Background: Gastrojejunostomy (GJJ) is the most commonly used palliative treatment modality for malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Recently, stent placement has been introduced as an alternative treatment. We reviewed the available literature on stent placement and GJJ for gastric outlet obstruction, with regard to medical effects and costs. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching PubMed for the period January 1996 and January 2006. A total of 44 publications on GJJ and stents was identified and reported results on medical effects and costs were pooled and evaluated. Results from randomized and comparative studies were used for calculating odds ratios (OR) to compare differences between the two treatment modalities. Results: In 2 randomized trials, stent placement was compared with GJJ (with 27 and 18 patients in each trial). In 6 comparative studies, stent placement was compared with GJJ. Thirty-six series evaluated either stent placement or GJJ. A total of 1046 patients received a duodenal stent and 297 patients underwent GJJ. No differences between stent placement and gastrojejunostomy were found in technical success (96% vs. 100%), early and late major complications 7% vs. 6% and 18% vs. 17%, respectively) and persisting symptoms (8% vs. 9%). Initial clinical success was higher after stent placement (89% vs. 72%). Minor complications were less frequently seen after stent placement in the patient series (9% vs. 33%), however the pooled analysis showed no differences (OR: 0.75, p = 0.8). Recurrent obstructive symptoms were more common after stent placement (18% vs. 1%). Hospital stay was prolonged after GJJ compared to stent placement (13 days vs. 7 days). The mean survival was 105 days after stent placement and 164 days after GJJ. Conclusion: These results suggest that stent placement may be associated with more favorable results in patients with a relatively short life expectancy, while GJJ is preferable in patients with a more prolonged prognosis. The paucity of evidence from large randomized trials may however have influenced the results and therefore a trial of sufficient size is needed to determine which palliative treatment modality is optimal in (sub)groups of patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

Summary: Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer diagnosis in the Western world.Aim: To evaluate exhaled volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as a non‐invasive biomarker for the detection of CRC and precursor lesions using an electronic nose.Methods: In this multicentre study adult colonoscopy patients, without inflammatory bowel disease or (previous) malignancy, were invited for breath analysis. Two‐thirds of the breath tests were randomly assigned to develop training models which were used to predict the diagnosis of the remaining patients (external validation). In the end, all data were used to develop final‐disease models to further improve the discriminatory power of the algorithms.Results: Five hundred and eleven breath samples were collected. Sixty‐four patients were excluded due to an inadequate breath test (n = 51), incomplete colonoscopy (n = 8) or colitis (n = 5). Classification was based on the most advanced lesion found; CRC (n = 70), advanced adenomas (AAs) (n = 117), non‐advanced adenoma (n = 117), hyperplastic polyp (n = 15), normal colonoscopy (n = 125). Training models for CRC and AAs had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.76 and 0.71 and blind validation resulted in an AUC of 0.74 and 0.61 respectively. Final models for CRC and AAs yielded an AUC of 0.84 (sensitivity 95% and specificity 64%) and 0.73 (sensitivity and specificity 79% and 59%) respectively.Conclusions: This study suggests that exhaled VOCs could potentially serve as a non‐invasive biomarker for the detection of CRC and AAs. Future studies including more patients could further improve the discriminatory potential of VOC analysis for the detection of (pre‐)malignant colorectal lesions. (https://clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT03488537)

Barrett oesophagus (BE), the only known histological precursor of oesophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), is a condition in which the squamous epithelium of the oesophagus is replaced by columnar epithelium as an adaptive response to gastro-oesophageal reflux. EAC has one of the fastest rising incidences of cancers in Western countries and has a dismal prognosis. BE is usually detected during endoscopic examination, and diagnosis is confirmed by the histological presence of intestinal metaplasia. Advances in genomics and transcriptomics have improved our understanding of the pathogenesis and malignant progression of intestinal metaplasia. As the majority of EAC cases are diagnosed in individuals without a known history of BE, screening for BE could potentially decrease disease-related mortality. Owing to the pre-malignant nature of BE, endoscopic surveillance of patients with BE is imperative for early detection and treatment of dysplasia to prevent further progression to invasive EAC. Developments in endoscopic therapy have resulted in a major shift in the treatment of patients with BE who have dysplasia or early EAC, from surgical resection to endoscopic resection and ablation. In addition to symptom control by optimization of lifestyle and pharmacological therapy with proton pump inhibitors, chemopreventive strategies based on NSAIDs and statins are currently being investigated for BE management.

Background: Photochemical and thermal methods are used for ablating Barrett’s oesophagus (BO). The aim of this study was to compare 5-aminolevulinic acid induced photodynamic therapy (ALA-PDT) with argon plasma coagulation (APC) with respect to complete reversal of BO. Methods: Patients with BO (32 no dysplasia and eight low grade dysplasia) were randomised to one of three treatments: (a) ALA-PDT as a single dose of 100 J/cm ² at four hours (PDT100; n = 13); (b) ALA-PDT as a fractionated dose of 20 and 100 J/cm ² at one and four hours, respectively (PDT20+100; n = 13); or (c) APC at a power setting of 65 W in two sessions (APC; n = 14). If complete elimination of BO was not achieved by the designated treatment, the remaining BO was treated by a maximum of two sessions of APC. Results: Mean endoscopic reduction of BO at six weeks was 51% (range 20–100%) in the PDT100 group, 86% (range 0–100%) in the PDT20+100 group, and 93% (range 40–100%) in the APC group (PDT100 v PDT20+100, p<0.005; PDT100 v APC, p<0.005; and PDT20+100 v APC, NS) with histologically complete ablation in 1/13 (8%) patients in the PDT100 group, 4/12 (33%) in the PDT20+100 group, and 5/14 (36%) in the APC group (NS). Remaining BO was additionally treated with APC in 23/40 (58%) patients. Histological examination at 12 months revealed complete ablation in 9/11 (82%) patients in the PDT100 group, in 9/10 (90%) patients in the PDT20+100 group, and in 8/12 (67%) patients in the APC group (NS). At 12 months, no dysplasia was detected. Side effects (that is, pain (p<0.01), and nausea and vomiting (p<0.05)) and elevated liver transaminases (p<0.01) were more common after PDT than APC therapy. One patient died three days after treatment with PDT, presumably from cardiac arrhythmia. Conclusion: APC alone or ALA-PDT in combination with APC can lead to complete reversal of Barrett’s epithelium in at least two thirds of patients when administered in multiple treatment sessions. As the goal of treatment should be complete reversal of Barrett’s epithelium, we do not recommend these techniques for the prophylactic ablation of BO.