Background and Aim Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) has been reported as an alternative to conventional EMR for superficial non‐ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADET). However, the detailed outcomes are unclear. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between UEMR and EMR for SNADET <20 mm. Patients and methods This is a retrospective observational study using a prospective maintained database. From November 2017 to December 2018, 104 consecutive cases of attempted UEMR for SNADET <20 mm were prospectively allocated. A total of 240 cases of attempted EMR were chosen as historical controls. We compared technical success rate, defined as the resection rate without conversion to ESD; en bloc resection rate; R0 resection rate; and adverse event rate. Next, multivariate analyses were constructed to identify predictors of conversion to ESD, piecemeal resection, and RX or R1 (RX/R1) resection. Results Technical success rate of UEMR was significantly higher than that of EMR (87% and 70%, P < 0.01). En bloc resection and R0 resection rates of UEMR were significantly lower than those of EMR (en bloc resection: 87% vs 96%, P < 0.01; R0 resection: 67% vs 80%, P = 0.05). Concerning adverse events, there were no significant differences. In multivariate analyses, attempted EMR, lesion size and depressed type were independent predictors of conversion to ESD. Attempted UEMR was an independent predictor of piecemeal resection and RX/R1 resection. Conclusion The present study indicated that UEMR could be a feasible endoscopic resection method for SNADET (UMIN000025442).

No abstract

No abstract

There are no reports on detailed endoscopic diagnosis of superficial non‐ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADET) except for relatively small case series. Herein, we conducted a prospective observational study to investigate the relationship between endoscopic findings and histopathological diagnosis of SNADET. A total of 163 SNADET diagnosed using magnified endoscopic examination with image‐enhanced endoscopy (IEE‐ME) were prospectively registered in this study. We investigated location, size, macroscopic type, color, and IEE‐ME findings including surface structure (closed‐ or open‐loop) and presence of white opaque substance (WOS) in SNADET. We analyzed association between these findings and histopathological diagnosis of SNADET based on the Vienna classification (VCL) using logistic regression analysis. In univariate analysis, lesion size, superficial structure, and WOS deposition showed statistical significance, and the oral side of the lesion location showed statistical tendency for association with VCL C4/5. In multivariate analysis, lesion size (odds ratio [OR], 2.92; 95% CI, 1.94–4.39; P < 0.05) and negative WOS (OR, 5.59; 95% CI, 1.72–18.1; P < 0.05) were significantly associated with VCL C4/5 lesions. Superficial structures with a closed‐loop pattern on the surface showed statistical tendency for predicting VCL C4/5 lesions (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 0.86–5.37; P = 0.10). Based on these findings, we concluded that negative WOS by IEE‐ME and lesion size were independent predictors of VCL C4/5 SNADET. These factors may help us to understand of pathophysiology of SNADET and to select appropriate therapeutic strategies.

Background and study aims Duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is still considered technically challenging; however, few studies have objectively analyzed predictors of the technical difficulty. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to elucidate predictors of the technical difficulty of duodenal ESD. Patients and methods This was a retrospective observational study. From June 2010 to June 2017, a total of 174 consecutive patients with superficial duodenal epithelial neoplasia who underwent ESD were included in this study. We tried to identify predictors for technical difficulty of ESD by defining technical difficulty as either procedure time > 100 minutes or intraprocedural perforation. Moreover, we constructed a scoring system consisting of factors that were significant in the multivariate analysis. Results The proportion of patients with technical difficulty was 34.5 %. In the multivariate analysis, lesion location in flexural part [odds ratio (OR), 2.61; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 1.02 – 6.68], larger lesion size (> 40 mm) (OR, 5.26; 95% CI, 2.15 – 12.9), and occupied circumference > 50 % of the duodenum (OR, 5.80; 95 % CI, 1.83 – 18.4) were associated with technical difficulty. Conclusion A lesion location in flexural part, lesion size >40 mm and occupied circumference > 50 % were risk factors for technical difficulty of duodenal ESD.