Endoscopic resection is increasingly favored as a first-line curative treatment over surgery for early gastric cancer with minimal risk of lymph node metastasis. Our objective is to identify factors that may guide the treatment decision between endoscopic resection and gastrectomy in early gastric cancer.

A retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2021 for patients with cT1aN0M0 gastric adenocarcinoma was performed comparing endoscopic resection versus gastrectomy. Our main outcomes of interest were overall survival and lymph node upstaging. Multivariate logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used.

A total of 2,177 patients were identified; 1,007 (46.3%) had endoscopic resection and 1,170 (53.7%) had gastrectomy. On average, endoscopic resection patients were more likely to be male (72.6% vs 61.1%, P < .01), older (69.7 ± 10.9 vs 65.4 ± 13.1 years, P < .01), and non-Hispanic White (80.3% vs 67%, P < .01). Compared with gastrectomy, tumors undergoing endoscopic resection were smaller, lower grade, more often in the cardia, and had lower rates of lymphovascular invasion and signet morphology. Endoscopic resection resulted in higher margin positivity (15.3% vs 4.6%, P < .01), but both approaches had similar survival (log-rank P = .24). There was a pathologic lymph node upstaging rate of 15.6% in gastrectomy. Factors predicting lymph node upstaging included larger tumor size (odds ratio: 1.01, 95% confidence interval: 1.01-1.02), poor differentiation (odds ratio: 2.65, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-6.09), lymphovascular invasion (odds ratio: 13.15, 95% confidence interval: 7.86-22.01), and positive margins (odds ratio: 5.85, 95% confidence interval: 2.30-14.87). Although signet morphology did not predict lymph node upstaging, it predicted having those aforementioned high-risk features for lymph node upstaging (odds ratio: 12.02, 95% confidence interval: 4.60-31.39).

In the real-world analysis of early gastric cancer treatment, endoscopic resection alone achieved similar survival to gastrectomy for cT1aN0M0 early gastric cancer. Despite these early gastric cancer staged as cN0, approximately 15% of gastrectomy patients had lymph node upstaging. We found tumor size, grade, margin positivity, and particularly lymphovascular invasion to be important clinical predictors of pathologic lymph node upstaging that should be considered in early gastric cancer treatment decision-making.

Long-term data on metachronous advanced adenoma (AA) recurrence after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) remain scarce, leading to a lack of a standardized surveillance strategy. This study aims to evaluate the long-term risk of recurrent AA after ESD.

A longitudinal retrospective cohort study with propensity-score matching was conducted in a tertiary hospital in Hong Kong. Subjects who underwent colorectal ESD between 2011 and 2017 were enrolled and defined as the post-ESD group. Selected subjects who underwent polypectomy in their index colonoscopy between 2011 and 2017 were enrolled and stratified into the low- intermediate- and the high-risk groups according to the US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) guideline. The risks of recurrent AA were assessed by Cox proportional hazards regression in the matched cohorts.

A total of 1745 subjects were included, with 203 post-ESD subjects fully matched with 729 high-risk and 813 low-intermediate-risk subjects, respectively. The 5-year cumulative incidence of recurrent AA in the post-ESD group was 7.8%. After 5 years, the post-ESD group was not associated with a higher rate of recurrent AA to the low-intermediate-risk group (7.8% vs. 5.5%; adjusted HR [aHR] 1.64, 95% CI 0.77-3.48, p = 0.197) but a lower rate of recurrent AA (7.8% vs. 11.8%; aHR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19-0.85, p = 0.017) than the high-risk group.

Subjects who underwent ESD were not associated with an increased 5-year risk of metachronous AA recurrence than low-intermediate or high-risk groups in USMSTF. The findings will inform future guidelines on post-ESD surveillance colonoscopy strategies.

Gastric cancer (GC) is a leading cause of preventable cancer and mortality in certain US populations. The most impactful way to reduce GC mortality is via primary prevention, namely Helicobacter pylori eradication, and secondary prevention, namely endoscopic screening and surveillance of precancerous conditions, such as gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM). An emerging body of evidence supports the possible impact of these strategies on GC incidence and mortality in identifiable high-risk populations in the United States. Accordingly, the primary objective of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Clinical Practice Update (CPU) Expert Review is to provide best practice advice for primary and secondary prevention of GC in the context of current clinical practice and evidence in the United States.

This CPU Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute CPU Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. These best practice advice statements were drawn from a review of the published literature and expert opinion. Because systematic reviews were not performed, these best practice advice statements do not carry formal ratings regarding the quality of evidence or strength of the presented considerations. Best Practice Advice Statements BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: There are identifiable high-risk groups in the United States who should be considered for GC screening. These include first-generation immigrants from high-incidence GC regions and possibly other non-White racial and ethnic groups, those with a family history of GC in a first-degree relative, and individuals with certain hereditary gastrointestinal polyposis or hereditary cancer syndromes. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Endoscopy is the best test for screening or surveillance in individuals at increased risk for GC. Endoscopy enables direct visualization to endoscopically stage the mucosa and identify areas concerning for neoplasia, as well as enables biopsies for further histologic examination and mucosal staging. Both endoscopic and histologic staging are key for risk stratification and determining whether ongoing surveillance is indicated and at what interval. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: High-quality upper endoscopy for the detection of premalignant and malignant gastric lesions should include the use of a high-definition white-light endoscopy system with image enhancement, gastric mucosal cleansing, and insufflation to achieve optimal mucosal visualization, in addition to adequate visual inspection time, photodocumentation, and use of a systematic biopsy protocol for mucosal staging when appropriate. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: H pylori eradication is essential and serves as an adjunct to endoscopic screening and surveillance for primary and secondary prevention of GC. Opportunistic screening for H pylori infection should be considered in individuals deemed to be at increased risk for GC (refer to Best Practice Advice 1). Screening for H pylori infection in adult household members of individuals who test positive for H pylori (so-called "familial-based testing") should also be considered. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: In individuals with suspected gastric atrophy with or without intestinal metaplasia, gastric biopsies should be obtained according to a systematic protocol (eg, updated Sydney System) to enable histologic confirmation and staging. A minimum of 5 total biopsies should be obtained, with samples from the antrum/incisura and corpus placed in separately labeled jars (eg, jar 1, "antrum/incisura" and jar 2, "corpus"). Any suspicious areas should be described and biopsied separately. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: GIM and dysplasia are endoscopically detectable. However, these findings often go undiagnosed when endoscopists are unfamiliar with the characteristic visual features; accordingly, there is an unmet need for improved training, especially in the United States. Artificial intelligence tools appear promising for the detection of early gastric neoplasia in the adequately visualized stomach, but data are too preliminary to recommend routine use. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Endoscopists should work with their local pathologists to achieve consensus for consistent documentation of histologic risk-stratification parameters when atrophic gastritis with or without metaplasia is diagnosed. At a minimum, the presence or absence of H pylori infection, severity of atrophy and/or metaplasia, and histologic subtyping of GIM, if applicable, should be documented to inform clinical decision making. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: If the index screening endoscopy performed in an individual at increased risk for GC (refer to Best Practice Advice 1) does not identify atrophy, GIM, or neoplasia, then the decision to continue screening should be based on that individual's risk factors and preferences. If the individual has a family history of GC or multiple risk factors for GC, then ongoing screening should be considered. The optimal screening intervals in such scenarios are not well defined. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Endoscopists should ensure that all individuals with confirmed gastric atrophy with or without GIM undergo risk stratification. Individuals with severe atrophic gastritis and/or multifocal or incomplete GIM are likely to benefit from endoscopic surveillance, particularly if they have other risk factors for GC (eg, family history). Endoscopic surveillance should be considered every 3 years; however, intervals are not well defined and shorter intervals may be advisable in those with multiple risk factors, such as severe GIM that is anatomically extensive. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Indefinite and low-grade dysplasia can be difficult to reproducibly identify by endoscopy and accurately diagnose on histopathology. Accordingly, all dysplasia should be confirmed by an experienced gastrointestinal pathologist, and clinicians should refer patients with visible or nonvisible dysplasia to an endoscopist or center with expertise in the diagnosis and management of gastric neoplasia. Individuals with indefinite or low-grade dysplasia who are infected with H pylori should be treated and have eradication confirmed, followed by repeat endoscopy and biopsies by an experienced endoscopist, as visual and histologic discernment may improve once inflammation subsides. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Individuals with suspected high-grade dysplasia or early GC should undergo endoscopic submucosal dissection with the goal of en bloc, R0 resection to enable accurate pathologic staging with curative intent. Eradication of active H pylori infection is essential, but should not delay endoscopic intervention. Endoscopic submucosal dissection should be performed at a center with endoscopic and pathologic expertise. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Individuals with a history of successfully resected gastric dysplasia or cancer require ongoing endoscopic surveillance. Suggested surveillance intervals exist, but additional data are required to refine surveillance recommendations, particularly in the United States. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: Type I gastric carcinoids in individuals with atrophic gastritis are typically indolent, especially if <1 cm. Endoscopists may consider resecting gastric carcinoids <1 cm and should endoscopically resect lesions measuring 1-2 cm. Individuals with type I gastric carcinoids >2 cm should undergo cross-sectional imaging and be referred for surgical resection, given the risk of metastasis. Individuals with type I gastric carcinoids should undergo surveillance, but the intervals are not well defined. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: In general, only individuals who are fit for endoscopic or potentially surgical treatment should be screened for GC and continued surveillance of premalignant gastric conditions. If a person is no longer fit for endoscopic or surgical treatment, then screening and surveillance should be stopped. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 15: To achieve health equity, a personalized approach should be taken to assess an individual's risk for GC to determine whether screening and surveillance should be pursued. In conjunction, modifiable risk factors for GC should be distinctly addressed, as most of these risk factors disproportionately impact people at high risk for GC and represent health care disparities.

Endoscopy plays a key role in diagnosis, monitoring of disease activity, assessment of treatment response, dysplasia surveillance, postoperative evaluation, and interventional therapy for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Clinical practice patterns in the endoscopic management of IBD vary. A panel of experts consisting of IBD specialists, endoscopists, and GI pathologists participated in virtual conferences and developed this modified Delphi-based consensus document to address endoscopic aspects of IBD management.

Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is challenging despite its usefulness. Underwater ESD (UESD) provides better traction and a clearer view of the submucosal layer than conventional ESD (CESD). This study compared the efficiency of UESD and CESD for large (20-50 mm) laterally spreading tumors (LSTs).

Preplanned sample size was calculated from our previous experience. As a result, 28 patients were required for the UESD group and CESD group each. The primary outcome was total procedure time; the secondary outcome was dissection speed.

Fifty-six patients were enrolled, and a total of 28 patients were assigned to each group. The mean LST size was 31.6 mm and 31.3 mm in the UESD and CESD groups, respectively. Fibrosis was observed in 67.9% and 60.7% of patients in the UESD and CESD groups. Total procedure time (mean ± standard deviation) for the UESD group was significantly shorter than that for the CESD group (49.5 ± 20.3 minutes vs 75.7 ± 36.1 minutes; mean difference, -26.2 minutes; 95% confidence interval, -42.0 to -10.5 minutes). Dissection speed of the UESD group was significantly faster than that of the CESD group (21.9 ± 6.9 mm2/min vs 15.2 ± 7.3 mm2/min; mean difference, 6.7 mm2/min; 95% confidence interval, 2.8 to 10.4 mm2/min). There was no difference between groups in the R0 resection rate or en bloc resection rate. No perforations were observed in either group.

UESD was superior to CESD in total procedure time and dissection speed. UESD can be recommended as the preferred method for the resection of large LSTs.

Recent advancements in endoscopy, including high-definition imaging, virtual chromoendoscopy, and optical magnification, have enhanced our ability to visualize and diagnose certain esophageal diseases. Innovative endoscopic tools and procedures have been developed to broaden the scope of therapeutic options for treating patients with various esophageal conditions. This comprehensive review aims to elucidate the esophageal anatomy and major disorders from an endoscopist's perspective and explore recent advances in endoscopic treatment.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a technically challenging resection technique for en bloc removal of dysplastic and early cancerous GI lesions. We conducted a single-arm retrospective study evaluating the safety and efficacy of a new through-the-needle injection-capable electrosurgical knife used in upper and lower ESD procedures performed at 6 U.S. academic centers.

Data were retrospectively collected on consecutive cases in which the new ESD knife was used. The primary efficacy endpoint was successful ESD (en bloc resection with negative margins). Secondary efficacy endpoints included en bloc resection rate, curative resection rate, median ESD time, and median dissection speed. The safety endpoint was device- or procedure-related serious adverse events.

ESD procedures of 581 lesions in 579 patients were reviewed, including 187 (32.2%) upper GI and 394 (67.8%) lower GI lesions. Prior treatment was reported in 283 (48.9%) patients. Successful ESD was achieved in 477 (82.1% of 581) lesions-lower for patients with versus without submucosal fibrosis (73.6% vs 87.0%, respectively; P < .001) but similar for those with versus without previous treatment (81.7% vs 82.3%, respectively; P = .848). A total of 443 (76.2% of 581) lesions met criteria for curative resection. Median ESD time was 1.0 (range, 0.1-4.5) hour. Median dissection speed was 17.1 (interquartile range, 5.3-29.8) cm2/h. Related serious adverse events were reported in 15 (2.6%) patients, including delayed hemorrhage (1.9%), perforation (0.5%), or postpolypectomy syndrome (0.2%).

A newly developed through-the-needle injection-capable ESD knife showed a good success rate and excellent safety at U.S.

(Clinical trial registration number: NCT04580940.).

Current gastric cancer (GC) screening modalities are invasive and expensive. Noninvasive screening for GC precursors with serum pepsinogen (PG) may improve early detection and prevention. Test characteristics of PG based on US prospective data was recently reported and used to study the cost-effectiveness of PG screening vs no screening in the US.

A patient-level state transition microsimulation of gastric adenocarcinoma analyzed noninvasive screening vs no screening in a hypothetical cohort of average risk US individuals. Primary outcomes included life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years, total costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Secondary outcomes included total GC incidence and mortality. Base-case PG sensitivity and specificity were 34.1% and 94.7%, respectively, with a wide range of PG performance characteristics also examined.

One-time serum PG screening at age 40 was cost-effective compared to no screening with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $4913.29 per quality-adjusted life year. PG screening resulted in 10.9% relative reduction in lifetime GC incidence and 10.8% relative decrease in cumulative GC mortality. Localized stage at diagnosis increased from 30.5% to 33.6% and metastatic stage decreased from 40.8% to 37.4%. Sensitivity analysis showed PG screening was most sensitive to endoscopy costs, chronic atrophic gastritis quality of life, and PG prevalence. PG screening remained cost-effective across a wide range of test values.

PG screening is a cost-effective strategy to improve GC mortality; however, mortality benefit will depend on the test characteristics of the biomarker. Future blood-based screening tests that have better performance characteristics could further improve GC prevention.

Poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, signet-ring cell carcinoma, and mucinous adenocarcinoma (por/sig/muc), which are considered to be histologic subtypes with a poor prognosis, occur more frequently with colitis-associated cancer than with sporadic tumors. However, their invasiveness and manifestations are unclear. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of the por/sig/muc component in ulcerative colitis-associated neoplasms (UCANs) and its association with invasiveness and to clarify its clinicohistologic and endoscopic features.

This retrospective observational study included patients diagnosed with ulcerative colitis-associated high-grade dysplasia or adenocarcinoma from 1997 to 2022 who were divided according to the presence or absence of a por/sig/muc component.

Thirty-five patients had UCAN with a por/sig/muc component and 66 had UCAN without this component. The 5-year survival rate was significantly lower in the por/sig/muc group than in the tub group (67% vs. 96%, P= 0.001), which was attributed to disease above stage III and depth to below the subserosa. Biopsy-based diagnosis before resection detected a por/sig/muc component in only 40% of lesions (14/35). Lesions with a por/sig/muc component were prevalent even in the early stages: stage 0 (4/36, 11%), I (8/20, 40%), II (7/12, 58%), III (10/14, 71%), and IV (6/8, 75%).

This is the first investigation that shows UCANs with a por/sig/muc component tended to be deeply invasive and were often not recognized preoperatively. Endoscopists should be aware that UCAN often has a por/sig/muc component that is not always recognized on biopsy, and the optimal treatment strategy needs to be carefully considered.

The therapeutic possibilities of endoscopy have rapidly increased in the last decades and now allow organ-sparing treatment of early upper gastrointestinal malignancy as well as an increasing number of options for symptom palliation. This review contains an overview of the interventional endoscopic procedures in upper gastrointestinal malignancies. It describes endoscopic treatment of early oesophageal and gastric cancers, and the palliative options in managing dysphagia and gastric outlet obstruction. It also provides an overview of the therapeutic possibilities of biliary endoscopy, such as retrograde stenting and radiofrequency biliary ablation. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapeutic options are discussed, including biliary drainage, gastrojejunostomy and coeliac axis block. To aid in clinical decision making, the procedures are described in the context of their indication, efficacy, risks and limitations.

T1 colorectal cancer (CRC), defined by tumor invasion confined to the submucosa, has historically been managed by surgery. Improved understanding of recurrence and lymph node metastases risk, coupled with advances in endoscopic resection techniques, have led to an increasing capacity for organ-sparing local excision. Minimally invasive management of T1 CRC begins with optical evaluation of the lesion to diagnose invasive disease and quantify depth of invasion, which informs therapeutic decision making. Modality selection between various available endoscopic resection techniques depends upon lesion characteristics, technique risk-benefit profiles, and location-specific implications. Following endoscopic resection, established histopathology features determine the risk of recurrence and subsequent management including surveillance or adjuvant surgical excision. The management of non-operative candidates deviates from conventional recommendations with emerging treatment strategies in select populations.

Prognostic relevance of differentiation grade has remained controversial in gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) after curative resection.

GAC patients who underwent curative gastrectomy were analyzed. Differentiation grade was evaluated according to either the most predominant or least differentiated component. Impacts of clinicopathologic parameters on postoperative recurrence and nodal metastasis were analyzed by the multivariate Cox regression analysis in pT1/2/3/4a and pT1b/2/3 GAC and by the logistic regression analysis in pT1b GAC, respectively.

154 patients with GAC, consisting of 34 pT1a (recurrence rate 0%), 45 pT1b (4.4%), 18 pT2 (22.2%), 40 pT3 (35.0%), and 17 pT4a (76.5%), were included. In pT1/2/3/4a GAC, recurrence was significantly associated with only depth of invasion (pT) and grade of venous invasion (VI), although either mode of differentiation grade was significantly associated with pT by the Spearman's rank correlation test. Next, given no recurrence in pT1a and high-grade histopathology in nearly all pT4a, pT1b/2/3 GAC was analyzed, revealing that recurrence was significantly associated with only VI grade and nodal metastasis. Finally, nodal metastasis was not found in any pT1a GAC, of which 44.1% was predominantly high-grade. In pT1b GAC, nodal metastasis was irrelevant to either mode of differentiation grade, tumor size, and ulceration status but was only associated with lymphatic invasion, suggesting that endoscopic resection of pT1 GAC with negative margin can be curative even with high-grade histopathology.

Either mode of differentiation grade revealed limited prognostic relevance after curative gastrectomy. Our results may warrant a controversy over current curability evaluation of endoscopic GAC resection.

Management following endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of pT1b esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) remains controversial. This study compared pathological and survival outcomes of patients after endoscopic resection (ER) of pT1b EAC followed by either en bloc esophagectomy or observation.

From 1/12 to 12/22, all patients with pT1b EAC treated with ER were identified from a prospectively maintained departmental database. ESD was curative (all of: Submucosal invasion < 500 μm; G1/2, LVI/PNI-; deep margin-) or non-curative (one or more of Submucosal invasion ≥ 500 μm; G3; LVI/PNI+; deep margin+). Patients were allocated to observation (OBS) or esophagectomy (SURG) based on patient factors/preference and pathological variables.

56/171 ERs met the inclusion criteria. ER was curative in 8/56 (14%) and non-curative in 48/56 (86%). OBS was undertaken after 8/27 (30%) curative and 19/27 (70%) non-curative resections. All 29 SURG patients had non-curative ERs and were younger, had lower Charlson comorbidity scores and had more deep margin + lesions than OBS patients. Post-esophagectomy, 15/29 (52%) had no residual disease within the surgical specimen while pT+N-/pT-N+/pT+N+ occurred in 5/3/6 (17%/10%/21%) patients. Of those with residual disease in the surgical specimen, 12/14 (86%) had deep margin + ERs; however, only ESD instead of EMR was independently associated with a lower risk of residual disease (OR 0.431, 95% CI - 0.016 to 1.234, p = 0.045). OBS and SURG patients had equivalent overall survival outcomes and recurrence was low in both groups even following non-curative ER. Follow-up was 28 months (0-102) and 30 months (0-97), respectively.

In select patients, including some of those with a non-curative ESD resection of pT1B EAC, surveillance alone may be appropriate. Alternatives beyond traditional pathological features is needed to direct patient care more accurately.

Since the introduction of population-based screening, increasing numbers of T1 rectal cancers are detected and removed by local endoscopic resection. Patients can be cured with endoscopic resection alone, but there is a possibility of residual tumor cells remaining after the initial resection. These can be located intraluminally at the resection site or extraluminally in the form of (lymph node) metastases. To decrease the risk of residual cells progressing towards more advanced disease, additional treatment is usually needed. However, with the currently available risk stratification models, it remains challenging to determine who should and should not be further treated after non-curative endoscopic resection. In this review, the different management strategies for patients with non-curatively treated T1 rectal cancers are discussed, along with the available evidence for each strategy and relevant considerations for clinical decision making. Furthermore, we provide practical guidance on the management and surveillance following non-curative endoscopic resection of T1 rectal cancer.

This review article examines the evidence-based management of colorectal cancers, focusing on topics characterized by ongoing debates and evolving evidence. To contribute to the scientific discourse, we intentionally exclude subjects with established guidelines, concentrating instead on areas where the current understanding is dynamic. Our analysis encompasses a thorough exploration of critical themes, including the evidence surrounding complete mesocolic excision and D3 lymphadenectomy in colon cancers. Additionally, we delve into the evolving landscape of perioperative chemotherapy in both colon and rectal cancers, considering its nuanced role in the context of contemporary treatment strategies. Advancements in surgical techniques are a pivotal aspect of our discussion, with an emphasis on the utilization of minimally invasive approaches such as laparoscopy and robotic surgery in both colon and rectal cancers, including advanced rectal cases. Moving beyond conventional radical procedures, we scrutinize the feasibility and implications of endoscopic resections for small tumors, explore the paradigm of organ preservation in locally advanced rectal cancers, and assess the utility of total neoadjuvant therapy in the current treatment landscape. Our final segment reviews pivotal trials that have significantly influenced the management of colorectal liver and peritoneal metastasis.

Video 1Colorectal cancer: how does it develop and how can you detect it? Video 2A polyp suspected to be colorectal cancer: what now? Video 3Early-stage colon cancer with unfavorable features: what now?

Tumor depth evaluation is essential for pathological tumor staging because it affects clinical management as an independent risk factor for lymph node metastasis in colorectal cancers. However, poor interobserver variability of invasion depth has been reported. This study aimed to clarify the effectiveness of desmin immunostaining in the histological diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Overall, 63 sets of slides of colorectal cancer stained with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and desmin were prepared and independently reviewed by four examiners. After reviewing the desmin-stained slides, the interobserver variability of H&E slides alone was significantly improved for all examiners. For the assessment of Tis vs. T1, the sensitivity and accuracy were significantly improved for all examiners by combining H&E and desmin immunostaining. For the diagnosis of T1b vs. Tis or T1a, specificity and accuracy were significantly improved by adding desmin immunostaining. Ancillary desmin staining to assess submucosal invasion in colorectal cancers significantly improved interobserver agreement, led to efficient screening of T1 cancers, and reduced excessive T1b diagnoses. The combination of desmin immunostaining and H&E staining is highly recommended for diagnosing invasive colorectal cancer.

Surveillance after gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is recommended for all patients owing to the persistent risk of metachronous gastric lesions (MGLs). We developed and validated a prediction score to estimate MGL risk after ESD for early neoplastic gastric lesions, to define an individualized and cost-saving approach.

Clinical predictors and a risk score were derived from meta-analysis data. A retrospective, single-center, cohort study including patients with ≥ 3 years of standardized surveillance after ESD was conducted for score validation. Predictive accuracy of the score by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was assessed and cumulative probabilities of MGL were estimated.

The risk score (0-9 points) included six clinical predictors (scored 0-3): positive family history of gastric cancer, older age, male sex, corpus intestinal metaplasia, synchronous gastric lesions, and persistent Helicobacter pylori infection (FAMISH). The study population included 263 patients. The MGL rate was 16 %. The score diagnostic accuracy for predicting MGL at 3 years' follow-up, measured by the AUC, was 0.704 (95 %CI 0.603-0.806). At 3 years and a cutoff < 2, the score achieved maximal sensitivity and negative predictive value; 15 % of patients could be assigned to a low-risk group, in which the progression to MGL was significantly lower than for the high-risk group (P = 0.04).

The FAMISH score might be a useful tool to accurately identify patients with low-to-intermediate risk for MGL at 3 years of follow-up who could have surveillance intervals extended to reduce the burden of care.

Socioeconomic determinants of health are understudied in early stage esophageal adenocarcinoma. We aimed to assess how socioeconomic status influences initial treatment decisions and survival outcomes in patients with T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma.

We performed an observational study using the 2018 submission of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-18 database. A total of 1526 patients from 2004 to 2015 with a primary T1aN0M0 esophageal adenocarcinoma were subdivided into 3 socioeconomic tertiles based on their median household income. Endoscopic trends over time, rates of endoscopic and surgical treatment, 2- and 5-year overall survival, cancer-specific mortality, and non-cancer-specific mortality were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using R-studio.

Patients within the lowest median household income tertile ($20,000-$54,390) were associated with higher cancer-specific mortality at 2 years (P < .01) and 5 years (P < .02), and lower overall survival at 2 and 5 years (P < .01) compared with patients in higher income tertiles. Patients with a higher income had a decreased hazard ratio for cancer-specific mortality (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.45-0.99) in a multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model. Patients within the higher income tertile were more likely to receive endoscopic intervention (P < .001), which was associated with improved cancer-specific mortality compared with patients who received primary surgical intervention (P = .001). The South had lower rates of endoscopy compared with other regions.

Lower median household income was associated with higher rates of cancer-specific mortality and lower rates of endoscopic resection in T1aN0M0 esophageal adenocarcinoma. Population-based strategies aimed at identifying and rectifying possible etiologies for these socioeconomic and geographic disparities are paramount to improving patient outcomes in early esophageal cancer.

T1 colorectal cancers (T1CRC) are increasingly being treated by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). After ESD of a T1CRC, completion surgery is indicated in a subgroup of patients. Currently, the influence of ESD on surgical morbidity and mortality is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare 90-day morbidity and mortality of completion surgery after ESD to primary surgery. The completion surgery group consisted of suspected T1CRC patients from a multicenter prospective ESD database (2014-2020). The primary surgery group consisted of pT1CRC patients from a nationwide surgical registry (2017-2019). Patients with rectal or sigmoidal cancers were selected. Patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy were excluded. Propensity score adjustment was used to correct for confounders. In total, 411 patients were included: 54 in the completion surgery group (39 pT1, 15 pT2) and 357 in the primary surgery group with pT1CRC. Adverse event rate was 24.1% after completion surgery and 21.3% after primary surgery. After completion surgery 90-day mortality did not occur, though one patient died in the primary surgery group. After propensity score adjustment, lymph node yield did not differ significantly between the groups. Among other morbidity-related outcomes, stoma rate (OR 1.298 95%-CI 0.587-2.872, p = 0.519) and adverse event rate (OR 1.162; 95%-CI 0.570-2.370, p = 0.679) also did not differ significantly. A subgroup analysis was performed in patients undergoing rectal surgery. In this subgroup (37 completion and 136 primary surgery), these morbidity outcomes also did not differ significantly. In conclusion, this study suggests that ESD does not compromise morbidity or 90-day mortality of completion surgery.

Recent Western studies support the safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for lesions throughout the GI tract. Although admission for observation after ESD is standard in Asia, a more selective approach may optimize resource utilization. We aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of same-day discharge (SDD) after ESD and factors associated with admission.

This was a post hoc analysis of a multicenter, prospective cohort of patients undergoing ESD (2016-2021). The primary end points were safety of SDD and factors associated with post-ESD admission.

Of 831 patients (median age, 67 years; 57% male) undergoing 831 ESDs (240 performed in the esophagus, 126 in the stomach, and 465 in the colorectum; median lesion size, 44 mm), 588 (71%) were SDD versus 243 (29%) admissions. Delayed bleeding and perforation occurred in 12 (2%) and 4 (.7%) of SDD patients, respectively; only 1 (.2%) required surgery. Of the 243 admissions, 223 (92%) were discharged after ≤24 hours of observation. Interestingly, larger lesion size (>44 mm) was not associated with higher admission rate (odds ratio [OR], .5; 95% confidence interval [CI], .3-.8; P = .001). Lesions in the upper GI tract versus colon (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.6; P = .01), invasive cancer (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.1; P = .01), and adverse events (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.5-4.8; P = .001) were independent factors for admission. Admissions were more likely performed by endoscopists with ESD volume <50 cases (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.3; P = .001) with procedure time >75 minutes (OR, 13.5; 95% CI, 8.5-21.3; P < .0001).

SDD after ESD can be safe and feasible. Patients with invasive cancer, lesions in the upper GI tract, longer procedure times, or procedures performed by low-volume ESD endoscopists are more likely to be admitted postprocedure. Risk stratification of patients for SDD after ESD should help optimize resource utilization and enhance ESD uptake in the West. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02989818.).

The development and clinical application of new diagnostic endoscopic technologies such as endoscopic ultrasonography with biopsy, magnification endoscopy, and narrow-band imaging, more recently supplemented by artificial intelligence, have enabled wider recognition and detection of various gastric neoplasms including early gastric cancer (EGC) and subepithelial tumors, such as gastrointestinal stromal tumors and neuroendocrine tumors. Over the last decade, the evolution of novel advanced therapeutic endoscopic techniques, such as endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, endoscopic full-thickness resection, and submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection, along with the advent of a broad array of endoscopic accessories, has provided a promising and yet less invasive strategy for treating gastric neoplasms with the advantage of a reduced need for gastric surgery. Thus, the management algorithms of various gastric tumors in a defined subset of the patient population at low risk of lymph node metastasis and amenable to endoscopic resection, may require revision considering upcoming data given the high success rate of en bloc resection by experienced endoscopists. Moreover, endoscopic surveillance protocols for precancerous gastric lesions will continue to be refined by systematic reviews and meta-analyses of further research. However, the lack of familiarity with subtle endoscopic changes associated with EGC, as well as longer procedural time, evolving resection techniques and tools, a steep learning curve of such high-risk procedures, and lack of coding are issues that do not appeal to many gastroenterologists in the field. This review summarizes recent advances in the endoscopic management of gastric neoplasms, with special emphasis on diagnostic and therapeutic methods and their future prospects.

Esophageal cancer (EC) is the ninth most common cancer and the sixth leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide. Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) are the two main histological subtypes with distinct epidemiological and clinical features. While the global incidence of ESCC is declining, the incidence of EAC is increasing in many countries. Decades of epidemiologic research have identified distinct environmental exposures for ESCC and EAC subtypes. Recent advances in understanding the genomic aspects of EC have advanced our understanding of EC causes and led to using specific genomic alterations in EC tumors as biomarkers for early diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of this cancer. Nevertheless, the prognosis of EC is still poor, with a five-year survival rate of less than 20%. Currently, there are significant challenges for early detection and secondary prevention for both ESCC and EAC subtypes, but Cytosponge™ is shifting this position for EAC. Primary prevention remains the preferred strategy for reducing the global burden of EC. In this review, we will summarize recent advances, current status, and future prospects of the studies related to epidemiology, time trends, environmental risk factors, prevention, early diagnosis, and treatment for both EC subtypes.

The 9-member Editorial Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performed a systematic literature search of original articles published during 2021 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and 10 other high-impact medical and gastroenterology journals on endoscopy-related topics. Votes from each editorial board member were tallied to identify a consensus list of the 10 most significant topic areas in GI endoscopy over the calendar year of study, with a focus on 3 criteria: significance, novelty, and global impact on clinical practice. The 10 areas identified collectively represent advances in the following endoscopic topics: colonoscopy optimization, bariatric endoscopy, endoscopic needle sampling and drainage, peroral endoscopic myotomy, endoscopic defect closure, meeting systemic challenges in endoscopic training and practice, endohepatology, FNA versus fine-needle biopsy sampling, endoscopic mucosal and submucosal procedures, and cold snare polypectomy. Each board member contributed a summary of important articles relevant to 1 to 2 of the consensus topic areas, leading to a collective summary that is presented in this document of the "top 10" endoscopic advances of 2021.

T1 rectal cancer (RC) patients are increasingly being treated by local resection alone but uniform surveillance strategies thereafter are lacking. To determine whether different local resection techniques influence the risk of recurrence and cancer-related mortality, a meta-analysis was performed.

A systematic search was conducted for T1RC patients treated with local surgical resection. The primary outcome was the risk of RC recurrence and RC-related mortality. Pooled estimates were calculated using mixed-effect logistic regression. We also systematically searched and evaluated endoscopically treated T1RC patients in a similar manner.

In 2585 unique T1RC patients (86 studies) undergoing local surgical resection, the overall pooled cumulative incidence of recurrence was 9.1% (302 events, 95% CI 7.3-11.4%; I2 = 68.3%). In meta-regression, the recurrence risk was associated with histological risk status (p < 0.005; low-risk 6.6%, 95% CI 4.4-9.7% vs. high-risk 28.2%, 95% CI 19-39.7%) and local surgical resection technique (p < 0.005; TEM/TAMIS 7.7%, 95% CI 5.3-11.0% vs. other local surgical excisions 10.8%, 95% CI 6.7-16.8%). In 641 unique T1RC patients treated with flexible endoscopic excision (16 studies), the risk of recurrence (7.7%, 95% CI 5.2-11.2%), cancer-related mortality (2.3%, 95% CI 1.1-4.9), and cancer-related mortality among patients with recurrence (30.0%, 95% CI 14.7-49.4%) were comparable to outcomes after TEM/TAMIS (risk of recurrence 7.7%, 95% CI 5.3-11.0%, cancer-related mortality 2.8%, 95% CI 1.2-6.2% and among patients with recurrence 35.6%, 95% CI 21.9-51.2%).

Patients with T1 rectal cancer may have a significantly lower recurrence risk after TEM/TAMIS compared to other local surgical resection techniques. After TEM/TAMIS and endoscopic resection the recurrence risk, cancer-related mortality and cancer-related mortality among patients with recurrence were comparable. Recurrence was mainly dependent on histological risk status.

Esophagectomy is the standard adjuvant treatment for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SESCC) following noncurative endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). However, recent reports have also shown that ESD with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) has promising results. This retrospective study aimed to elucidate the efficacy of CRT compared to surgery in patients with SESCC after noncurative ESD.

This study retrospectively compared the long-term outcomes of patients who received adjuvant treatment with surgery or CRT after noncurative ESD for SESCC.

Data were collected from 60 patients who developed SESCC after noncurative ESD, 34 of whom received adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) and 26 underwent esophagectomy. The median follow-up periods were 46 and 56 months in the CRT and esophagectomy groups, respectively. The median patient age was significantly higher in the CRT group than in the esophagectomy group (69 vs. 65 years, p = 0.0054). CRT was completed in all patients, and the incidence of grade ≥ 3 nonhematologic adverse events was 6%. The overall and disease-free survival did not significantly differ between the two groups.

CRT following ESD seems a promising nonsurgical strategy for optimizing the selection of therapies for high-risk SESCC and warrant further investigation.

The outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for T1b esophageal cancer (EC) and its recurrence rates remain unclear in the West. Using a multicenter cohort, we evaluated technical outcomes and recurrence rates of ESD in the treatment of pathologically staged T1b EC.

We included patients who underwent ESD of T1b EC at 7 academic tertiary referral centers in the United States (n = 6) and Brazil (n = 1). We analyzed demographic, procedural, and histopathologic characteristics and follow-up data. Time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence rates.

Sixty-six patients with pathologically staged T1b EC after ESD were included in the study. A preprocedure staging EUS was available in 54 patients and was Tis/T1a in 27 patients (50%) and T1b in 27 patients (50%). En-bloc resection rate was 92.4% (61/66) and R0 resection rate was 54.5% (36/66). Forty-nine of 66 patients (74.2%) did not undergo surgery immediately after resection and went on to surveillance. Ten patients had ESD resection within the curative criteria, and no recurrences were seen in a 13-month (range, 3-18.5) follow-up period in these patients. Ten of 39 patients (25.6%) with noncurative resections had residual/recurrent disease. Of the 10 patients with noncurative resection, local recurrence alone was seen in 5 patients (12.8%) and metastatic recurrence in 5 patients (12.8%). On univariate analysis, R1 resection had a higher risk of recurrent disease (hazard ratio, 6.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-30.36; P = .023).

EUS staging of T1b EC has poor accuracy, and a staging ESD should be considered in these patients. ESD R0 resection rates were low in T1b EC, and R1 resection was associated with recurrent disease. Patients with noncurative ESD resection of T1b EC who cannot undergo surgery should be surveyed closely, because recurrent disease was seen in 25% of these patients.

The intent of this review is to describe new advances in endoscopic approaches to surveillance and management of gastric cancer.

There are new endoscopic techniques and approaches that have improved the detection of gastric cancer, including narrow band imaging, confocal laser endocytomicroscopy and magnetically controlled capsule endoscopy. This article highlights the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection in the treatment of focal and diffuse gastric dysplasia and early gastric cancer with a discussion of indications, complications and outcomes. We review several recent guidelines addressing the surveillance strategies for individuals at high-risk for developing gastric cancer, such as those with atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia, how gastric dysplasia and early gastric cancer can be endoscopically managed, and recommended surveillance after endoscopic intervention.

Endoscopic approaches are evolving rapidly that will improve detection of dysplasia and early gastric cancer in high-risk individuals. Surveillance guidelines from various international societies reflect differences in local experience and prevalence of gastric cancer. Endoscopic submucosal dissection is now widely accepted as a first-line approach to early gastric cancers that can be resected en-bloc .

The standard treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer is chemoradiation (CRT) followed by proctectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy. However, there is an emerging role for nonsurgical management after CRT or total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) consisting of CRT and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) after CRT or TNT for rectal cancer, termed "salvage ESD," may be a viable nonsurgical option for carefully selected patients. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of salvage ESD.

A retrospective chart review of cases of salvage ESD for locally advanced rectal cancer and standard ESD for rectal tumors without prior CRT from July 2018 to August 2020 at our institution was performed. Clinical factors and imaging, procedural, and pathology results were collected and compared.

Twelve salvage ESD cases were compared with 27 standard ESD cases. Before CRT, 83.3% of lesions in the salvage ESD group were initially clinically staged as T3. The en-bloc resection rates were 92.7% and 91.7% (P = 1.00) and R0 resection rates 66.7% and 75.0% (P = .55) for the standard and salvage groups, respectively. In the salvage ESD group, no adverse events were observed, and 75.0% of the adenocarcinomas in the salvage ESD group had morphologically changed to hyperplasia or adenoma after CRT, with no identifiable lesions greater than T1 tumor depth.

Salvage ESD for locally advanced rectal cancer is technically feasible with low adverse event rates. There may be a diagnostic role in salvage ESD in assessing pathologic response to CRT and a possible therapeutic role in resection of residual lesions with the potential to avoid surgery.

In contrast to the "one-size-fits-all" approach, precision medicine focuses on providing health care tailored to individual variabilities. Implementing precision medicine in endoscopy practice involves selecting the appropriate procedures among the endoscopic armamentarium in the diagnosis and management of patients in a logical sequence, jointly considering the pretest probabilities of possible diagnoses, patients' comorbidities and preference, and risk-benefit ratio of the individual procedures given the clinical scenario. The aim of this review is to summarize evidence-supported strategies and measures that may enhance precision medicine in general endoscopy practice.