This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to compare the risk of recurrence and adverse events (AEs) between cold snare polypectomy (CSP) and hot endoscopic mucosal resection (H-EMR) for large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs).A systematic search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases until August 2024 was performed for studies comparing recurrence, bleeding, and perforation rates between CSP and H-EMR for LNPCPs ≥15 mm. A random-effects meta-analysis, with heterogeneity measured with I2, was conducted to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95%CIs.Four RCTs comprising 1516 LNPCPs (766 CSP and 750 H-EMR) in 1442 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. CSP demonstrated a higher recurrence risk at first surveillance colonoscopy than H-EMR in the pooled analysis (22.6% vs. 10.8%; RR 1.98; 95%CI 1.22–3.21; P = 0.02; moderate certainty evidence), corresponding to a number needed to harm of 9. Regarding AEs, CSP demonstrated a 67% reduced risk of delayed bleeding (1.2% vs. 3.9%; RR 0.33; 95%CI 0.12–0.89; P = 0.03; high certainty evidence), corresponding to a number needed to treat of 37. Although CSP appeared to reduce the risk of intraprocedural bleeding (10.0% vs. 19.8%; RR 0.30, 95%CI 0–52 256, P = 0.42), the wide confidence interval from the random-effects model included 1. There were no intraprocedural or delayed perforations in the CSP group.CSP has nearly double the recurrence risk of H-EMR for LNPCPs; however, its superior safety profile may make it a preferable option for patients where procedural safety is prioritized over radicality, such as those with extensive co-morbidities.

This study aimed to assess the distribution of esophageal inflammation in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and its impact on diagnosis and outcome. Data from consecutive adult EoE patients who were followed-up at four Italian referral centers from October 2022 to October 2023 were retrospectively collected. One hundred forty-nine patients were included. Proximal EoE was observed in 8.1 % of patients; distal EoE in 27.5 %; and diffuse EoE in 64.4 %. Allergic rhinitis was more prevalent in distal and diffuse than proximal EoE (72.5 % vs. 61.5 % vs 33.3 %; P = 0.049). The prevalence of asthma, atopic dermatitis, oral allergy syndrome, and gastroesophageal reflux disease was not significantly different among the three EoE extent groups. Endoscopic inflammatory features at diagnosis were more prevalent in proximal EoE (91.7 % vs. 53.8 % distal [P = 0.01] vs. 66 % diffuse[P = 0.05]). No significant differences in fibrotic features and esophageal stenoses were observed. The clinical and histological remission rates after first-line therapy were comparable in all groups. Esophageal inflammation in EoE more frequently involves the entire esophagus, followed by isolated distal and proximal involvement. No clear correlation was observed between the histological extent of EoE at diagnosis and comorbidities or treatment response.

Local full‐thickness resection techniques for rectal cancer are limited by lesion size, location, or poor margin delineation. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of endoscopic knife‐assisted full‐thickness resection (kFTR) guided by the pocket‐detection method (PDM) for deeply invasive rectal cancer.Consecutive posterior‐lateral rectal lesions suspected of deep submucosal invasion treated at a tertiary care center from February to October 2024 were retrospectively included. kFTR guided by PDM involved creating a submucosal pocket to detect and isolate the suspected invasive component (muscle‐retracting sign), followed by muscularis propria incision and full‐thickness resection.Technical success, accuracy of detecting deep submucosal invasion, and en‐bloc resection rates were 100%. The median procedure time was 141.5 [IQR 123.7–179.5] minutes and the median hospitalization was 1 [IQR 1–7] day. No adverse events occurred. Histopathology showed R1‐vertical margin in patient 1 (pT2 adenocarcinoma) and R0 resection in patients 2, 3, and 4 (pT1bsm3) after refinement of the procedure to include a ≥3 mm muscularis propria margin around the suspected invasive component. There was no recurrence at the first endoscopic follow‐up of patients 1, 2, and 4. Patient 3 was sent to surgical low anterior resection due to multiple high‐risk histological features. The previous kFTR did not impair surgery (no residual rectal carcinoma and 1/17 positive lymph nodes).Endoscopic kFTR guided by the PDM may be a feasible organ‐preserving treatment for the detection and resection of deeply invasive posterior rectal cancer. Future studies are needed to ascertain whether rectal kFTR could represent a viable alternative to conventional surgical local excision techniques.