation Broad Medical Research Program, Micky and Madeleine Arison Family Foundation Crohn’s and Colitis Discovery Laboratory, and the Martin Kalser Chair. The senior author disclosed ties to Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, AbbVie, Seres Therapeutics, Shire, Landos, Pfizer, and several other pharmaceutical companies. The other researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

For patients with mild or remitted ulcerative colitis, a catered, low-fat, high-fiber diet improved quality of life and stool markers of dysbiosis and inflammation, according to the findings of a small crossover trial.

Lisovskaya/iStock/Getty Images

Patients with inflammatory bowel disease often ask what they should eat, but few studies have addressed that question, Julia Fritsch, of the University of Miami and her associates wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. Building on previous findings that a high-fat diet may contribute to inflammatory bowel disease, they randomly assigned 38 adults whose ulcerative colitis was in remission or mild (with a flare within the past 18 months) to receive either a low-fat diet (with 10% of daily calories from fat and high amounts of fruit and vegetables) or an “improved American standard diet” (with 35%-40% of daily calories from fat but more fruit and vegetables than Americans typically eat). Each diet was catered, delivered to patients’ homes, and lasted 4 weeks, followed by a 2-week washout period, after which each participant switched to the other diet.

Of the 38 patients, 17 completed the study. Food recall surveys over 24 hours showed that both diets were healthier than what participants ate at baseline, and daily web-based food diaries (such as www.nutrihand.com/Static/index.html) confirmed that more than 94% of patients adhered to the amount of fat in each diet. Even though participants in both groups ate only about half of the provided fruits and vegetables, the primary outcome of quality of life based on the short inflammatory bowel disease questionnaire (SIBDQ) significantly improved from a median of 4.98 (interquartile range, 4.1-6.0) at baseline to 5.77 (IQR, 5-6.4) with the low-fat diet and 5.55 (IQR, 4.75-6.25) with the improved American standard diet. Both diets also produced significant improvements in quality of life as measured by the 36-Item Short Form Survey and in disease activity as measured by the partial Mayo score.

Notably, however, only the low-fat diet significantly reduced serum amyloid A, which is a marker of mucosal inflammation, and intestinal dysbiosis, which was quantified by 16S RNA ribosomal sequencing. “Of note, there were several variables that were associated with changes in the microbiota composition,” the researchers wrote. These included the SIBDQ, C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, interleukin-1 beta, and 32 dietary components such as protein, potassium, iron, and zinc.

“These data suggest that even patients in remission [from ulcerative colitis] could benefit from a healthier diet,” the investigators concluded. “Just as importantly, neither diet exacerbated symptoms, which is notable given the higher fiber in both catered diets.” They called catering “a feasible way to perform a diet intervention study with high adherence,” noting that “catering a diet for a patient with IBD for a year costs between $19,000 and $21,000 per patient. The cost of a patient on a biologic such as ustekinumab is approximately $130,752 to $261,504.”

The study was supported by the Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation Broad Medical Research Program, Micky and Madeleine Arison Family Foundation Crohn’s and Colitis Discovery Laboratory, and the Martin Kalser Chair. The senior author disclosed ties to Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, AbbVie, Seres Therapeutics, Shire, Landos, Pfizer, and several other pharmaceutical companies. The other researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

The selective interleukin-6 (IL-6) trans-signaling inhibitor olamkicept was well tolerated and induced clinical remissions in 3 of 16 adults with moderately to severely active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and remission was associated with clear alterations in levels of phospho-STAT3 (pSTAT3) in the intestinal mucosa, researchers reported.

In a 12-week, open-label, prospective phase 2a trial, patients received up to seven infusions of 600-mg olamkicept (sgp130Fc) every 2 weeks. Clinical remissions occurred in two of nine patients with ulcerative colitis and one of seven patients with Crohn’s disease. The overall rate of clinical response was 44%, which included five patients with ulcerative colitis and two patients with Crohn’s disease. Transcriptome isolation and high-throughput RNA sequencing of mucosal tissue specimens showed that clinical remitters had a decrease from baseline to week 14 in the expression of TNF, IL-1A, REG1A, IL-8, IL-1B, and LILRA, a known composite molecular surrogate for mucosal inflammation. In addition, exposing whole-blood samples to a recombinant IL-6/IL-6R fusion protein mimicked physiologic IL-6 activity and demonstrated that pSTAT3 levels dropped within 4 hours of the first olamkicept infusion and throughout treatment. “Our overall finding of decreased pSTAT3-positive cells in remission patients indicates that STAT3 is crucially involved in the mechanism of action of olamkicept,” wrote Stefan Schreiber, MD, of University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel (Germany) together with his associates. The study is published in Gastroenterology.

Blocking the IL-6/ILR receptor can induce IBD remissions but causes “profound immunosuppression,” the investigators noted. Building on prior findings that chronic proinflammatory IL-6 activity is primarily mediated by trans-signaling of a complex of IL-6 and soluble IL6R that engages the gp130 receptor, the researchers developed a “decoy protein,” sgp130Fc (now known as olamkicept), which “exclusively blocks” IL-6 proinflammatory trans-signaling. This decoy protein showed promise in preclinical studies, with no evidence of immunosuppression, they wrote. To further evaluate olamkicept, they recruited adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease from two centers in Germany. The primary clinical assessment was remission, defined as a Mayo score under 2, with a bleeding score of 0 and an endoscopy score of less than 1 for patients with ulcerative colitis, and a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) of less than 150 for patients with Crohn’s disease. The primary molecular outcome was change in the composite molecular surrogate score.

Of the 16 patients, 10 completed the trial. At week 14, endoscopic responses were observed in six patients, all of whom also had a clinical response, and all three patients with clinical remissions also had endoscopic remissions. “The drug was well tolerated in all 16 treated individuals, similar to the results of the [two prior] phase 1 trials,” the researchers wrote. Although significant immunosuppression and intestinal perforations were not seen, 13 patients developed adverse events, most commonly seasonal upper respiratory tract infections, recurrence of herpes labialis, and eczema or erythema. There were five serious adverse events, two of which were cardiac in nature. A larger placebo-controlled trial is underway to further evaluate safety. For now, the researchers wrote, it appears that IL-6 trans-signaling inhibition “might open up novel therapeutic avenues for the treatment of IBD.”

University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein sponsored the study. Ferring AG provided funding and donated the olamkicept. Analyses were funded by EU H2020 SYSCID and EU H2020 Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking. Dr. Schreiber reported having coinvented IP and having ties to Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Roche. Four coinvestigators disclosed ties to Ferring, AbbVie, Chugai, Roche, Regeneron, Pfizer, Sanofi, Conaris, and Genentech Roche. The other researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

The selective interleukin-6 (IL-6) trans-signaling inhibitor olamkicept was well tolerated and induced clinical remissions in 3 of 16 adults with moderately to severely active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and remission was associated with clear alterations in levels of phospho-STAT3 (pSTAT3) in the intestinal mucosa, researchers reported.

In a 12-week, open-label, prospective phase 2a trial, patients received up to seven infusions of 600-mg olamkicept (sgp130Fc) every 2 weeks. Clinical remissions occurred in two of nine patients with ulcerative colitis and one of seven patients with Crohn’s disease. The overall rate of clinical response was 44%, which included five patients with ulcerative colitis and two patients with Crohn’s disease. Transcriptome isolation and high-throughput RNA sequencing of mucosal tissue specimens showed that clinical remitters had a decrease from baseline to week 14 in the expression of TNF, IL-1A, REG1A, IL-8, IL-1B, and LILRA, a known composite molecular surrogate for mucosal inflammation. In addition, exposing whole-blood samples to a recombinant IL-6/IL-6R fusion protein mimicked physiologic IL-6 activity and demonstrated that pSTAT3 levels dropped within 4 hours of the first olamkicept infusion and throughout treatment. “Our overall finding of decreased pSTAT3-positive cells in remission patients indicates that STAT3 is crucially involved in the mechanism of action of olamkicept,” wrote Stefan Schreiber, MD, of University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel (Germany) together with his associates. The study is published in Gastroenterology.

Blocking the IL-6/ILR receptor can induce IBD remissions but causes “profound immunosuppression,” the investigators noted. Building on prior findings that chronic proinflammatory IL-6 activity is primarily mediated by trans-signaling of a complex of IL-6 and soluble IL6R that engages the gp130 receptor, the researchers developed a “decoy protein,” sgp130Fc (now known as olamkicept), which “exclusively blocks” IL-6 proinflammatory trans-signaling. This decoy protein showed promise in preclinical studies, with no evidence of immunosuppression, they wrote. To further evaluate olamkicept, they recruited adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease from two centers in Germany. The primary clinical assessment was remission, defined as a Mayo score under 2, with a bleeding score of 0 and an endoscopy score of less than 1 for patients with ulcerative colitis, and a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) of less than 150 for patients with Crohn’s disease. The primary molecular outcome was change in the composite molecular surrogate score.

Of the 16 patients, 10 completed the trial. At week 14, endoscopic responses were observed in six patients, all of whom also had a clinical response, and all three patients with clinical remissions also had endoscopic remissions. “The drug was well tolerated in all 16 treated individuals, similar to the results of the [two prior] phase 1 trials,” the researchers wrote. Although significant immunosuppression and intestinal perforations were not seen, 13 patients developed adverse events, most commonly seasonal upper respiratory tract infections, recurrence of herpes labialis, and eczema or erythema. There were five serious adverse events, two of which were cardiac in nature. A larger placebo-controlled trial is underway to further evaluate safety. For now, the researchers wrote, it appears that IL-6 trans-signaling inhibition “might open up novel therapeutic avenues for the treatment of IBD.”

University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein sponsored the study. Ferring AG provided funding and donated the olamkicept. Analyses were funded by EU H2020 SYSCID and EU H2020 Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking. Dr. Schreiber reported having coinvented IP and having ties to Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Roche. Four coinvestigators disclosed ties to Ferring, AbbVie, Chugai, Roche, Regeneron, Pfizer, Sanofi, Conaris, and Genentech Roche. The other researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

The selective interleukin-6 (IL-6) trans-signaling inhibitor olamkicept was well tolerated and induced clinical remissions in 3 of 16 adults with moderately to severely active inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and remission was associated with clear alterations in levels of phospho-STAT3 (pSTAT3) in the intestinal mucosa, researchers reported.

In a 12-week, open-label, prospective phase 2a trial, patients received up to seven infusions of 600-mg olamkicept (sgp130Fc) every 2 weeks. Clinical remissions occurred in two of nine patients with ulcerative colitis and one of seven patients with Crohn’s disease. The overall rate of clinical response was 44%, which included five patients with ulcerative colitis and two patients with Crohn’s disease. Transcriptome isolation and high-throughput RNA sequencing of mucosal tissue specimens showed that clinical remitters had a decrease from baseline to week 14 in the expression of TNF, IL-1A, REG1A, IL-8, IL-1B, and LILRA, a known composite molecular surrogate for mucosal inflammation. In addition, exposing whole-blood samples to a recombinant IL-6/IL-6R fusion protein mimicked physiologic IL-6 activity and demonstrated that pSTAT3 levels dropped within 4 hours of the first olamkicept infusion and throughout treatment. “Our overall finding of decreased pSTAT3-positive cells in remission patients indicates that STAT3 is crucially involved in the mechanism of action of olamkicept,” wrote Stefan Schreiber, MD, of University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel (Germany) together with his associates. The study is published in Gastroenterology.

Blocking the IL-6/ILR receptor can induce IBD remissions but causes “profound immunosuppression,” the investigators noted. Building on prior findings that chronic proinflammatory IL-6 activity is primarily mediated by trans-signaling of a complex of IL-6 and soluble IL6R that engages the gp130 receptor, the researchers developed a “decoy protein,” sgp130Fc (now known as olamkicept), which “exclusively blocks” IL-6 proinflammatory trans-signaling. This decoy protein showed promise in preclinical studies, with no evidence of immunosuppression, they wrote. To further evaluate olamkicept, they recruited adults with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease from two centers in Germany. The primary clinical assessment was remission, defined as a Mayo score under 2, with a bleeding score of 0 and an endoscopy score of less than 1 for patients with ulcerative colitis, and a Crohn’s Disease Activity Index (CDAI) of less than 150 for patients with Crohn’s disease. The primary molecular outcome was change in the composite molecular surrogate score.

Of the 16 patients, 10 completed the trial. At week 14, endoscopic responses were observed in six patients, all of whom also had a clinical response, and all three patients with clinical remissions also had endoscopic remissions. “The drug was well tolerated in all 16 treated individuals, similar to the results of the [two prior] phase 1 trials,” the researchers wrote. Although significant immunosuppression and intestinal perforations were not seen, 13 patients developed adverse events, most commonly seasonal upper respiratory tract infections, recurrence of herpes labialis, and eczema or erythema. There were five serious adverse events, two of which were cardiac in nature. A larger placebo-controlled trial is underway to further evaluate safety. For now, the researchers wrote, it appears that IL-6 trans-signaling inhibition “might open up novel therapeutic avenues for the treatment of IBD.”

University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein sponsored the study. Ferring AG provided funding and donated the olamkicept. Analyses were funded by EU H2020 SYSCID and EU H2020 Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking. Dr. Schreiber reported having coinvented IP and having ties to Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Roche. Four coinvestigators disclosed ties to Ferring, AbbVie, Chugai, Roche, Regeneron, Pfizer, Sanofi, Conaris, and Genentech Roche. The other researchers reported having no conflicts of interest.

When classifying gastric varices during endoscopy, experts suggest not only describing their location but also their size and whether any high-risk stigmata, such as discolorations and platelet plugs, are present.

In a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association, Zachary Henry, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and associates also proposed an alternative nomenclature for locating gastric varices (GV). “In practice, most gastroenterologists use the Sarin classification with the main distinction being cardiofundal versus lesser curvature GV. However, the vascular supply and corresponding therapy for GV and esophageal varices are often different, so a merged classification, such as Sarin’s, can be problematic for therapeutic planning purposes,” they wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, referring to the classification system published by Shiv K. Sarin, MD, DM, and colleagues. They suggested that a merged classification, such as Sarin’s, can be “problematic for therapeutic and planning purposes” because “the vascular supply and corresponding therapy for GV and [esophageal varices] are often different.” Instead, they advised that an “alternative nomenclature based on location within the stomach is clearer and facilitates correlation with vascular imaging.” Another approach is to add risk factors for bleeding, such as an estimate of variceal size and high-risk stigmata (discolored marks, platelet plugs), to Sarin classification.

Diagnosis and treatment of bleeding GV are complex, and multidisciplinary management by hepatologists, interventional radiologists, and interventional endoscopists is optimal, the experts wrote. Data and clinical guidelines do not support primary prophylaxis to prevent bleeding of GV. The authors offered an algorithm for initial management of suspected portal hypertensive GV bleeding based on both endoscopic and vascular anatomy; it includes assessment of circulatory and respiratory status, vasoactive drug administration, antibiotic prophylaxis, and more.

An early goal is confirming bleeding source and attempting to classify the bleeding site; this can be complicated by presence of intragastric blood that obscures the cardia and fundus and underlying GV. Further steps may include temporizing: “Temporizing measures to halt active bleeding are often not the definitive treatment of choice to prevent rebleeding from GV, whereas definitive measures such as endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection (ECI) or endovascular treatments are often not feasible in the acute, diagnostic setting.”

When definitive endoscopic treatment is preferred, ECI of bleeding GV is the therapy of choice because other approaches may be complicated by location and bleeding risk of GV, although band ligation may be appropriate in lesser curve GV. Specific ECI techniques have not been compared directly in studies, according to the update authors; however, “the specific cyanoacrylate agent should favor the fastest polymerization time to avoid embolization and inducing GV bleeding.” This has meant 4-carbon (butyl) preparations are preferred to 8-carbon (octyl) preparations, they noted.

After treatment, endoscopy is performed every 2-4 weeks so that the ECI can be repeated as needed until obliteration is complete. The experts suggested that, after eradication of GV, an endoscopic reevaluation within 3-6 months should be scheduled, then annually thereafter. Any de novo or recurrent GV during the long-term follow-up may require additional imaging and multidisciplinary exploration to determine potential mechanisms and need for alternative treatments, the authors advised.

According to the practice update, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt can be used when the GV is receiving significant inflow from the coronary vein or the patient has significant complications from portal hypertension. When TIPS is used, the experts suggest also performing endovascular sclerosis or direct embolization of GV, if possible. For patients with a gastrorenal shunt, balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) of bleeding GV is considered optimal if local expertise is available and the patient lacks severe complications from portal hypertension. Endoscopy should be performed within 48 hours after BRTO to confirm obliteration of the vascular flow. If residual flow is detected, “cyanoacrylate injection should be performed,” the experts wrote. To confirm that GV are obliterated and check for any vascular complications, they suggest performing CT or MR within 4-6 weeks after BRTO and then as clinically indicated. In addition, surveillance endoscopy is important to identify and treat any esophageal varices that could have been worsened by increased portal pressures.

No funding sources were reported. The experts reported having no conflicts of interest.

When classifying gastric varices during endoscopy, experts suggest not only describing their location but also their size and whether any high-risk stigmata, such as discolorations and platelet plugs, are present.

In a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association, Zachary Henry, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and associates also proposed an alternative nomenclature for locating gastric varices (GV). “In practice, most gastroenterologists use the Sarin classification with the main distinction being cardiofundal versus lesser curvature GV. However, the vascular supply and corresponding therapy for GV and esophageal varices are often different, so a merged classification, such as Sarin’s, can be problematic for therapeutic planning purposes,” they wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, referring to the classification system published by Shiv K. Sarin, MD, DM, and colleagues. They suggested that a merged classification, such as Sarin’s, can be “problematic for therapeutic and planning purposes” because “the vascular supply and corresponding therapy for GV and [esophageal varices] are often different.” Instead, they advised that an “alternative nomenclature based on location within the stomach is clearer and facilitates correlation with vascular imaging.” Another approach is to add risk factors for bleeding, such as an estimate of variceal size and high-risk stigmata (discolored marks, platelet plugs), to Sarin classification.

Diagnosis and treatment of bleeding GV are complex, and multidisciplinary management by hepatologists, interventional radiologists, and interventional endoscopists is optimal, the experts wrote. Data and clinical guidelines do not support primary prophylaxis to prevent bleeding of GV. The authors offered an algorithm for initial management of suspected portal hypertensive GV bleeding based on both endoscopic and vascular anatomy; it includes assessment of circulatory and respiratory status, vasoactive drug administration, antibiotic prophylaxis, and more.

An early goal is confirming bleeding source and attempting to classify the bleeding site; this can be complicated by presence of intragastric blood that obscures the cardia and fundus and underlying GV. Further steps may include temporizing: “Temporizing measures to halt active bleeding are often not the definitive treatment of choice to prevent rebleeding from GV, whereas definitive measures such as endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection (ECI) or endovascular treatments are often not feasible in the acute, diagnostic setting.”

When definitive endoscopic treatment is preferred, ECI of bleeding GV is the therapy of choice because other approaches may be complicated by location and bleeding risk of GV, although band ligation may be appropriate in lesser curve GV. Specific ECI techniques have not been compared directly in studies, according to the update authors; however, “the specific cyanoacrylate agent should favor the fastest polymerization time to avoid embolization and inducing GV bleeding.” This has meant 4-carbon (butyl) preparations are preferred to 8-carbon (octyl) preparations, they noted.

After treatment, endoscopy is performed every 2-4 weeks so that the ECI can be repeated as needed until obliteration is complete. The experts suggested that, after eradication of GV, an endoscopic reevaluation within 3-6 months should be scheduled, then annually thereafter. Any de novo or recurrent GV during the long-term follow-up may require additional imaging and multidisciplinary exploration to determine potential mechanisms and need for alternative treatments, the authors advised.

According to the practice update, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt can be used when the GV is receiving significant inflow from the coronary vein or the patient has significant complications from portal hypertension. When TIPS is used, the experts suggest also performing endovascular sclerosis or direct embolization of GV, if possible. For patients with a gastrorenal shunt, balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) of bleeding GV is considered optimal if local expertise is available and the patient lacks severe complications from portal hypertension. Endoscopy should be performed within 48 hours after BRTO to confirm obliteration of the vascular flow. If residual flow is detected, “cyanoacrylate injection should be performed,” the experts wrote. To confirm that GV are obliterated and check for any vascular complications, they suggest performing CT or MR within 4-6 weeks after BRTO and then as clinically indicated. In addition, surveillance endoscopy is important to identify and treat any esophageal varices that could have been worsened by increased portal pressures.

No funding sources were reported. The experts reported having no conflicts of interest.

When classifying gastric varices during endoscopy, experts suggest not only describing their location but also their size and whether any high-risk stigmata, such as discolorations and platelet plugs, are present.

In a clinical practice update from the American Gastroenterological Association, Zachary Henry, MD, of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, and associates also proposed an alternative nomenclature for locating gastric varices (GV). “In practice, most gastroenterologists use the Sarin classification with the main distinction being cardiofundal versus lesser curvature GV. However, the vascular supply and corresponding therapy for GV and esophageal varices are often different, so a merged classification, such as Sarin’s, can be problematic for therapeutic planning purposes,” they wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, referring to the classification system published by Shiv K. Sarin, MD, DM, and colleagues. They suggested that a merged classification, such as Sarin’s, can be “problematic for therapeutic and planning purposes” because “the vascular supply and corresponding therapy for GV and [esophageal varices] are often different.” Instead, they advised that an “alternative nomenclature based on location within the stomach is clearer and facilitates correlation with vascular imaging.” Another approach is to add risk factors for bleeding, such as an estimate of variceal size and high-risk stigmata (discolored marks, platelet plugs), to Sarin classification.

Diagnosis and treatment of bleeding GV are complex, and multidisciplinary management by hepatologists, interventional radiologists, and interventional endoscopists is optimal, the experts wrote. Data and clinical guidelines do not support primary prophylaxis to prevent bleeding of GV. The authors offered an algorithm for initial management of suspected portal hypertensive GV bleeding based on both endoscopic and vascular anatomy; it includes assessment of circulatory and respiratory status, vasoactive drug administration, antibiotic prophylaxis, and more.

An early goal is confirming bleeding source and attempting to classify the bleeding site; this can be complicated by presence of intragastric blood that obscures the cardia and fundus and underlying GV. Further steps may include temporizing: “Temporizing measures to halt active bleeding are often not the definitive treatment of choice to prevent rebleeding from GV, whereas definitive measures such as endoscopic cyanoacrylate injection (ECI) or endovascular treatments are often not feasible in the acute, diagnostic setting.”

When definitive endoscopic treatment is preferred, ECI of bleeding GV is the therapy of choice because other approaches may be complicated by location and bleeding risk of GV, although band ligation may be appropriate in lesser curve GV. Specific ECI techniques have not been compared directly in studies, according to the update authors; however, “the specific cyanoacrylate agent should favor the fastest polymerization time to avoid embolization and inducing GV bleeding.” This has meant 4-carbon (butyl) preparations are preferred to 8-carbon (octyl) preparations, they noted.

After treatment, endoscopy is performed every 2-4 weeks so that the ECI can be repeated as needed until obliteration is complete. The experts suggested that, after eradication of GV, an endoscopic reevaluation within 3-6 months should be scheduled, then annually thereafter. Any de novo or recurrent GV during the long-term follow-up may require additional imaging and multidisciplinary exploration to determine potential mechanisms and need for alternative treatments, the authors advised.

According to the practice update, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt can be used when the GV is receiving significant inflow from the coronary vein or the patient has significant complications from portal hypertension. When TIPS is used, the experts suggest also performing endovascular sclerosis or direct embolization of GV, if possible. For patients with a gastrorenal shunt, balloon-occluded retrograde transvenous obliteration (BRTO) of bleeding GV is considered optimal if local expertise is available and the patient lacks severe complications from portal hypertension. Endoscopy should be performed within 48 hours after BRTO to confirm obliteration of the vascular flow. If residual flow is detected, “cyanoacrylate injection should be performed,” the experts wrote. To confirm that GV are obliterated and check for any vascular complications, they suggest performing CT or MR within 4-6 weeks after BRTO and then as clinically indicated. In addition, surveillance endoscopy is important to identify and treat any esophageal varices that could have been worsened by increased portal pressures.

No funding sources were reported. The experts reported having no conflicts of interest.